Conceptual metaphor and cognitive linguistics
Conceptual metaphor and cognitive linguistics
One group of linguists that trained as part of the generative grammar practice in the 1970s began to see shortcomings with that approach. Ronald Langacker and George Lakoff are two of the most prominent linguists to have turned away from generative grammar.
Langacker and Lakoff reacted by setting out to create a new theory of language, which over time would come to be known as Cognitive Linguistics. At the moment, Cognitive Linguistics is considered a broader movement, that includes various methodologies and approaches.
Studies in linguistics have shown that when complex, intricate ideas are talked about, philosophized about and researched, then metaphors abound.[1]
There are two potentially opposing approaches to metaphor: one in which the metaphors plays an ornamental or decorative function, and one in which it is perceived as occupying a central place in thought and language.
The second of these views is referred to as the ‘contemporary theory of metaphor’[2]. The ‘decorative’ approach describes metaphor as a poetic or rhetorical device peripheral to language and thought, while contemporary theory holds it as occupying a central role in thought, and thus in the development of language. Lakoff claims that our understanding and knowledge of many topics is filtered through metaphor.
The assumption that human cognition – i.e. the production, communication and processing of meaning – depends on the mappings between the mental spaces is one of the basic tenets of cognitive linguistics. Human cognition is autonomous from language. The cross-domain linguistic expression mappings are simply deeper cognitive structures manifested on the surface that have important analogue or spatial components[3].
Conventional theories have usually painted metaphors as “rhetorical spices”, reduced to the equivalent of literal paraphrases.
Understood like this, they become optional linguistic devices. However, cognitive linguistics treat metaphor as just a matter of thought and not as a language which would then make conceptual metaphors pervasive and inescapable[4].
Language is “essentially and inherently symbolic in nature”[5]. This means that conceptualization concerns all linguistic expression.
Meaning is thought to be something that will reside in someone’s mind, and language is the means to relate that meaning in the form of sound or written words. Research into conceptual metaphors conducted by cognitive linguists has revealed many innovative and astonishing facts about how we make use of metaphors within the human mind.
“Cognitive linguists concluded that the same mechanisms used to create metaphors existed thousands of years ago. People have been creating relationships between a word or words and non-literal meaning to convey a culture’s conceptualized meaning”[6]. Findings show that metaphors are not just devices that are used by poets or rhetoricians to make their arguments and verses spicier, but are actually fundamental structures that our mind will use to make sense of complicated concepts in our lives.
In Cognitive Linguistics language is seen as an important part of cognition.
Taylor said that in generative grammar, it is thought that language knowledge will constitute a “separate cognitive faculty, structured according to its own specific principles and which is independent of other mental capacities”[7]. Still generative grammar acknowledges that grammar exists as cognitive function in the mind of a speaker. Taylor then said that, “…[rather] than a theory of mind constraining linguistic theory, linguistic theory itself inputs into a theory of mind”[8].
Cognitive psychologists believe that using metaphors is like thinking about an entity as if it were a different entity, e.g. ‘organization as a human body’.
When people use metaphors, they compare their mental models of one concept in which they are interested (e.g. an organization), with their mental model of a concept about which they already know something (e.g. the human body).
This enables them to take a ‘short cut’ to knowledge by building on what they already know, and requires analogical reasoning or analogical thinking: finding similarities in both the target and the source and using these similarities to generate new meanings and understanding about either the target or the source.
Metaphors therefore provide a framework to conceptualize targets in a particular way[9]. For example, the multi-metaphor method uses organizational metaphors in information systems development.
Cognitive psychologists believe that use of metaphors is one of our fundamental ways of thinking. Metaphor:
- Helps view something from different perspectives[10];
- Helps explain concepts[11] thus supports learning;
- Assists in developing new hypotheses or theories[12];
- Challenges conventional assumptions[13].
Metaphors are a very useful tool in development of theories in the social sciences[14]. They can provide a means of creating a taxonomy. This is the first step towards description, followed by prediction, and finally understanding[15].
A critique of Conceptual Metaphor Theory
The strength of the cognitive theory of metaphors used in the analysis lies in the fact that it provides us with a tool to better understand the world. We are able to explore our cognitive system through conceptual metaphors. Thus, you can see that the use of metaphors can give an insight in to how the cognitive approach to metaphors can contribute to a better understanding of the language of business, finance, and economics.
Like almost every other theory that makes such revolutionary claims, Conceptual Metaphor Theory was bound to attract some criticism, and in the last few decades has in fact received a wide range of criticism.
Lakoff and Johnson’s theory was criticized from a semantic aspect by Wierzbicka, who believes that concepts can be truly explained and compared only in terms of their components, which is why she is concerned with finding definitions of words that are inherently meaningful. She finds Lakoff and Johnson’s theory unhelpful because they “fail to break the concept defined into its semantic components”[16]. Wierzbicka adds that it is “an illusion to think that spatial and otherwise physical notions are inherently clearer to us than frankly mental ones, as it is an illusion to think that the external is more accessible to us, and more familiar to us than our inner world”[17]. Clausner and Croft[18] discuss, for example, the difficulties with formulation of conceptual metaphors, due to different metaphor schematicity.”
For instance, Clausner and Croft[19] note that the well-known conceptual metaphor introduced by Lakoff and Johnson[20] – that THEORIES/ARGUMENS ARE BUILDINGS – does not generalize the linguistic facts at the appropriate level. We can say, for example, that “the theory has a solid foundation”, but we cannot say that “the theory has long corridors and high windows”[21]. Rakova emphasizes that a theory that builds on image schemas and, in general, on the universality of essential physical experiences, “…cannot in the same breath be a theory of cultural variation – especially if embodiment is conceived naturalistically”[22].
Although numerous employees holding a metaphor can accurately describe their perception of the business or organization in which they work, any single metaphor will limit their perception by blocking and distorting certain pieces of the information encountered.
People perceive, remember, as well as analyze information they receive differently. In that instance, metaphor will be the result of each individual imagination (of what was noticed and what is important and emphasized).
What is more, depending on their feeling and/or state of mind the same employee might potentially use different metaphors, at different times, to represent the same concepts.
Multiple or sometimes even inconsistent metaphors that relate to the same phenomenon prove that conceptual metaphor has a tendency to focus on different aspects or nuances of the same concept[23]. Different an organization’s members might use diverse metaphors to describe the same organizational problems and concepts, or even the organizations themselves[24]. This may often result in a situation in which several metaphors are operating simultaneously and in contradiction of one another[25], leading to what is known as a “short-circuit in communication”[26].
Since metaphors create different perceptions and interpretations leading to different behaviors, and this makes it difficult for an organization’s or business’s members to find a common understanding, when their interpretation of basic facts and events is so varied[27].
Common metaphors among an organization’s members can form the basis for stability and a fluent process in the organization. However, finding common meaning in many
areas of its life can be quite difficult. What has to be stressed is the fact that managers do not control the development of meaning in the organization; all members of the organization are partners in this process, and they shape the life of the organization through the interpretations and meaning they attach to their daily experience[28].Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language
When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.
From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?
👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.
Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.
Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language
When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.
From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?
👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.
Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.
Conceptual metaphor and cognitive linguistics bibliography and literature
[1] Taylor J.R., Cognitive Grammar, Oxford University Press 2002, p. 21.
[2] Lakoff G., The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, [In] Ortony A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993.
[3] Slingerland, E., Blanchard, E. M., & Boyd-Judson, L. (2007). Collision with China: Conceptual metaphor analysis, somatic marking, and the EP-3 incident.International studies quarterly, 51(1), 53-77.
[4] Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor.
[5] Taylor J.R., Cognitive Grammar, Oxford University Press 2002, p. 20.
[6] Renz L.M., Metaphor: Imagery Devices Used by Morgan to Describe Organisations as Culture and Psychic Prisons, “Emerging Leadership Journeys”, Vol. 2, Iss. 1, 2009, pp. 54-65.
[7] Taylor J.R., Cognitive Grammar, Oxford University Press 2002, p. 7.
[8] Taylor J.R., Cognitive Grammar, Oxford University Press 2002, p. 8.
[9] Oates B.J., Fitzgerald B., Multi-metaphor method: Organizational metaphors in information systems development, „Informations Systems Journal”, No. 17(4), 2007, pp. 421-449.
[10] Hesse M., Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Harvester Press 1980.
[11] Gentner D., Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning, [In] Kuczaj S.A. (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought and culture, Hillsdale , Erlbaum, New Jersey 1982, pp. 301-334.
[12] Boden M.A., The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London 1990.
[13] Muscari P.G., A plea for the poetic metaphor, „Journal of Mind and Behaviour”, No. 13, 1992.
[14] Wang T., From general system theory to total quality management, „Journal of Academy of Business”, No. 4 (1/2), 2004, pp. 394-400.; Levassuer R., Open system theory and organizations, „Futurics”, No. 28 (3/4), 2004, pp. 82-88.; Kendall J.E., Kendall K.E., Metaphors & Methodologies: Living beyond the systems machine, "MIS Quarterly", 17 No. 2, 1993, pp. 149-171; Hartzell G., The metaphor is the message, "School Library Journal", No. 48 (6), 33, 2004.
[15] Lynham S., Theory building in the human resource development profession, „Human Resource Development Quarterly”, No. 11 (2), 2000, pp. 159-178.; Lewis M., Grimes A., Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms, „The Academy of Management Review”, No. 24 (4), 1999, pp. 672-690.; Kerssens-van-Drongelen I., The iterative theory-building process: Rationale, principles and evaluation, „Management Decision”, 39 (7), 2001, pp. 503-512.
[16] Wierzbicka A., Metaphors Linguists Live By, “Papers in Linguistics”, Vol. 19:2, 1986, p. 292.
[17] Wierzbicka A., Metaphors Linguists Live By, “Papers in Linguistics”, Vol. 19:2, 1986, p. 292.
[18] Clausner T.C., Croft W., Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors, Cognitive Science Society Inc. 1997.
[19] Clausner T.C., Croft W., Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors, Cognitive Science Society Inc. 1997.
[20] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980.
[21] Koveces Z., Conceptual metaphor theory, Some criticisms and Alternative Proposals, „ Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics”, No. 6, 2008, pp. 168-184.
[22] Koveces Z., Conceptual metaphor theory, Some criticisms and Alternative Proposals, „ Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics”, No. 6, 2008, pp. 168-184.
[23] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980.
[24] Morgan M., Models, [In] The Handbook of Economic Methodology, DavisJ.B. , Hands D.W., Mäki U. (eds.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 1998, pp. 316–321.
[25] Smircich L., Studying organizations as cultures, [In] G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research (pp. 160-172), Sage, Beverly Hills 1987.; Morgan G., Smircich L., The case for qualitative research, „Academy of Management Review”, No. 5, 1980, pp. 491-500.
[26] Smircich L., Studying organizations as cultures, [In] G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research (pp. 160-172), Sage, Beverly Hills 1987.
[27] Hamburger Y., Itzhayek U., Metaphors and organizational conflict, „Social Behavior and Personality”, No. 26(4), 1998, pp. 383-398.
[28] Hamburger Y., Itzhayek U., Metaphors and organizational conflict, „Social Behavior and Personality”, No. 26(4), 1998, pp. 383-398.