Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 11831188

Introduction: Metaphor across languages

The articles presented in this special issue are a selection of papers from the Third International Conference on Researching And Applying Metaphor (RAAM III), held in June 1999 at Tilburg University in The Netherlands. The fourth RAAM conference has since been held in Tunis, in 2001, and the fth, in September 2003, in Paris. The continued interest in the applied study of metaphor bears testimony to the fruitful nature of contemporary metaphor research, and to the timely identication of its potential for application by the initiators of the conference series, Lynne Cameron and Graham Low. Their edited book of the same title is the most conspicuous published result of these developments (Cameron and Low, 1999), and the present special issue is a further addition to this stock. The particular focus of this special issue is on researching and applying metaphor across languages, the conference theme of RAAM III. The plenary papers of the two invited speakers, Raymond Gibbs and Cliff Goddard, are included as two seminal examples of doing this type of cross-linguistic research with radically different methodologies. Two ffner, add further additional papers, by Alice Deignan and Liz Potter and by Christina Scha to the variety of approaches employed in cross-linguistic metaphor research. The undercurrent of methodological discussion that can be observed in all four of these papers, and that is characteristic of metaphor as well as of cross-linguistic research, is brought out in its full complexity in the last two papers, by Elena Semino and her co-authors and by my own paper. Together, these six papers provide a concrete and rich illustration of the diverging concerns of contemporary research on, and application of, metaphor. Gibbs and his associates focus on the similarities and differences between the experience of desire in American English and Brazilian Portuguese. They examine the thesis that metaphor is grounded in embodied experience, an idea that has informed cognitivelinguistic metaphor research from the beginning (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, 1999). What is special about Gibbs et al.s contribution is its systematic and controlled comparison between two distinct cultures, as well as the way these cultures metaphorically conceptualize and express desire as hunger. In particular, a cognitive-linguistic analysis of expressions relating to desire in both languages rst leads to an inventory of hunger metaphors for desire. Then an independent conceptual analysis of the experience of hunger by itself produces a classication of aspects of hunger in both cultures. These conceptual analyses are nally used as predictive categories in a rating study examining how people in both cultures think of and talk about desire as hunger. The overall similarities, as well as some of the differences, are remarkable, and can be seen as support for the view of culture and cognition as embodied experience.
0378-2166/$ see front matter # 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.006

1184

Introduction: Metaphor across languages

What is methodologically important about the Gibbs et al.s paper is its careful separation of the various stages of analysis. On the one hand, the cognitive-linguistic analysis of the linguistic metaphors does not conate the linguistic analysis of hunger metaphors for desire with the conceptual analysis of hunger as an independent experience. And, on the other, the experimental analysis of peoples ratings of both linguistic expressions and of experiences of desire makes use of independently collected data about hunger, in effect offering falsiable predictions of the kinds of mappings that people will accept and not accept between hunger and desire. These stages of analysis are sometimes conated in less psychologically oriented studies in cognitive linguistics, and the Gibbs et al.s paper provides a good demonstration of how this can be avoided. The paper by Alice Deignan and Liz Potter also investigates the notion of metaphor as an expression of embodied experience and zooms in on the metaphorical use of a number of words for central body parts in British English and Italian. This paper illustrates another crucial theoretical movement of recent years, the interest in the relation between metaphor and metonymy (Barcelona, 2000; Goossens et al., 1995; Panther and Radden, 1999). For instance, looking beyond the end of your nose is used in English as well as Italian (and in a slightly varied form in Dutch, for that matter), and has the same gurative meaning of paying attention to matters that do not immediately concern one, as Deignan and Potter say. This is one type of gurative meaning which has to be compared with other gurative uses of body parts such as nose, mouth, and so on, and these require analysis by means of metaphorical, metonymic, and combined metaphorical and metonymic conceptualization in order to be explained. The experiential, embodied basis of these concepts and expressions seems self-evident, and, again, the cultural (and hence linguistic) similarities seem more prominent than their differences. Deignan and Potters study is based on large-scale corpus research, which may be regarded as a kind of eldwork, as opposed to the experimental method of Gibbs. Corpus work is potentially more systematic and encompassing in its investigation of the linguistic patterns of metaphor, and can even begin with the collection of all expressions related to the source domain of the human body, which raises the question of demarcating literal from non-literal usage. Moreover, corpus-linguistic comparisons between two languages of the expressions that are used metaphorically can then reveal subtle differences in lexical and structural xedness. This suggests that corpus work may be helpful in handling the difference between conceptual and linguistic metaphor, as cultural patterns may exhibit the same conceptual metaphors but differ in their linguistic manifestations. As Deignan and Potter conclude, conceptual metaphor theory may act as a cultural and conceptual constraint on the explanation of particular gurative language patterns in various languages, but it is not completely predictive. Cliff Goddards paper shows how metaphor researchers can remain relatively independent of the cognitive-linguistic approach, including its emphasis on conventional conceptual metaphor and its grounding in embodied experience. Indeed, Goddard focuses on one particular class of metaphor within the scope of cognitive-linguistic metaphor theory, active metaphor, or the relatively deliberate and conscious use of metaphor in language practice. His cross-linguistic interest in active metaphor comes from his involvement in the natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) developed by Anna Wierzbicka and himself. This research tradition aims at describing language practices in culture-neutral terms, and

