1

5-Motivation of extension

In many cases, some experiences are directly mapped and understood

metaphorically on the basis of image-schemas which according to Barecelona
(1997:12, cited in Ibarrettxe-Antunano ,1999:23) “are pre-conceptual structures
that we acquire as a result of our earliest bodily experience”. Verspoor and Lowie
(2003:555) cited an example as a metaphor meaning extension based on image-
schema transformation. The word ‘bulge’ in the expression ‘There was a bulge in
the birthrate’ , the multiple birthrates are conceived as a ‘mass’ object, through
an image-schema transformation and then by means of metaphor, the collection
of births is extended over a time scale resulting in the formation of a graph with a
bulge , literally a bump , signifying an irregular spread.

As to Murphy’s second question about polysemy, that is, why and how it is that

word meanings get extended to have different senses, we need to distinguish the
why question from the how question. The latter has been widely studied, in
particular in the cognitive linguistics tradition (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Lakoff
1987; Brugman 1988; Dirven & Pörings 2003; Evans 2009) and in the relatively
new field of lexical pragmatics (Blutner 1998, 2004; Carston 1997, 2002; Wilson
2003, Wilson & Carston 2006; 2007).4 However, the question why it is that word
meanings get extended, or even more fundamentally, what is it about our
language systems, specifically their lexical component, that makes them so
susceptible to polysemy, has not received nearly as much focus in the literature.
(33)
Falkum,Ingrid(2012)” A pragmatic Solution to the polysemy Paradox’’ .London: university of Collage

London.

Based on experientialism, it introduces the prototypical category theory to the

semantic analysis and points out that there is a motivating factor to the
 2

relationship of different senses of a polysemous linguistic form. The central sense

is extended to others through two cognitive devices—metaphor and metonymy
and two processes—radiation and concatenation.
Semantic motivation refers to the mental association suggested by the meaning
of a word. It explains the connection between the literal sense and the figurative
sense of the word.
Traditionally, metaphors and metonymies have been regarded as figures of
speech, i.e., as more or less ornamental devices used in rhetorical style. They are
sources of links between multiple senses of a single form. Both of them are the
two very important processes of semantic extension and transfer. In cognitive
view, they are powerful cognitive tools for our conceptualization of abstract
categories.(Luan,2006:18)
The following cognitive -semantic processes have been proposed to account
for the extension of the various senses in the radial network.

The internal changes of semantic categories are not arbitrary , but developed
several semantic methods like metaphor , metonymy which are based on
prototype . In the meantime, family resemblance restrict the semantic association
a categorical members.
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/5a3318dfa58da0116c174924.html

Most discussions about lexical ambiguity, within theoretical and computational

linguistics, concentrate on polysemy, which can be further divided into two types
(Apresjan, 1974). The first type of polysemy is motivated by metaphor. In
metaphorical polysemy, a relation of analogy is assumed to hold between the
senses of the word. The basic sense of metaphorical polysemy is literal, whereas
its secondary sense is figurative. For example, the ambiguous word ‘‘eye’’ has the
 3

literal basic sense ‘‘organ of the body’’ and the figurative secondary sense ‘‘hole
in a needle.’’ Metaphorically motivated polysemy seems to be quite
unconstrained. There are cases where the primary and the derivative meanings
keep a sufficiently large part in common, but there are also cases where the
relatedness in meaning is not so obvious. The other type of polysemy is motivated
by metonymy. In metonymy, the relation that is assumed to hold between the
senses of the word is that of contiguity or connectedness. Apresjan (1974) argued
that metonymically motivated polysemy respects the usual notion of polysemy,
which is the ability of a word to have several distinct but related meanings. In
metonymic polysemy, both the basic and the secondary senses are literal. For
example, the ambiguous word ‘‘chicken’’ has the literal basic sense referring to
‘‘the animal’’ and the literal secondary sense of ‘‘the meat of that animal.(206-7)

Klepousniotou,Ekaterini (2001) “The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity:

Homonymyand Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon”. Accessed November
20,2001.Montreal,Qubec ,Canada:McGill University.
Most lexical items are polysemous, to a greater or lesser extent. A polysemous
item associates a phonological form with a number of more or less discrete
though related meanings, which cluster in a family resemblance category. A major
topic in the study of polysemy, therefore, is the question of meaning relatedness,
and how it is that distinct meanings come to be associated in the fIrst place. This
chapter looks at two of the most important processes whereby different
meanings get associated, namely metaphor and metonymy. Metonymy and
metaphor are familiar concepts of traditional rhetoric. Metaphor, especially, has
been the object of much research by linguists and literary scholars, and there is a
vast literature on the subject.
 4

Taylor ,John(2003) Category extension by Metaphor and Metonymy , in

Metaphor and Metonymy in comparison and Contrast. Edited by Rene Dirven
Ralf porings. Berlin. New York : Mouton de Gruyter
More recent studies within the cognitive semantics framework (Lakoff 1987;
Johnson 1987; Langacker 1987, 1991) have tried to show that the polysemous
structure of tactile words is motivated. That is to say, the fact that a lexical item
has different meanings is not whimsical, but motivated by our experience and
understanding of the world. These different meanings are not random, but
structured by means of cognitive devices such as metaphor.(235)
Systematically related. One of the most important goals in Cognitive Linguistics
has been to show that the multiple semantic extensions of a lexical item are
related not in an arbitrary but in a systematic and natural way by means of
several cognitive mechanisms such as image schemas, metaphor and metonymy.
Numerous studies within this framework have shown that this is a strong
hypothesis. A classical example is the analysis of the preposition ‘over’ (Brugman
1981; Lakoff 1987).(242)
Ibarretxe-Antunano, Iraide(2006) Cross-linguistic Polysemy in Tactile verbs. Ch.
Two. Cognitive linguistics Investigations , Across languages , Fields and
philosophical boundaries. Edited by Luchjenbroers, June. Amsterdam: John
Benjamin Publishing Company.
An important concern for cognitive semanticists has been to explain how
polysemy arises. Because cognitive semanticists assume that linguistic categories
are no different, in principle, from other kinds of conceptual categories, According
to this view, less prototypical senses are derived from more prototypical senses
by cognitive mechanisms that facilitate meaning extension, including conceptual
 5

metaphor and image schema transformations (Chapter 6). These mechanisms

result in the systematic extension of lexical categories resulting in meaning chains.
This gives rise to polysemy: a semantic network for a single lexical item that
consists of multiple related senses. It follows that the radial category in Figure
10.1 also represents a semantic network. A semantic network might consist of a
number of distinct senses that are peripheral and hence not strictly predictable
with respect to the prototype, but which are nevertheless motivated by the
application of general cognitive mechanisms. The process that connects these
central and peripheral senses is called chaining. (Evans and Green ,2006:332)
Thus, the questions of how many senses are represented, how they are linked in
memory, and how they are coordinated in processing are the critical issues
surrounding polysemy. it is not entirely clear how polysemous words, whose
senses are more closely related, are represented
The relation between the core and peripheral senses of a word is one of meaning
extension, which can take place diachronically or synchronically. Diachronically,
new senses of linguistic expressions have found their way into the language
because speakers saw a conceptual link between an original sense and a newer
sense; then the older sense may come into disuse or be forgotten altogether. For
example, historically launch was metonymically related to wielding a lance, which
over time has generalized to mean ‘‘throw [any object] forward with force.’’2 For
most speakers the more central sense is now probably associated with rockets or
ships rather than lances. Synchronically, this newer sense would be considered a
core sense, as it pertains more to our everyday experience of the world than a
lance and can easily explain related metaphoric senses, as in The magazine was
launched last week.(Verspoor and Lowie ,2003:555)
 6

Philosophers and Cognitive Linguists have shown that metaphors and

metonymies are powerful cognitive tools for our conceptualization of the world.
Ungerer , Friedrich and Schmid, Hans-Jorg (2006:114)
5.1 Analogical Transfer

Analogical transferring is one of strategies available to us to comprehend the

world around us. If you open a box, you unfold it so that you can see the interior
in a way similar to opening a door. Sense 1 and sense 2 are alike, because their
patients are concrete objects and their state change is physical.(105)
Yu-Fang , Flora .A Cognitive Account of the Lexical Polysemy of Chinese Kai
Graduate Institute of English, National Taiwan Normal University

5.2 Metonymy

It is argued that metonymy involves the relation of contiguity (nearness or

neighborhood) between what is denoted by the literal meaning of a word and its
figurative counterpart and that one constitute of the metonymic link stands for
other. Ungerer , Friedrich and Schmid, Hans-Jorg (2006:115)

The other type of polysemy is motivated by metonymy. In metonymy, the relation

that is assumed to hold between the senses of the word is that of contiguity or
connectedness. Apresjan (1974) argued that metonymically motivated polysemy
respects the usual notion of polysemy, which is the ability of a word to have
several distinct but related meanings. In metonymic polysemy, both the basic and
the secondary senses are literal. For example, the ambiguous word ‘‘chicken’’ has
the literal basic sense referring to ‘‘the animal’’ and the literal secondary sense of
‘‘the meat of that animal.’’(Klepousniotou,2001: 206)
 7

Klepousniotou,Ekaterini(2001) “ The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity :

Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Canada: University of McGill
Metonymy may be a more fundamental cognitive phenomenon than metaphor,
and, in many cases, metaphor may be motivated by metonymy (Barcelona,
2000b, 2002; Panther & Radden, 1999; Radden, 2002, 2003)(149)
Yu,Ning (2008) Metaphor from body and Culture. Ch. 14 The Cambridge
Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Edited by Gibbs, Raymod . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cognitive explanation for metonymy makes up for the flaws imbedded in
traditional view. Lakoff is the first to think that metonymy is part of our everyday
way of thinking, grounded on experience and subject to general and systematic
principles and structures of our thought and actions. Metonymic concepts are
part of the ordinary, everyday way we think and act as well as talk. The
conceptual system by which we think and act is basically metonymic. Langacker
conceives of metonymy as a reference point phenomenon, in which one
conceptual entity, the reference point, affords mental access to another
conceptual entity, the desired target.(Luan,2006:24)
Cognitive linguists suggest that any given instance of a referring function needs
to be sanctioned by a body of knowledge and beliefs encapsulated in the
appropriate domain. That is, the essence of metonymy resides in the possibility of
establishing connections between entities which co-occur within a given
conceptual structure. In this way, metonymy is similar to metaphor with both
bearing on human concept. Consider the following example: a waiter may
comment to his colleague that. The pork chop left without paying. Thus reference
to a customer through the name of the dish which the customer ordered is
 8

possible because of certain frame of restaurant situation, or our conceptual

structure permits this metonymically referring function.
Metonymy is a mapping within one model. One category within a model is taken
as standing for another category within the same domain. The main function of a
metonymic expression is to activate one cognitive category by referring to
another category within the same domain, by doing that, to highlight the first
category. Again according to Lakoff (1987), metonymy is to take one well-
understood or easy-to-perceive aspect of something and use it to stand either for
the thing as whole or for some other aspect of it, and one cannot simply say that
anything can stand for. The kettle is boiling contains metonymy which permits
the name of a container (kettle) to refer to the contents of the container(water)
(Luan ,2006:24)
In order to achieve the effects of being informative and relevant in
conversation, people usually take one well-understood or easy-to-perceive aspect
of something and use it to represent the thing as a whole ([4]: 77). For example,
hands in (7), standing for 'the staff in the mentioned ship', is derived from THE
PART FOR WHOLE metonymy, which allows to focus more specifically on certain
aspects of what is being referred to.
(7) The ship was lost with all hands.
Lakoff and Johnson argue that "metonymic concepts are grounded in our
experiences. In fact, the grounding of metonymic concepts is in general more
obvious than is the case with metaphoric concepts, since it usually involves direct
physical or causal associations" ([3]:39).(105)
Yu-Fang , Flora .A Cognitive Account of the Lexical Polysemy of Chinese Kai
Graduate Institute of English, National Taiwan Normal University
 9

Metonymy is a cognitive processes whereby one concept can be named with a

word referring to a concept that is conceptually related, or contiguous to it . For
example a book can be named by its author, as in can you pass me Shakespeare
on the shelf? Where Shakespeare refers to a published book by an author named
Shakespeare, and not the author itself. (Taylor,1991:121-130)

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980: 41) stress the fundamental and vital
nature of metaphor and metonymy and explicitly state that metaphor and
metonymy are not random but instead form coherent systems in term of which
we conceptualize our experience.
Metonymy, on the other hand, is another possible source of polysemy
according to holistic cognitive semantics.
Petho ,Gergely(1999) “What is polysemy ? A survey of current research and
results”. Hungary, University of Debrecen

Metonymy has received less attention than metaphor in cognitive linguistics .

Radden and Kovecses (1996) and Kovecses and Radden (1998) propose a working
definition for metonymy based on Langacker’s (1993) formulation that metonymy
is a cognitive processes through which we acquire access to a mental activity via
another mental activity and Lakoff’s theory of ICMs. Kovecses and
Radden(1998:39) define metonymy as a ‘’cognitive process in which one
conceptual entity , the vehicle, provides metal access to another conceptual
entity , the target, within the same domain. (3)
Ibarretxe-Antunano(2003) ‘polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs’’…
 10

http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e8e956d9ce2f0066f53322e9.html

The metonymic mechanism is similar to metaphor except that it maps according

to a specific function. `In a model that represents a part-whole structure, there
may be a function from a part to the whole that enables the part to stand for the
Whole.' Lakoff views meaning extensions as part of a deeper cognitive
organization.(17)
Ravin,Yael and Leacock, Claudia (2000) Polysemy :Theoretical and
computational Approaches. Oxford: oxford University Press.

the essence of metonymy resides in the possibility of establishing connections

between entities which co-occur within a given conceptual structure On this
broader view, metonymy turns out to be one of the most fundamental processes
of meaning extension, more basic, perhaps, even than metaphor.(325)
Taylor ,John(2003) Category extension by Metaphor and Metonymy , in
Metaphor and Metonymy in comparison and Contrast. Edited by Rene Dirven
Ralf porings. Berlin. New York : Mouton de Gruyter
In the case of metonymy, the conceived association is within one domain of
experience. An example of a metonymic meaning extension is taut, which literally
refers to ‘‘having no give or slack.’’ When applied to a person’s facial expression,
it points to emotional tension, as in Eyes blinking, showing no signs of being
emotionally taut, President Clinton looked like an ordinary man defending the
ordinary lies he had concocted to hide an ordinary affair.(Verspoor and Lowie ,
2003:556)
 11

5.3 Metaphoric mapping

Metaphor has traditionally been based on the notions ‘ similarity ; or comparison’
between literal meaning and the figurative meaning of an expression. Ungerer ,
Friedrich and Schmid, Hans-Jorg (2006:115)

Most discussions about lexical ambiguity, within theoretical and computational

linguistics, concentrate on polysemy, which can be further divided into two types
(Apresjan, 1974). The first type of polysemy is motivated by metaphor. In
metaphorical polysemy, a relation of analogy is assumed to hold between the
senses of the word. The basic sense of metaphorical polysemy is literal, whereas
its secondary sense is figurative. For example, the ambiguous word ‘‘eye’’ has the
literal basic sense ‘‘organ of the body’’ and the figurative secondary sense ‘‘hole
in a needle.’’ Metaphorically motivated polysemy seems to be quite
unconstrained. There are cases where the primary and the derivative meanings
keep a sufficiently large part in common, but there are also cases where the
relatedness in meaning is not so obvious. (Klepousniotou,2001:201)
Two basic semantic extension principles are metaphor and metonymy. In the
case of metaphor, conceived associations are between different domains of
experience: The logic of one domain is mapped on to another one. For example,
in the sentence The houses had been gutted by grenades, the verb gut, which
literally refers to removing the bowels and entrails of an animate being, is used
metaphorically to refer to destroying the inside of a building.
Metaphorical meaning extensions can also be based on image-schema
transformations (e.g., Lakoff, 1987, p. 440; Verspoor and Lowie 555 examples of
 12

these can also be found in Boers, 1996). Consider the sentence There was a bulge
in the birthrate. Through an image-schema transformation, the multiple births are
conceived as a ‘‘mass’’ object, and then through metaphor, the collection of
births is spread over a time scale resulting in the conception of a graph with a
bulge, literally a bump, representing an uneven spread. (Verspoor and
Lowie,2003:555)
metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of language alone, a matter of
words rather than thought or action. For this reason, most people think they can
get along -perfectly well without metaphor. We have found, on the contrary, that
metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and
action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act,
is fundamentally metaphorical in nature..(3)
The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in
terms of another(5)
The most important claim we have made so far is that metaphor is not just a
matter of language, that is, of mere words. We shall argue that, on the contrary,
human thought processes are largely metaphorical.(6)
Lakoff,George and Johnson ,Mark(1980) Metaphor we Live by. Chicago
:University of Chicago Press.
.
Cognitive semantics maintains that our minds are embodied in such a way that
our conceptual systems draw largely upon the peculiarities of our bodies and the
specifics of our physical and cultural environments (e.g., Gibbs, 1994, 2003;
Johnson, 1987, 1999; Lakoff, 1987, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999)(247)
 13

Yu,Ning(2008) Metaphor from body and Culture. Ch.14. The Cambridge

Handbook of Metaphor and Thought.Edited by Gibbs,Raymod. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Another important cognitive process is metonymy: the concepts related by a
metonymy can be understood as contiguous to (neighbouring) each other, either
conceptually or in the real world.(257)
Riemer,Nick(2010) Introducing Semantics .USA: Cambridge University Press.

Metaphors are mappings from a model in one domain `to a corresponding

structure in another domain. The CONDUIT metaphor for communication maps
our knowledge about conveying objects in containers onto an understanding of
communication as conveying ideas in the words'.(17)
Ravin,Yael and Leacock, Claudia (2000) Polysemy :Theoretical and
computational Approaches. Oxford: oxford University Press.
Metonymy, which can provide a word with semantic extensions, stands for an
entity by referring to another adjacent to that entity (Momiyama and Fukada,
2003: 83). In comparison with metaphor, which is accounted for by the nature of
mapping on the basis of ‘similarity’, metonymy is assumed to be based on
‘contiguity’ and ‘proximity’ (Jakobson, 2003: 46; Kovecses and Radden, 1998: 37).
In the sentence, The ham sandwich is waiting for his check (Lakoff and Johnson
1980: 35)10, for instance, the ham sandwich does not, in fact, literally stand for
the food but by metonymy represents the person who ordered it. It exemplifies
the metonymy of THE PART FOR THE WHOLE, whereas the whole represents the
part in the metonymy of THE WHOLE FOR THE PART. For example, in My pencil
 14

broke (Boers, 1996: 29), the broken part is not the whole of the pencil, but its
lead point. (42)
Metaphor is hypothesised to map a set of attributes ‘across’ two different
domains, that is, from the source domain onto the target domain, while
metonymy is assumed to map the structure composed of attributes ‘within’ one
domain which entails the whole phenomenon where the members of the
metonymy appear (Boers, 1996; Goossens, 2003; Rice et al., 1999). In other
words, metonymical mapping takes place in a particular sequence where the
members are seen.(43)
Kamakura,Yoshihito(2011) ‘’ collocation and preposition sense: a phraseological
approach to the cognition of polysemy.MA thesis Bermingham :Uinversity of
Bermingham .

So far, we have seen that analogy and metonymy can provide motivation for
extension of a category. Another important kind of motivation comes from
metaphoric mappings. Metaphor involves a transfer from one domain of
conceptualization onto another ([9]). Consequently, there is one meaning
involved that is called "literal" and another one that is "transferred" or
metaphorical. The conceptual mapping manifests that the source domain is
concrete and the target domain is abstract, and the physical sense is viewed as
being more basic In the present case, the domain of physical change is used as a
metaphoric vehicle to refer to the domain of nonphysical change.(106)
Yu-Fang , Flora .A Cognitive Account of the Lexical Polysemy of Chinese Kai
Graduate Institute of English, National Taiwan Normal University
 15

Metaphorical extension: Metaphor is a cognitive process whereby a concept

from a source domain is mapped to a concept in a target domain, and then
named an expression from the source domain , for example , in the expression ‘
the head of department ‘’ the person in the position is in a similar relationship to
the department (the target domain), than the head of a body is to the rest of the
body( the source domain).Taylor(1991:130-41) (De-Stadler 1989:66-67).

The classical theories of metaphor can be traced back to as early as Aristotle,

who defined metaphor in terms of deviation from ordinary usages. There are
three main views of metaphor in classical theories: the comparison view, the
substitution view, and the interaction view. All these views share a common
feature, that is, they view metaphor as a linguistic phenomenon. (Luan, 2006:18-
19)
According to generativists, metaphor is deviant from and parasitic upon normal
language and cannot be studied in any reasonable or systematic way. Since the
appearance of Metaphors We Lived by written by Lakoff and Johnson, a new
approach to metaphor comes into being. Their viewpoints about metaphor
include the following main points:
1) Metaphor is not to be seen as a purely linguistic phenomenon, but to be
related to a much broader domain, namely culture, because our conceptual
system is grounded in our experiences in the world.
2) Metaphors can be classified into structural, orientational and ontological
Metaphors. Structural metaphors refer to the cognitive process by which the
language speakers use one highly structured and clearly delineated concept to
structure another. Orientational metaphors organize “a whole system of
 16

concepts” with respect to spatial orientation, while ontological metaphors

represent the process in which our experiences of physical objects and substances
provide a further basis for understanding. Indeed, metaphor is not only a device
of poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish, but also cognitive device in our
thought and language.
3) More than 70% of the English expressions are derived from such metaphorical

concepts, so it can be reasonably concluded that they permeate almost all aspects
of our life and are indeed what we live by. (Luan,2006:19)

But Lakoff and Johnson do not clarify what metaphor really is. They just argue
the essence of metaphor is to understand and experience one kind of thing in
terms of another. Lakoff moves a step forward on the cognitive theory of
metaphor in his following papers. In his The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,
he defines it as “a cross-domain mapping in the conceptual system” (1993). In the
ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor, argument and war belong to two different
domains—verbal discourse and armed conflict, and here argument is being
discussed in terms of war. The features of war are mapped into the domain of
argument.(Luan,2006:19)
According to cognitive linguistics, however, metaphor is a prevalent
phenomenon in language and systematic in that one common conceptual
metaphor can produce numerous metaphorical expressions and different
conceptual metaphors build up a huge coherent system. Metaphor is also
cognitive in nature in that as a way of conceptualization, it partially structures
many abstract concepts through mapping concrete concepts onto them (Lakoff
and Johnson in Lan Chun, 2003).
 17

Conceptual metaphors do not operate in isolation from each other. To explicate

the systematicity of metaphor, we shall take three conceptual metaphors of TIME
as examples.
TIME IS MONEY
How do you spend your time these days?
That flat tire cost me an hour.
TIME IS A LIMITED RESOURSE
You don’t use your time profitably.
You are running out of time.
TIME IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY
I don’t have the time to give you.
Thank you for your time. (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 7—8)

The above three are all metaphorical concepts in that they capture the way we
use our everyday experiences with money, limited resources, and valuable
commodities to conceptualize time. Furthermore, they together form a coherent
System since in our society money is a limited resource, which is in turn a valuable
Commodity.Luan,2006:20)
To explicate the conceptual nature of metaphor, we shall take the conceptual

metaphor AN ARGUMENT IS A BATTLE as an example.

