Abstract
In response to two recent publications about Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT) in this journal, I argue that DMT advances metaphor studies into a period with new and exciting research challenges and possibilities for application between various disciplines. I will first spell out my basic assumptions about eleven core concepts in all verbal metaphor research. Then I will present the main tenets of DMT about the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphor. Finally I will briefly discuss which urgent issues still need to be addressed.
About the author
Gerard Steen is professor of Language and Communication at the University of Amsterdam. He previous held chairs in Language and Communication (2013–2014) and Language Use and Cognition (2007–2013) at VU University Amsterdam. He is the director of the Metaphor Lab Amsterdam and has published 20 monographs, edited books and special issues as well as over 120 articles and book chapters on metaphor and discourse analysis.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Corina Andone, Christian Burgers, Giulia Frezza and Jean Wagemans for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.
References
Beger, Anke. 2011. Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American College lectures. Metaphorik.de 20. 39–60.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511814358Search in Google Scholar
Bougher, Lori. 2012. The case for metaphor in political reasoning and cognition. Political Psychology 33. 145–163.10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00865.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bowdle, Brian F. and Dedre Gentner. 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112. 193–216.10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193Search in Google Scholar
Burgers, Christian, Britta Carmen Brugman, Kiki Y. Renardel de Lavalette & Gerard Steen. 2016. HIP: A method for linguistic hyperbole identification in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 31. 163–178.10.1080/10926488.2016.1187041Search in Google Scholar
Butler, Chris. 2003. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.63Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: University of Chicago.Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539Search in Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas. 2014. Consciousness and the brain. New York: Viking.Search in Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice, Jeanette Littlemore, and Elena Semino. 2013. Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dorst, A.G. 2011. Metaphor in fiction: Language, thought and communication. Oisterwijk: Box Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Brian Bowdle. 2008. Metaphor as structure mapping. In R.W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 109–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.008Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 1999. Intentions and the experience of meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164054Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2008. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 2011a. Are deliberate metaphors really deliberate? A question of human consciousness and action. Metaphor and the Social World 1. 26–52.10.1075/msw.1.1.03gibSearch in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 2011b. Advancing the debate on deliberate metaphor. Metaphor and the Social World 1. 67–69.10.1075/msw.1.1.07gibSearch in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 2011c. Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes 48. 529–562.10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 2013. Metaphoric cognition as social activity: Dissolving the divide between metaphor in thought and communication. Metaphor and the Social World 3. 54–76.10.1075/msw.3.1.03gibSearch in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 2015a. Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics 90. 77–87.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.021Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2015b. Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics 90. 73–76.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.016Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond & Lynne Cameron. 2008. The social cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research 9. 64–75.10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. & Elaine Chen. 2017. Taking metaphor studies back to the stone age: A reply to Xu, Zhang and Wu 2016. Intercultural Pragmatics 14. 117–124.Search in Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2008. Is metaphor unique? In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 143–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.010Search in Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam. 2008. How metaphors create categories – quickly. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 67–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006Search in Google Scholar
Graziano, Michael. 2013. Consciousness and the social brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Herrmann, Berenike. 2013. Metaphor in academic discourse. Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations, vol. 333. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.Search in Google Scholar
Kaal, Anna. 2012. Metaphor in conversation. Oisterwijk: Box Press.Search in Google Scholar
Krennmayr, Tina. 2011. Metaphors in newspapers, vol. 276. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.Search in Google Scholar
Krennmayr, Tina, Brian Bowdle, Gerben Mulder & Gerard Steen. 2014. Building metaphorical schemas when reading text. Metaphor and the Social World 4. 65–89.10.1075/msw.4.1.04kreSearch in Google Scholar
Krennmayr, Tina & Gerard Steen. In press. The VU Amsterdam metaphor corpus. In N. Ide & J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Handbook of linguistic annotation. Berlin: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Lai, Vicky T. & Tim Curran. 2013. ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors. Brain and Language 127. 484–496.10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.010Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem. 1989. Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
McGlone, Matthew. 2007. What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language and Communication 27. 109–126.10.1016/j.langcom.2006.02.016Search in Google Scholar