Introduction: Metaphor across languages

1185

Goddards main contribution in the present paper is in the cultural script he proposes for English active metaphorizing. Apart from subsequently analyzing a number of well-known active metaphors in English in these terms, such as The past is a foreign country, Goddard also draws a fascinating cultural contrast with two Australasian languages, Pitjantjatjara/ Yankunkunytjara and Malay, where active metaphorizing either seems to be virtually nonexistent or has a highly idiosyncratic form. The methodological promise of NSM is that it can combine the semantic analysis of active metaphors with the pragmatic analysis of active metaphorizing across languages. The denition of active metaphor in culture-independent terms facilitates the investigation across cultures of the question of when people use metaphor deliberately as opposed to automatically, which is an important issue for applied linguists who are concerned with education, communication, and so on. Moreover, the semantic analysis of such metaphors in terms of language-independent semantic primes makes for increased comparability of ndings between languages, which, again, has a clear bearing on education and communication studies. These observations should encourage metaphor researchers of a cognitive-linguistic persuasion to engage more with this radically cultural approach to language and meaning than they have done so far. ffner, provides us with an example of how different The fourth paper, by Christina Scha types of fundamental metaphor studies can be put to use in applied areas, in this case translation. Although Translation Studies has developed into an academic eld of its own, it is an area that may benet from ndings about such phenomena as active metaphorizing ffner shows how and active metaphor, as have been placed on the agenda by Goddard. Scha the choice of a particular English translation, core, for a German metaphor, Kern, indicating an aspect of the European Union, has negatively affected the public discussion of this issue in the media. The position of core in the English language system is different from that of Kern in German, and although both expressions are able to capture the same underlying concept, their linguistic associations appear to inuence the overall effect and ffner discusses the interpretation of the terms in their different cultural contexts. Scha interaction between linguistic, conceptual, and cultural systems in the workings of (and even changes in) translated metaphors in concrete texts, and demonstrates how Translation Studies can fruitfully apply many of the familiar cognitive-linguistic concepts and ndings. ffners method is basically discourse-analytic. She examines the use of metaphors Scha in concrete messages and interactions, and attempts to explain their selection and interpretations in their political and cultural context. Since many of these metaphors are rather consciously chosen and part of carefully designed texts, they may be seen as instances of active metaphor, and it would be fascinating to consider whether Goddards proposals could contribute to their analysis. The linguistic patterns of such metaphors are ffner combines concrete discourse analysis with a not ignored, and in that respect, Scha more general linguistic approach that borders on corpus linguistics. She also suggests that on-line studies of metaphor selection or editing by translators might be a suitable way to proceed in the future, bringing Translation Studies in contact with cognitive psychology and eventually experimental methods. The paper by Semino, Heywood, and Short addresses some of the methodological issues implicated in doing the kinds of metaphor research exemplied by the other papers.