ARGUMENT IS A BATTLE
His claims are indefensible.
I attack every weak point in his argument.
I demolished his argument.
They produced several illustrations to buttress their argument.
 18

He withdrew his offensive remarks.

I hit back at his criticism.
He had to succumb to the force of her arguments.

What is to be noticed is that we do not just talk about arguments in terms of

battle, but we do our arguing and construe the concept ARGUMENT through the
Concept of battle. Thus we see the person we are arguing with as an opponent,
we defend our own positions and attack his; we gain ground when we win
arguments and lose ground when losing arguments; we also plan and use
strategies while arguing. It is in this sense that we say the conceptual metaphor
ARGUMENT IS A BATTLE structures what we do and how we understand what we
are doing when we argue. To put it in another way, we talk about arguments in
terms of battle because we conceive of arguments through our concept of battle.
(luan,2006:21)

Metaphor is sometimes thought to be simply a rhetorical device which aims to

make language imposing to readers. Lakoff and Johnson (1980), however, counter
the traditional views of metaphor which have been dominant in Western thought
since the time of Aristotle., it was assumed that metaphor was made possible by
virtue of the similar attributes of the elements involved. Cognitive linguists,
however, cannot accept the assumption that metaphor works like this. The
rationale of metaphor is not similarity; rather, it is argued, its nature is that
characteristics are projected from element A onto element B. As shown in Figure
2.14 below, Sun is the concept (‘source domain’) which maps particular attributes
onto the other concept, Juliet (‘target domain’). Not all the attributes of the
 19

source domain are available to be mapped onto the target domain. For instance,
a distinctive attribute of sun, which causes sunburn eventuallyleading to skin
cancer, is not recalled from the metaphor JULIET IS THE SUN; only certain
attributes – but not every one - of the source domain are chosen to be mapped
onto the target domain. Therefore, metaphorical mapping is inferred to be
partial, not based on the whole (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). ( 39)

Metaphor, then, represents forms of cognition on the part of language users,

such as construal and inference, and is not simply the oratorical manipulation of
words. Metaphor is employed as a means of understanding an ambiguous
concept by comparing it with a specific concept familiar to the language users.
Metaphor to a large extent relies on ‘embodiment’ (see section 2.3 above), which
is one means whereby we construe reality. ANGER IS HEAT, as in As : child I had a
real hot temper (Kovecses, 2000: 85, my underlining), is assumed to derive from
the experience of increased body temperature when we get angry. In conclusion,
metaphor is closely related to bodily experiences.(40)

Kamakura,Yoshihito(2011) ‘’ collocation and preposition sense: a phraseological

approach to the cognition of polysemy.MA thesis Bermingham :Uinversity of
Bermingham .

A third source (which itself can be split up to at least two different sources) are
general cognitive operations that operate on our concepts, relating them to each
other in certain ways. At least two basic kinds of cognitive operation are assumed
by holistic semanticists: conceptual metaphor24 and metonymy. Conceptual
 20

metaphor is a general cognitive strategy which involves the conceptualization of

abstract or less familiar phenomena by recourse to something more concrete or
more familiar. Conceptual metaphor in general does not apply to individual
phenomena, but rather to whole conceptual domains. For example, the
conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY relates a more abstract conceptual
domain (love) to a more concrete one (journey). Such metaphors often lead to
polysemy. For example, another conceptual metaphor is AN OBJECT IS A HUMAN
BODY25. If this metaphor is applied to an object that has parts protruding from it
so that they resemble appendages, these can be referred to as arms and legs.
Thus one can talk about an arm of an ocean or legs of a table. These are,
obviously, lexicalized uses of the words arm and leg that are motivated by this
conceptual metaphor.(13)
Petho ,Gergely(1999) “What is polysemy ? A survey of current research and
results”. Hungary, University of Debrecen

For the meaning of the word ‘Monday’ ,we will probably say that it is a day of
the week , but again what is the meaning of [week] ? Weeks are imaginative
creations of the human mind. The kind of imaginative structures required for the
description of concepts such as [Monday] are what Langacker(1987:150) calls
abstract domains : ‘’ any concept or conceptual complex that functions as a
domain for the definition of a higher-order concept’’. These abstract domains are
equivalent to Lakoff ‘s(1987) idealized cognitive model and Fillmore’s (1982,1985)
frame. These abstract domains give structures to what Langacker (1987:148)
refers to as basic domains , i.e. primitive representational fields, not reducible to
another , they occupy the lowest level of conceptual complexity . These basic
 21

domains are what Lakoff (1987:281), following Fauconnner’s (1983) terminology

calls mental space, mediums for conceptualization and thought . In this case , the
basic domain of the concept of [week] would be [time].(1)
Ibarretxe-Antunano(2003) ‘polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs’’…

http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e8e956d9ce2f0066f53322e9.html