McNamara, Daniele & Joe Magliano. 2009. Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In Ross, B. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 51, 297–384. Burlington, VT: Academic Press.10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2Search in Google Scholar
Musolf, Andreas. 2011. Migration, media and “deliberate” metaphors. Metaphorik.de 21. 7–25.Search in Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2016. Cross-cultural variation in deliberate metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and the Social World 6. 205–224.10.1075/msw.6.2.02musSearch in Google Scholar
Nacey, Susan. 2013. Metaphors in learner English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/milcc.2Search in Google Scholar
Ng Carl Jon Way & Veronika Koller. 2013. Deliberate conventional metaphor in images: The case of corporate branding discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 28. 131–147.10.1080/10926488.2013.797807Search in Google Scholar
Ogden, C.K. & I.A. Richards. 1923. The meaning of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew (ed.). 1979/1993. Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173865Search in Google Scholar
Pasma, Tryntje. 2011. Metaphor and register variation. The personalization of Dutch news discourse. Oisterwijk: Box Press.Search in Google Scholar
Perrez, Julien & Min Reuchamps. 2014. Deliberate metaphors in political discourse: The case of citizen discourse. Metaphorik.de 25. 7–41.Search in Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22. 1–39.10.1080/10926480709336752Search in Google Scholar
Read, S., I. Cesa, D. Jones & N. Collins. 1990. When is the federal budget like a baby? Metaphor in political rhetoric. Metaphor and Symbol 5. 125–149.10.1207/s15327868ms0503_1Search in Google Scholar
Reijnierse, Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Tina Krennmayr & Gerard Steen. 2015. In search of a framing effect. Metaphor and the Social World, special issue on ‘The political impact of metaphors’ 5. 245–263.10.1075/msw.5.2.04reiSearch in Google Scholar
Reijnierse, Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Tina Krennmayr & Gerard Steen. Submitted a. DMIP: AS method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use.Search in Google Scholar
Reijnierse, Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Tina Krennmayr & Gerard Steen. Submitted b. Metaphor in communication: The distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class.Search in Google Scholar
Šorm, Ester & Gerard Steen. 2013. Processing visual metaphor. Metaphor and the Social World 3. 1–34.10.1075/msw.3.1.01sorSearch in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard, 1994. Understanding metaphor in literature: An empirical approach. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 1999. From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In Raymond W. Gibbs & Gerard Steen (eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, 57–78. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.175.05steSearch in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2005. Basic discourse acts: Towards a psychological theory of discourse segmentation. In Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 283–312. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2007. Finding metaphor in grammar and usage: A methodological analysis of theory and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.10Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor & Symbol 23. 213–241.10.1080/10926480802426753Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2009. From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps: Analyzing metaphor in poetry. In Geert Brône & Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps, 197–226. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2011a. What does ‘really deliberate’ really mean?: More thoughts on metaphor and consciousness. Metaphor & the Social World 1. 53–56.10.1075/msw.1.1.04steSearch in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2011b. From three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate metaphor. Metaphorik.de 21. 83–110.Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2011c. Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In Marcus Callies, Wolfram R. Keller & Astrid Lohöfer (eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences: Examining the interdisciplinary potential of cognitive approaches in linguistics and literary studies, 21–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.30.03steSearch in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2011d. The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9. 26–64.10.1075/rcl.9.1.03steSearch in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2013. Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics 5. 179–197.10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.179Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2015. Developing, testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of Pragmatics 90. 67–72.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2016. Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), Mixing metaphor, 113–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/milcc.6.06steSearch in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. In press. Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. In B. Hampe (ed.), Embodied cognition and multimodal discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard, Christian Burgers & Gudrun Reijnierse. 2014. When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky 2013. PLoS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113536.10.1371/journal.pone.0113536Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard, A.G. Dorst, J.B. Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr & Tryntje Pasma. 2010a. A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.14Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard, A.G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna Kaal & Tina Krennmayr. 2010b. Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics 21. 765–796.10.1515/cogl.2010.024Search in Google Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds.). 2016. Genre in discourse and cognition: Concepts, models, methods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110469639Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tendahl, Markus & Raymond Gibbs. 2008. Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 1823–1864.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Cihua, Chuanrui Zhang & Wichen Wu. 2016. Enlarging the scope of metaphor studies. Intercultural Pragmatics 13. 439–447.10.1515/ip-2016-0018Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston