topics: |  language | metaphor

Proposes metaphor as a conceptual mapping between domains (whereas metonymy is
a mapping between entities within the same domain).  However, does not discuss
developmental aspects of metaphor in language acquisition (e.g. Christopher
Johnson's work discussed in Philosophy in the Flesh).
But does consider blends, where there is no mapping as such, but a blend of
domains (ch. 8).

Intended to be a textbook, with a set of exercises and also solutions.
However, many of these "exercises" may have alternate explanations.

Also, the text is rather poorly written.  Ideas are instantiated but not
fleshed out.  Despite the "conceptual" framework, most of the examples follow
the Lakoff/Johnson style via detailed analysis of linguistic examples, and by
listing lots and lots of situations that involve metaphors, and identifying
key metaphoric transfers by use of smallcaps.

The attempt to adduce mountains of evidence via lists makes Lakoff/Johnson's
later writing, e.g. Philosophy in the Flesh (1999), far weaker than, say,
Lakoff's Women, fire and dangerous things(1987).

Nonetheless, it does cover the basics, and also contains a wealth of examples.

Excerpts

View of metaphors as linguistic

as the Encyclopaedia Britannica puts it: "metaphor [is a] figure of speech
that implies comparison between two unlike entities, as distinguished from
simile, an explicit comparison signalled by the words ‘like’ or ‘as’ ". For
example, we would consider the word lion to be a metaphor in the sentence

	Achilles was a lion in the fight.

We would probably also say that the word is used metaphorically in order to
achieve some artistic and rhetorical effect, since we speak and write
metaphorically to communicate eloquently, to impress others with "beautiful,"
esthetically pleasing words, or to express some deep emotion. Perhaps we
would also add that what makes the metaphorical identification of Achilles
with a lion possible is that Achilles and lions have something in common:
namely, their bravery and strength.

Cog Ling view: Metaphor as a property of Concepts

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980):

          Cog Ling view			    Traditional view

* metaphor is a property of concepts 	property of language

* function of metaphor:	    		artistic or esthetic
     better understand concepts		(e.g. "all the world's a stage")

* often not based on similarity; 	based on similarity

* used effortlessly in everyday life 	used by highly talented people
  by ordinary people, not		(Aristotle: greatest to have a
						command of metaphor)

* inevitable process of human thought 	superfluous though pleasing
    					linguistic ornament


some expressions may become conventionalized (e.g. "sex kitten") --> "dead
metaphor".  or
	* How could any man ever understand the workings of a woman’s mind?
	* The coffee was perfect and by the time I was halfway through my
		first cup my brain was ticking over much more briskly.
--> Lakoff/Johnson's "MIND IS A MACHINE" metaphor -->
These are nearly conventionalized, and don't seem as "strongly"
metaphorical.