Kamil Wiśniewski - linguist, translator, and philosopher :)

Dead Metaphors

admin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:14:03 +0000

Metaphorical expressions are and have always been present not only in human cognition, but also in language. Some of them are difficult to perceive because of their inconspicuous nature, or usage, as the realization of the metaphor LIFE IS A CONTAINER ‘I’ve had a full life’, for example. Other metaphors are easily recognizable to the majority of language users as ‘My wife whose hair is a brush fire’, for instance.
Linguists concerned with metaphors describe them in numerous ways. Apart from the classification presented by Lakoff and Johnson, there is another generally accepted taxonomy. Depending on the degree of conventionality of use and whether the expression is to be found in a dictionary, or is utterly novel, scholars distinguish between dead, inactive and active metaphors. Dead metaphors are those expressions which were frequently used for a long time and therefore they are no longer perceived as being metaphorical. In many cases, dead metaphors have dictionary entries and are also known as idioms. For example the expression ‘red herring’ is nowadays used only metaphorically to denote a distraction and it does not have a corresponding literal meaning. The phrase used to have a much more literal, and highly specific meaning, but, as it is hard to imagine what that would be as used in its original meaning, it is clearly a dead metaphor. Other examples of dead metaphors might include ‘to deliver a speech’, ‘some grounds for complaint’, ‘eye of a needle’, or ‘windfall’ (Goatly, 1997:33).
Inactive metaphors are those expressions which have metaphorical meaning, but also whose meaning can be tracked to its roots. Thus, they might be ambiguous and have, in fact, multiple meanings. In inactive metaphors, the Topic may be relatively fixed by convention, or by another meaning of a given word. Some examples of inactive metaphors might include: ‘deep financial cuts’, ‘fox’ to denote a cunning person instead of a dog-like animal with reddish-brown fur, or ‘crane’ meaning a tall machine used by builders for lifting heavy things, which is similar to a tall water bird from which the name derives (Goatly, 1997:33).
Active metaphors are in many cases those expressions which are not a part of the lexicon. They are dependent on the context, they are to a large extent not predictable and they have no fixed meaning. Andrew Goatly (Goatly, 1997:34) has juxtaposed dead, inactive and active metaphors in a very clear way that explains all the differences between the types of metaphors.
It needs to be added that all the types of metaphors with which literary scholars are in most cases concerned and which can be found in Lakoff and Johnson’s classification are active metaphors. they are certainly, therefore, a crucial part of a speaker’s knowledge of his own language and therefore are a part of his mental lexicon. PDF

Classification of metaphors by Lakoff and Johnson

admin — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:00:56 +0000

A change in the perception of metaphors by linguists, psychologists, literary studies researchers and even dictionary publishers and language course books writers was noticeable after the publication of ‘Metaphors we live by’ written by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. This inconspicuous-looking book published in 1980 turned out to be a milestone in cognitive linguistics and in the analysis of metaphors, and their use and importance for both linguists and ordinary language users. Many of the theories presented by these two linguists are still acknowledged as either valid or a breakthrough which enabled further advance in the study of metaphors.
The book presents a thorough taxonomy of metaphors with numerous examples of their use in ordinary, everyday language and in the language of science. However, as the authors prove, the use of metaphors is not only normal in casual speech, but is embedded in the very way people perceive, think about, and therefore describe the world (Kalisz, 2001:95-99). Throughout the book, its authors provide evidence that metaphors are inherent in our lives and as Lakoff and Johnson state the case:
“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”. (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:3).
In addition to that, the authors claim that most of people’s cognitive processes are to some extent metaphorical.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) began to formulate their conceptual metaphor theory by developing ideas they drew from Reddy’s conduit metaphor which describes human communication (Reddy, 1979, 1993). In that metaphor, ideas are objects, words are containers and the entire communication process is seen as sending the ideas in the words to the addressee who can get the ideas out of the words. Such conduit metaphors which are present in the English language include:
(1) a. IDEAS {OR MEANINGS} ARE OBJECTS
b. LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS ARE CONTAINERS
c. COMMUNICATION IS SENDING.

It has been estimated that about seventy percent of the expressions used to talk about language make use of such metaphors. This can be seen in the examples of the following phrases which embody the conduit metaphor:
(2) a. It’s hard to get that idea across to him.
b. I gave you that idea.
c. Your words seem hollow.
d. His words carry little meaning
e. The sentence is without meaning.
f. Try to pack more thought into fewer words. (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:11)
As Lakoff and Johnson point out, most such phrases reflect an ordinary way of talking about human communication and therefore it might be difficult to realize that certain metaphors are indeed present there (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:11). However, these linguists argue that the CONDUIT metaphor is not a sufficient explanation of many other expressions found in everyday language. Such a metaphor in which one concept is structured in terms of another is called a structural metaphor and is the first one in the compilation presented by the linguists.
Orientational metaphors according to the authors of Metaphors We Live By do not structure one concept in terms of another, but rather organize entire systems of concepts with respect to each other. The name orientational metaphor is connected with the fact that such metaphors have something to do with spatial orientation in most cases, including image schemas such as central-peripheral, in-out, front-back, up-down, and others (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:14). Such metaphors in human languages are natural due to the physical and cultural orientation of people, thus “such metaphorical orientations are not arbitrary” (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:14). Numerous metaphors and expressions exemplifying the implementation of orientational metaphors in everyday language are provided in their classification. A very common one is given in (3):

(3) HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN:

a. I’m feeling up.
b. That boosted my spirits.
c. My spirits rose.
d. Thinking about her gives me a lift.
e. I’m feeling down.
f. He’s really low these days.