1186

Introduction: Metaphor across languages

They are concerned with the quality of the analytical link between linguistic expressions and conceptual metaphors and raise the question of how researchers can better justify their ndings regarding conceptual metaphor. Examining a number of cases from a corpus of conversations between doctors and patients, Semino and her colleagues discuss two possible analytical routes through the data, eventually producing two different metaphorical conceptualizations of cancer. The two variants highlight different aspects of a vestep procedure for conceptual metaphor identication (Steen, 1999a). Semino et al. put forward a number of suggestions that may be connected with other papers in this issue. For instance, they emphasize the importance of the partial nature of metaphorical mappings, referring to the theory of primary metaphors advanced by Grady (1997, 1999), which was also employed by Gibbs and his colleagues in their paper in this issue. In addition, Semino et al. make use of corpus ndings to check the validity of their intuitions about what counts as literal and metaphorical, and conventionally metaphorical, as well as what may be regarded as default associations of concepts. This is an approach that exhibits the same spirit as the paper by Deignan and Potter: both utilize large-scale databanks of natural language use for supporting or rening their intuitions as analysts. And nally, Semino et al. pay ample attention to the role of metonymy in the precise, local interpretation of linguistic expressions, which may have an obvious effect on deciding whether other expressions count as metaphorical or not. This is also a theme dealt with in the Deignan and Potter paper. The last paper in the issue, my own study of metaphor recognition, is an example of how Semino et al. approach can be connected with behavioral metaphor research of the kind with which the special issue begins. Technical metaphor identication is a prerequisite for doing behavioral research on how people process metaphor, including how they recognize metaphors when they are asked to do so. When studying elicited or spontaneous metaphor recognition, psycholinguists need to have rm control over their materials. One way to ensure this is to construct experimental stimuli with relatively clear cases, as is customary in most psycholinguistic research. However, this approach ignores the full range of metaphorical expression, including the borderline cases of what counts as metaphorical in the rst place. Independent linguistic analysis and careful selection of various stimuli is one answer, as has been shown in the Gibbs et al.s study. Another solution is to develop a reliable instrument for metaphor identication in order to facilitate the unselective use of more authentic stimulus materials, rather than using specially constructed ones. In this way, new avenues of research may be opened up and, most importantly, the connection may be maintained between experimental metaphor research and behavioral research involving eldwork, such as Goddards, or corpus work, such as Deignan and Potters or ffners. Scha In my study on metaphor recognition in Bob Dylans Hurricane I argue that there are various discourse properties of metaphor that affect metaphor recognition. The use of authentic materials for behavioral research highlights the many aspects of metaphorical expression that vary from one metaphor to another, from conceptual complexity and level in the utterance, to linguistic structure (lexical and grammatical), to communi cative position in the utterance, paragraph, or text (Steen, 1999b). Regression analysis is one technique for studying the effect of these aspects in fairly natural contexts. Findings may be used as preparations for more controlled experimental investigations of metaphor

Introduction: Metaphor across languages

1187

recognition (or other metaphor processing operations) by selecting these variables. At the same time, variables that are shown to affect processing may also become the target for corpus work to examine how their values are distributed across large stretches of discourse. This would offer insight into the frequencies of the basic linguistic patterns of metaphor, and this again would constitute invaluable information for applied linguists who wish to offer advice for education and communication (including translation). The papers in this issue may be seen as contributing to one and the same endeavor. Gibbs and his associates begin with an experimental and relatively focused examination of patterns in linguistic and conceptual behavior, and derive conclusions about metaphors of desire in two cultures and languages. Deignan and Potter continue with a large-scale investigation of patterns in language, and reach conclusions about the metaphorical use of body parts in two languages and cultures. Goddard addresses a particular and important class of metaphorical language use and compares its position in three different cultures by examining (on the basis of eldwork) patterns of metaphor use, while drawing our attention to the ways in which such cross-cultural and cross-linguistic analysis should proceed. ffner also looks at patterns of metaphor use across three cultures and languages, with Scha the additional advantage that she can actually pair the expressions as translations of each other. The attention to analysis exhibited by all of these studies is then squarely addressed in the paper by Semino et al. in an effort to boost the quality of our research by explicating our assumptions of what counts as metaphor when we apply theory to language. And nally, my own paper assumes the existence of such an analytical instrument and goes back to the variety of linguistic metaphor and its effect on cognitive processing in the form of elicited metaphor recognition. However different the approaches to researching and applying metaphor across languages may be, they are still able to contribute to one overall picture.

References
Barcelona, Antonio (Ed.), 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Cameron, Lynne, Low, Graham (Eds.), 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Goossens, Louis, Pauwels, Paul, Rudzka-Ostyn, Brigida, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Vanparys, Johan, 1995. By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Grady, Joseph E., 1997. Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 267290. Grady, Joseph E., 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In: Gibbs, R., Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 79 100. Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark, 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, New York. nther (Eds.), 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. John Benjamins, Panther, Klaus-Uwe, Radden, Gu Amsterdam. Steen, Gerard, 1999a. From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In: Gibbs, R., Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 5777.

1188

Introduction: Metaphor across languages

Steen, Gerard, 1999b. Metaphor and discourse: towards a linguistic checklist for metaphor analysis. In: Cameron, L., Low, G. (Eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 81104.

Gerard Steen Department of English Language and Culture Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel.: 31-20-4446445; fax: 31-20-4446500 E-mail address: gj.steen@let.vu.nl (G. Steen)