Home The contested notion of ‘deliberate metaphor’: What can we learn from ‘unclear’ cases in academic lectures?
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The contested notion of ‘deliberate metaphor’: What can we learn from ‘unclear’ cases in academic lectures?

  • Anke Beger EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 12, 2019

Abstract

This contribution applies Steen’s (e.g., 2008, 2010, 2015, 2017a,b) notion of ‘deliberate metaphor’ to authentic language data from US-American academic lectures. The analysis of excerpts from these data demonstrates several problems with the concept of deliberate metaphor and its proposed ‘identification procedure’ (Reijnierse 2017, Reijnierse et al. 2018). As the analysis shows, problems in distinguishing deliberate from non-deliberate metaphors are posed by metaphorical technical terms, the assumption of ‘idealized language users’ inherent in the identification procedure of deliberate metaphors, and the dynamics of discourse. Thus, while in its current state, deliberate metaphor can draw our attention to important uses of striking metaphors, it appears to be inadequate for the analysis of less striking cases of metaphor whose use in particular discourse contexts nevertheless suggests important communicative functions for part of the participants.

References

Beger, Anke. 2011. Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American college lectures. metaphorik.de 20. 39–61.Search in Google Scholar

Beger, Anke. 2016. Different functions of (deliberate) metaphor in teaching scientific concepts. In Olaf Jäkel, Martin Döring and Anke Beger (eds.), Science and Metaphor: A Truly Interdisciplinary Perspective (metaphorik.de 26), 61–87. Hannover: Wehrhahn Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Beger, Anke. In press. The role of (deliberate) metaphor in communicating knowledge in academic discourse: An analysis of college lectures from different disciplines. Berlin: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Beger, Anke and Olaf Jäkel. 2015. “The cognitive role of metaphor in teaching science: Examples from physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and philosophy”. Philosophical Inquiries 3 (1). 89–112.Search in Google Scholar

Cameron, Lynne. 2010a. The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In Lynne Cameron and Robert Maslen (eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities, 77–97. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Cameron, Lynne. 2010b. Metaphors and discourse activity. In Lynne Cameron and Robert Maslen (eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities, 147–161. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Cameron, Lynne and Robert Maslen (eds.). 2010. Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2012. Forensic deliberations on ‘purposeful metaphor’. Metaphor and the Social World 2(1). 1–21.10.1075/msw.2.1.01chaSearch in Google Scholar

Deignan, Alice. 2011. Deliberateness is not unique to metaphor: A response to Gibbs. Metaphor and the Social World 1(1). 57–60.10.1075/msw.1.1.05deiSearch in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2011a. Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes 48(8). 529–562.10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2011b. Are ‘deliberate’ metaphors really deliberate?: A question of human consciousness and action. Metaphor and the Social World 1(1). 26–52.10.1075/msw.1.1.03gibSearch in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2015a. Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics 90. 77–87.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.021Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2015b. Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics 90. 73–76.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.016Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. and Lynne Cameron. 2008. The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research 9. 64–75.10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. and Elaine Chen. 2017. Taking metaphor studies back to the Stone Age: A reply to Xu, Zhang, and Wu (2016). Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1). 117–124.10.1515/ip-2017-0005Search in Google Scholar

Giles, Timothy D. 2008. Motives for metaphor in scientific and technical communication. Amityville, New York: Baywood.10.2190/MFMSearch in Google Scholar

Hampe, Beate (ed.). 2017. Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108182324Search in Google Scholar

Knudsen, Susanne. 2003. Scientific metaphors going public. Journal of Pragmatics 35(8). 1247–1263.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00187-XSearch in Google Scholar

Krennmayr, Tina. 2011. Metaphor in newspapers. Utrecht: LOT.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Cornelia. 2008. Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Cornelia. 2017. Waking metaphors: Embodied cognition in multimodal discourse. In Beate Hampe (ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse, 297–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108182324.017Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Cornelia. 2011. Are ‘deliberate’ metaphors really special?: Deliberateness in the light of metaphor activation. Metaphor and the Social World 1(1). 61–66.10.1075/msw.1.1.06mulSearch in Google Scholar

Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1). 1–39.10.1080/10926480709336752Search in Google Scholar

Reijnierse, Gudrun W. 2017. The value of deliberate metaphor. Utrecht: LOT.Search in Google Scholar

Reijnierse, Gudrun W., Christian Burgers, Tina Krennmayr and Gerard J. Steen. 2018. DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics 2. 129–147.10.1007/s41701-017-0026-7Search in Google Scholar

Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.015Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard J. 2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 23. 213–241.10.1080/10926480802426753Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard J. 2010. When is metaphor deliberate? In Christina Alm-Arvius, Nils-Lennart Johannesson and David C. Minugh (eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival, 43–65. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard J. 2011a. The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1). 26–64.10.1075/rcl.9.1.03steSearch in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard J. 2011b. From three dimensions to five steps: the value of deliberate metaphor. metaphorik.de 21. 83–110.Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard J. 2011c. What does ‘really deliberate’ really mean?: More thoughts on metaphor and consciousness. Metaphor and the Social World 1(1). 53–56.10.1075/msw.1.1.04steSearch in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard J. 2015. Developing, testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of Pragmatics 90. 67–72.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard J. 2017a. Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1). 1–24.10.1515/ip-2017-0001Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard J. 2017b. Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. In Beate Hampe (ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse, 279–297. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108182324.016Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, Berenike J. Herrmann, Tina Krennmayr and Trijntje Pasma. 2010. A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.14Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-11-12
Published in Print: 2019-11-26

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 27.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/gcla-2019-0004/html
Scroll to top button