Another consequence of this primacy of general cognitive abilities is the role of

imaginations. In cognitive linguistics, imagination is considered as basic human
cognitive ability ,central to human meaning and rationality.
Metaphor and metonymy are two basic imaginative cognitive mechanism s. They
are not figures of speech , as they are considered by many traditional objectivist
approaches that they are the means by which it is possible ‘’ to ground our
conceptual systems experientially and to reason in a constrained but creative
fashion ‘’ (Johnson ,1992:351). As Barcelona (1987:12) puts it both mechanisms
are ‘’ complex mental mappings of our knowledge of one domain of experience
[ source domain] to structure our knowledge of a different domain of experience
[target domain] ‘’ but whereas in metaphor m we project part of one conceptual
domain onto another separate domain , In metonymy , the projection takes place
within the same domain.
1-I see what you mean
2- Mary tasted the camembert.
In the sentence (1) we have to different experiential domains, the source
domain of bodily act of visual perception and the target domain of intellection.
The mapping between these two different conceptual domains is carried out by
means of metaphor. However in (2) the mapping doesn’t take place between
 22

different conceptual domains but within the same domain through metonymy ,
instead of the word ‘cheese ‘ we have the name of the place where it is produced.
(2)
Ibarretxe-Antunano(2003) ‘polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs’’…
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e8e956d9ce2f0066f53322e9.html

In many cases, some experiences are directly mapped and understood

metaphorically or metonymically on the basis of image schemas. ‘’ these are
preconceptual structures that we acquire as a result of our earliest bodily
experience s’’ (Barecelona,1997:12). Sentences such as ‘ price is going down’ or
turn up the radio’ are based on metaphor ‘ more is up /less is down. This
metaphorical projection from ‘ more to up ‘ is in turn based on our understanding
of quantity in terms of Verticality schema. This scema is based on our everyday
bodily experience: whenever we put more liquid in a container, the level goes up.
(2)
Ibarretxe-Antunano(2003) ‘polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs’’…
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e8e956d9ce2f0066f53322e9.html

Metaphor occupies a central position in cognitive linguistcs.

Category chaining
We have seen that extended senses of kai can be based on the central sense of
kai. But extended senses may themselves serve as the basis for further extensions
via category chaining. ((106)
Yu-Fang , Flora .A Cognitive Account of the Lexical Polysemy of Chinese Kai
Graduate Institute of English, National Taiwan Normal University
 23

Another processes that is typically involved in meaning extension is category

chaining . Chaining is where a polysemous category consists of various related
senses , but where senses are not based on a unified common sense. Meaning A
is related to meaning B based on some shared attribute , meaning B is related to
meaning C based on some shared attribute ,but meaning A and C have nothing in
common. Such as Climb where a boy is climbing a tree, a train climbing a hill , and
a plain climbing into a sky.(Taylor 1991:106-9)
we find the different meanings are related through “meaning chains”. Meaning A
is related to meaning B in virtue of some shared attribute(s). Meaning B in turn
becomes the source for a further extension to meaning C, which is likewise
chained to meanings D and E, and so on such as in Climb and Crawl (Luan , Xu
2006: 17)

Metaphors involve a crossing between perspectives that select similarities

(identical features) and differences under each of the perspectives chosen;
metonymies involve a crossing between perspectives directed towards
contiguous parts of situations and objects(49)
Metaphoric language use, like all language use, always happens under given
perspectives. But in non-figurative language use the perspectives for the use of an
expression are the default ones, which have been active in the process of
previous concept formation. Thus for the expression lion the default perspective
is the one of natural kind, under which lions contrast with other natural kinds,
especially other kinds of animals. For the use of this expression with respect to a
human a different perspective is required, for example the perspective of
behaviour in adverse or dangerous situations, by which a typical aspect of lion
 24

behaviour is selected from such lion situations which is mapped on the human
domain, which is characterized on such a type of situation as a lion.(52)

Both ways, the metaphorical and the metonymical, consist in the same cognitive
operations as they play a role in all concept formation: similarity relations and
contiguity relations are selected under perspectives and are ·used in structuring
the growing sets of data into similarity sets and contiguity sets. Metaphor is based
on perspective change and looking for similarity under the new perspective;
metonymy is based on perspective change and contiguity relationships, such as
relationships of part-whole, cause-effect, means-end, action-result, instrument-
action. Important is that the concept from where the transfer of the expression
originates, the source concept, is already stabilised to a high degree: Integrating
the new use of the expression into the old concept, i.e. into the old data under
the previous perspective would destabilise the concept. This means that the new
case of use of the expression does not fit into the old concept. Young children,
however, have not yet developed conceptual stability and thus cannot experience
destabilisation. They therefore would not recognise the new use as metaphoric,
but as a normal extension of the use of the expression, whereby they do not
consciously realise a perspective change and do not keep apart different
perspectives, which rather leads to the formation of complex concepts, as they
have been described by Vygotsky (1986), and does not result into polysemic
complexes of concepts.(55)
Cognitive theories on metaphor, such as the proposals of Nelson Goodman4
(1968), George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980, 1999), or Bipin Indurkhya (1992),
typically use the notions 'conceptual scheme' or 'conceptual network.' They
 25

