Cultural and Cognitive Dimensions of Metaphor Aptness

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of English, Management and Humanities College, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran

Abstract

This paper discusses cultural and cognitive factors that may affect the degree of the aptness of metaphors. A given metaphor may have different degrees of aptness across different cultures. Geographical features of the area and the role of the base concept in the lives of people are cultural aspects that may affect the degree of the aptness of a metaphor for people of a culture. A metaphor with ‘lighthouse’ as the base domain would have a higher degree of aptness for people living near the sea compared to people living far away from the sea. Folktale and religion are also important aspects of culture that may have some degree of influence on the aptness of metaphors. In summary, the cultural dimensions of the concepts that are involved in the base and target domains of a metaphor could affect the degree of the aptness of that metaphor for people of that culture. Finally, the roles of metonymic relations and semantic features in the degree of aptness are discussed.

Keywords


Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 32–58). Mouton de Gruyter.
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295-308.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (1999). Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of twenty-first annual conference of cognitive science society (pp. 90-95). NJ: LEA.
Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112, 193–216.
Brdar, M., & Brdar Szabó, R. (2007). When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Or, some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). John Benjamins.
Caramazza, A., Hillis, A. E., Rapp, B. C., & Romani, C. (1990). The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions?. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 161–189.
Carroll, D. (2008). Psychology of Language. Thompson Publications.
Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 85-105.
Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31, 51-68.
Eskandari, Z., Khoshsima, H., & Safaie-Qalati., M. (2020). Cross-cultural variations of metaphor aptness and their implications in foreign language teaching [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Chabahar Maritime University.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
Gibbs, R.W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 411-446). Academic Press.
Grady, J. (1997a). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California at Berkeley.
Grady, J. (1997b). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290.
Grady, J., & Johnson, C. (2002). Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 533–554). Mouton de Gruyter.
Jones, L.  L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 110-124.
Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 50-67.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2013). The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 75–88.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(7), 37–77.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–221). Cambridge University Press.
Mashhady, H., Salarvand, H., & Fallah, N. (2014). A comparative and contrastive study on the meaning extension of color terms in Persian and English. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(1), 117-156.
Masson M. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 3–23.
McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99–130.
Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Taylor, K. I. (2007). Conceptual structure. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 217-234). Oxford University Press.
Ortony, A. (1979). Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 1-19). Cambridge University Press.
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors?. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–433). Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In U.-K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). John Benjamins.
Shabani, M., Malmir, A., & Salehizadeh, S. (2019). A contrastive analysis of Persian and English compliment, request, and invitation patterns within the semantic metalanguage framework. Journal of Language and Translation, 9(4), 17­­-34.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-as-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Clarendon Press.
Taylor, K. I., Devereux, B. J., & Tyler, L. K. (2011). Conceptual structure: Towards an integrated neurocognitive account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1368-1401.
Turner, M. (1991). Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton University Press.
Tyler, L. K., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., Levy, J. P., Voice, J. K., & Moss, H. E. (1996). Distinctiveness and correlations in the structure of categories: Behavioral data and a connectionist model. Brain and Language, 55, 89–91.
Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252.
Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., & Levy, J. P. (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain and Language, 75, 195–231.
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48(4), 422-488.