“Most of our fundamental concepts are organized in terms of one or more spatialization metaphors”: this very elementary conclusion is drawn by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980: 17) after having analysed what they call orientational metaphors. In opposition to the classical point of view, Lakoff, Johnson, and other cognitive linguists believe this group of metaphors, among others, to be deeply embedded in the human conceptualisation system and to provide a means of reasoning about and structuring of entire, mostly abstract, domains in terms of other, more concrete, domains. Based on a limited amount of underlying image schemata, which are projected onto these domains, metaphors are employed in order to be able to understand large parts of the world surrounding us.
Cognitive linguistics asks for the motivation and functional explanation of linguistic expressions. Beyond merely linguistic aspects, the cognitive approach is aiming high, since its targets are, among others, a new theory of categorisation (Lakoff 1987), Imagination (Johnson 1987: 139ff.), and, what would be a fundamental change in Western philosophy, meaning by the approach entitled as cognitive semantics In most of these and other disciplines of cognitive sciences, metaphor is one of the chief means by which these targets are tried to be accomplished. In linguistics, metaphor is an explanation for many expressions which were, on the traditional Objectivist account, viewed as being arbitrary.
The general principle by which cognitive linguists explain thess expressions is as follows: Fundamental spatial and physical experiences yield certain image schemata. These schemata are mapped by means of metaphorical projection onto abstract concepts, which human beings would otherwise not be able to grasp. By metaphorical mapping, these concepts are understood, structured and given meaning. Therefore, metaphor is, on the cognitive account of meaning, far more than just a stylistic device: it is rather a way by which we understand our environment. Furthermore, metaphor is used, as accounted for by the cognitive approach, neither consciously nor intentionally. Contrary to the traditional account in which the speaker or the poet uses metaphorical expressions by intention, these are regarded as merely linguistic reflections of underlying means of understanding which are, for many abstract concepts, the only means available to us by which we can understand these concepts.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Lakoff’s Study on over
3. Metaphorical Concepts and Image Schemata involved in Lakoff’s Study
3.1. The Verticality Schema
3.2. The Path Schema
3.3. The Container Schema
4. The Nature of Image Schemata
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the cognitive linguistic approach to metaphor, specifically focusing on how fundamental spatial experiences are mapped onto abstract conceptual domains through image schemata. The central research question explores the extent to which our understanding of abstract concepts—such as time, social hierarchy, and mental processes—is structured by "orientational" and "structural" metaphors derived from bodily, spatial interactions with the world.
- The radial structure of metaphorical categories (Case study: "over")
- Spatial image schemata: Verticality, Path, and Container
- The Invariance Hypothesis and cognitive topology
- Universality versus cultural dependence in metaphor
- The philosophical implications of the cognitive theory of meaning
Excerpt from the Book
3.3. The Container Schema
The AN ACTIVITY IS A CONTAINER metaphor, which is involved in the excess schema of over, points at a third image schema fundamental to human reasoning, the CONTAINER schema. Again, this schema is a result of earliest spatial experiences, since human beings are aware of their “bodies as three-dimensional containers into which we put certain things (food, water, air) and out of which other things emerge (food and water wastes, air, blood, etc.)” (Johnson 1987: 21). Three-dimensional bounded spaces are surrounding us constantly, for example, when we leave a room or a house, enter into another room or another house, or when we put things into a bowl, glass, or box or take things out of it. Being located inside or outside a container entails inferences about being subject to certain forces. Objects inside of a container are protected from external forces, but they are also restrained in their movements (Johnson 1987: 22).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the cognitive approach to metaphor, contrasting it with traditional views of metaphor as merely poetic or figurative language.
2. Lakoff’s Study on over: This section summarizes Lakoff’s analysis of the preposition "over" to demonstrate how a word can form a radially structured category based on various metaphorical extensions.
3. Metaphorical Concepts and Image Schemata involved in Lakoff’s Study: This chapter details three core image schemata—Verticality, Path, and Container—and their specific roles in structuring abstract human thought.
4. The Nature of Image Schemata: This chapter discusses the theoretical definition of image schemata, emphasizing their gestalt characteristics and their function as fundamental, non-arbitrary structures of experience.
5. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, highlighting the philosophical implications of grounding abstract reasoning in spatial and physical experiences.
Keywords
Cognitive Linguistics, Metaphor, Image Schemata, Verticality Schema, Path Schema, Container Schema, Lakoff, Johnson, Conceptual Metaphor, Spatialization, Radial Category, Invariance Hypothesis, Meaning, Bodily Experience.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental thesis of the work?
The paper argues that human conceptualization and reasoning are not arbitrary but are deeply rooted in spatial and bodily experiences, which are mapped onto abstract concepts through metaphorical projection.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The work covers cognitive semantics, the theory of radial categories, the nature of image schemata, the role of spatial orientation in structuring abstract domains, and the debate surrounding the universality of metaphorical mapping.
What is the main goal of this research?
The primary goal is to illustrate how "image schemata"—recurring patterns of bodily experience—provide the structural foundation for metaphorical reasoning and to evaluate the claims of cognitive linguistics regarding the non-arbitrary nature of human thought.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author employs a theoretical and analytical literature review, utilizing case studies from cognitive linguists such as George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, and Ronald Langacker to evaluate existing models of metaphorical meaning extension.
What does the main body focus on?
The main body focuses on a detailed examination of specific image schemata (Verticality, Path, Container), their linguistic expressions, and the philosophical implications of whether our reasoning capabilities are constrained by these physical experiences.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include "Cognitive Linguistics," "Metaphor," "Image Schemata," "Spatialization," and "Conceptual Mapping," which collectively capture the cognitive-based approach to meaning.
How is the preposition "over" used to explain radial categories?
The study uses "over" as a case study to show how a central sense with various spatial constraints can branch out into peripheral, more abstract senses through metaphorical and metonymic extensions, forming a cohesive but non-prototypical "radially structured category."
What role does the "Conduit Metaphor" play in this study?
The Conduit Metaphor is discussed as an application of the Container schema, illustrating how English speakers conceptualize communication as the act of placing meaning into words, which then act as containers for information sent between a speaker and a listener.
- Citar trabajo
- Michael Treichler (Autor), 2003, Metaphor and Space: The Cognitive Approach to Spatially Structured Concepts, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/22480