understand metaphor as a mapping of a conceptual network or scheme from one

domain, its primary domain, onto another secondary domain with quite a
different ontology than the one of the first domain.(63-4)
The conclusion is that there is a meaningful difference between metaphor and
metonymy as two ways of construing new concepts from old concepts, being
based on similarity, i.e. on identity of one or more aspects between objects or
situations, or being based on contiguity following specific kinds of contiguity
relationships in the perspective change.(73)

Bartsch, Renate(2003) Generating polysemy : Metaphor and Metonymy , in

Metaphor and Metonymy in comaparison and Contrast. Edited by Rene Dirven
Ralf porings. Berlin. New York : Mouton de Gruyter.

The cognitive approach to metaphor does not give rise to this conundrum,
since metaphor is not understood as a speaker's violation of rules of competence.
Rather, the cognitive paradigm, at least the one along the Lakoff and Johnson
approach, sees metaphor as a means whereby more abstract and intangible areas
of experience can be conceptualised in terms of the familiar and concrete.
Metaphor is thus motivated by a search for understanding. It is characterised, not
by a violation of selection restrictions, but by the conceptualization of one
cognitive domain in terms of elements more usually associated with another
cognitive domain. (335)
 26

Taylor ,John(2003) Category extension by Metaphor and Metonymy , in

Metaphor and Metonymy in comparison and Contrast. Edited by Rene Dirven
Ralf porings. Berlin. New York : Mouton de Gruyter

That metaphorical extension from the ‘biological species’ reading would

certainly be less salient than the latter as such. This is true from a logical point of
view (to the extent that the metaphorical reading is a semantic extension of the
former), from a psychological point of view (to the extent that the metaphorical
reading is less likely to be permanently stored in the mental lexicon of the
language user), and from a statistical point of view (to the extent that the
metaphorical reading is less common than the literal one).(147)
Lewandowska,Tomaszczyk(2007) Polysemy, prototypes , and Radial
categories.Ch.6 . The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics ,Edit by
Geeraerts , Dirk and Cuyckens.. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Metaphor has been a central topic within Cognitive Linguistics since the field was
born and the term coined in the 1970s. If Cognitive Linguistics is the study of ways
in which features of language reflect other aspects of human cognition, then
metaphors provide one of the clearest illustrations of this relationship.(188)
Metaphors provide rich evidence about the ways in which some aspects of our
lived experience are associated with others, for reasons that reflect basic aspects
of perception, thought, and possibly neurological organization.
Within Cognitive Linguistics the term metaphor is understood to refer to a pattern
of conceptual association, rather than to an individual metaphorical usage or a
 27

linguistic convention. Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 5) describe metaphor as follows:

‘‘The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing
in terms of another.’’(188)
Grady,Josef (2007) Metaphor .Ch.8 . The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics ,Edit by Geeraerts , Dirk and Cuyckens.. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Metaphor is stressed in much cognitive semantics as an inherent aspect of
language structure. Cognitive semantics shows that metaphor is not the exception
in language: metaphorical ways of talking are just as widespread as ‘literal’ ones.
The normal way of referring to many domains of meaning, such as that of
obligation in English, is metaphorical. Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual theory of
metaphor proposes that metaphor is a cognitive process which helps us to
conceptualize our experience by setting up correspondences between easily
understood things like burdens and hard to understand things like obligations.
(257)
Riemer,Nick(2010) Introducing Semantics .USA: Cambridge University Press.
Specification/ Generalization
Two other types of meaning extension are specialization and generalization.
Meanings of words may become specialized or generalized, both in diachronic
and synchronic use. A diachronic example of specialization is queen, which
originally meant ‘‘woman,’’ and now refers to a particular type of woman: the
king’s wife. A synchronic example of specialization is forge (‘‘make or fabricate’’),
which may also be used to refer to a specific kind action, ‘‘to shape or make by
heating in a forge.’’ An example of generalization is grid, which literally refers to a
 28

‘‘perforated or ridged metal plate’’ but may also be used in a much broader sense
of ‘‘a network of uniformly spaced horizontal and perpendicular lines,’’ as in The
skeletal grid of paved streets quickly gave way to sandy roads.(Verspoor and
Lowie ,2003 :556)