The physical basis for such a metaphor as that in (3) is connected with the posture one adopts with changing emotional states: an upright posture is associated with good mood and happiness, while a dropping posture is connected with bad mood and sadness.

(4) CONSCIOUS IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN

a. Get up.
b. Wake up.
c. He rises early in the morning.
d. He’s under hypnosis.
e. He sank into coma.
f. He fell asleep.

According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:15) this metaphor relates to the fact that when humans are asleep they are lying down and that they stand up when they are awaken.

(5) MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN

a. My income rose last year.
b. His income fell last year.
c. He is underage.
d. If you’re too hot, turn the heat down.

e. The number of books printed each year keeps going up.
The basis for this metaphor is the observation that adding more substance to a container raises the level the substance reaches in the container.

(6) GOOD IS UP; BAD IS DOWN

a. Things are looking up.
b. Things are at an all-time low.
c. He does high-quality work.

d. We hit a peak last year, but it’s been downhill ever since.
As the authors put it, the “physical basis for personal well-being: Happiness, health, life, and control - the things that principally characterize what is good for a person – are all UP” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:16).

Many more examples of orientational metaphors and phrases which exemplify their realization in language are provided in this book. Its authors argue that the majority of our basic concepts are organized with the use of some spatially-based metaphors. In addition to that, the high degree of systematicity of such metaphors suggests that they are not being used arbitrarily, but are deeply entrenched in our experience of spatial orientations (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:18).
The next type of metaphor thoroughly described and defined by Lakoff and Johnson consist of Entity and Substance Metaphors, also known as Ontological Metaphors. Those metaphors are connected with our experiences with physical objects, including our bodies. The most usual case of ontological metaphors is related to the perception of ideas, events, emotions and activities as substances, or concrete entities. Ontological metaphors are said to have many purposes and that is why they themselves are varied. One type of ontological metaphor is viewing an abstract notion as an entity:

(7) INFLATION IS AN ENTITY

a. We need to combat inflation.
b. Inflation makes me sick.
c. Inflation is backing us into corner.
d. Inflation is lowering our standard of living.

(8) THE MIND IS A MACHINE

a. My mind just isn’t operating today.
b. I’m a little rusty today.

c. We’ve been working on this problem all day and now we’re running out of steam.

The use of such a metaphor to describe an abstract concept enables us to identify some of its aspects, quantify it, and act accordingly. Yet, that is not the sole purpose of ontological metaphors as they can also fulfill other functions, such as referring, quantifying, identifying aspects of a situation, identifying causes, and others (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:26). Lakoff and Johnson claim that “the range of ontological metaphors that we use for such purposes is enormous” (1980:26) yet only just a few examples should be enough to illustrate the concept:
Sentences (9) (a-c) illustrate ontological metaphors that are used to refer to situations and events.
(9) a. The honor of our country is at stake in this war.
b. The middle class is a powerful silent force in American politics.
c. That was a beautiful catch.
Sentences (10) (a-c) illustrate the use of ontological metaphor to quantify qualities, situations and events.
(10) a. It will take a lot of patience to finish this book.
b. There is so much hatred in the world.
c. You’ve got too much hostility in you.
In turn, sentences (11) (a-c) illustrate a set of metaphors that identify causes.
(11) a. The pressure of his responsibilities caused his breakdown.
b. The brutality of war dehumanizes us all.
c. His emotional health has deteriorated recently.

What is more, several different kinds of ontological metaphors can be distinguished, such as the container metaphor, the entity metaphor and the substance metaphor. Container metaphors are those which represent certain concepts as having an inside and on outside and are construed as being able to hold something else, as for instance the metaphors given in sentences (12) (a-e) (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:50,51):

(12) LIFE IS A CONTAINER

a. I’ve had a full life.
b. Life is empty for him.
c. There’s not much left for him in life.
d. Her life is crammed with activities.
e. Get the most out of life.

In addition, sentences (13) (a-e) present a variety of instantions of the high level ontological metaphor THE EYES ARE CONTAINERS FOR EMOTIONS:
(13) EYES ARE CONTAINERS FOR THE EMOTIONS

a. I could see the fear in his eyes.
b. His eyes were filled with anger.
c. There was passion in her eyes.
d. His eyes displayed his compassion.
e. She couldn’t get the fear out of her eyes.

