Nyt - antologi om metaforer, metaforteori, kognitiv semantik og fagsprog |
7th International Cognitive Linguistics
Conference -
July 22-27, 2001
A phenomenological and empirical-constructivist approach to metaphors – or how to pull oneself up by one’s own bootstraps Part
1 by Carlo Grevy Helle Dam: she shall be talking about the empirical
evidence for this study. Carlo Grevy: I shall give an introduction of the purpose
with this study and give some exemplifications. We
are interested in: How
do metaphors function in specialized language? We
always talk about special topics - and we use language that is characteristic to
such areas. We shall study metaphors on an
empirical basis (empirical constructivism). Conclusion on this study:
metaphors work in an integrated network and we cannot say that any source
domains are more basic than others. Our study indicates that metaphors function
as circular references. One of the problems we shall
focus on: are some source domains more basic than others? At the Discovery Channel:
Earthquake - like a volcano! Our study: about 500 metaphors in
10 periodicals in these areas:
Technology - computers - science --- - economy Old experience (in our culture) - hunting - fishing/angling - animals Everyday experiences - transportation/cars - sports Some examples ---------------------------------------------------------------- People
Cars (People are cars)
(Cars are animals) Animals (Animals are people) (Circular reference) --------------------------------------------------------------- Cars
Animals (Cars are animals)
(Animals are cars) People
Animals (People are animals)
(Animals are people) People
Cars (People are cars)
(Cars are people) (Circular reference) When we talk about a topic we
talk about something else When we talk about cars we talk
about animals When we talk about people we talk
about animals When we talk about people we talk
about cars Etc… There is no course for thinking
that any of the areas (specialized languages) are more basis than others. There is no course for thinking
that the body should be basic for metaphors in general. There is no course for thinking
that use concrete object as source domains in metaphors should give us a better
understanding of the subject. |