The next type of ontological metaphors namely entity metaphors are those which represent abstractions as concrete physical objects. An exemplary entity metaphor and its linguistic realization is given in (14) (a-d) (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:28).

(14) THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT

a. Her ego is very fragile.
b. I’m going to pieces.
c. His mind snapped.

d. You have to handle him with care since his wife’s death.

What is interesting is the fact that Lakoff and Johnson consider personification as a type of entity metaphor. They point out that this is not only a literary stylistic device, but is also our everyday way of perceiving and talking about certain concepts. Among the examples of casual use of personification are the expressions given in (15) (a-c) (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:33):

(15) a. Life has cheated me.
b. This fact argues against the standard theories.

c. His religion tells him that he cannot drink fine French wines.

The substance metaphor is the kind of metaphor in which an abstract entity such as idea, emotion, event or activity is represented as a solid material (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:31, Internet source 1). Typical examples are given in (16) (a-c).
(16) a. There was a lot of good running in the race.
b. I couldn’t do much sprinting until the end.
c. How much window-washing did you do?

As Kalisz (2001) suggests there is often very little difference between ontological and structural metaphors. What is more, he claims that ontological metaphors are based on structurally uncomplicated and simple physical notions, for example INFLATION IS AN ENTITY, as in ‘Inflation is backing us into corner’, while structural metaphors stand for more complex domains, for instance ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING as in ‘We’ve got a foundation for the argument, now we need a solid framework’ (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:99). Buildings are made up of foundations, require projects and other important factors, all of which are transferred to argumentation in this structural metaphor. Moreover, Kalisz argues that differentiating an ontological metaphor from a structural metaphor is more a matter of, as he puts it, ‘quantity’ than ‘quality’ (Kalisz, 2001:97). He goes on to say that since it is the degree of complexity of the metaphorical expression that is a crucial factor in differentiating its type, it is not always possible to put a rigid border between the two and thus be able to make a decision about which kind of metaphor a particular expression represents.
George Lakoff, the co-author of the above mentioned typology of metaphors, a few years after publishing Metaphors We Live By, wrote another book devoted to the description of metaphor use, this time in collaboration with Mark Turner. In their book entitled More than Cool Reason these authors added one more type of metaphor to supplement and complete the classification. As they point out, it is not only the mapping of concepts, or conceptual structures that enable creating metaphors, but also the mapping of images. Metaphors which map images are simply called image metaphors. According to Lakoff and Turner (1989:90) the only difference between image metaphor and all the other kinds of metaphors is that they do not map concepts on other concepts, but map ‘the structure of one domain onto the structure of another’ (Lakoff, Turner, 1989:90).
Similar to a conceptual metaphor, an image metaphor has its source in human cognition and the linguistic implementation of this kind of metaphor is only the representation of the way people perceive the world and think about it. Yet, in the case of image metaphors, the mapping of one domain onto the other might be slightly more complex, as, according to linguists, the mapped image structure includes both attribute structures and part-whole structure. Attribute structures include, for example, physical shape, color, or curvature, whereas part-whole relations are those of relation of a roof to the whole house, for instance (Lakoff and Turner, 1989:90). In most cases of the usages of image metaphors, it is not stated precisely which part of the source image is to be mapped onto the target image, yet that is automatically inferred by language users.
What is more, Lakoff and Turner make an important distinction between image metaphors and image-schema metaphors. As the authors put it:
“Image-metaphors map rich mental images onto other rich mental images. They are one-shot metaphors, relating one rich image with one other rich image. Image-schemas, as their name suggests, are not rich mental images; they are instead very general structures, like bounded regions, paths, centers” (Lakoff and Turner, 1989:99).
The authors provide several examples of both image metaphors, and image-schema metaphors. The use of image metaphors is exemplified by the poem entitled “Free Union”.
(17) My wife whose hair is a brush fire
Whose thoughts are summer lightening
Whose waist is an hourglass
Whose waist is the waist of an otter caught in the teeth of a tiger
Whose mouth is a bright cockade with the fragrance of a star of the first magnitude
Whose teeth leave prints like the tracks of white mice over snow
Whose tongue is made out of amber and polished glass
Whose tongue is a stabbed wafer. (Lakoff and Turner, 1989:90).
Metaphors in this poem are clearly visible, yet the author leaves to the readers’ imagination many important facts only implied in the writing, such as the color of the wife’s hair, or the overall shape of her waist. Such inferences can only be made by mapping images of burning bushes onto hair, and confronting the image of an hourglass with the image of a woman’s waist.
In order to show a contrast between an image metaphor and an image-schema metaphor, examples of the latter are also provided. These include high level ontological metaphors such as LIFE IS A FLAME, or STATES ARE LOCATIONS, whose linguistic realizations include, for example, expressions such as pass out, tune out, snuff out (Lakoff and Turner, 1989:97).

The Aristotelian definition of metaphor

admin — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:57:27 +0000

The first attempts to describe the purposefulness of the use of metaphors, how their appropriate usages ought to look like, and. above all. what a metaphor indeed is were made by the great ancient philosopher Aristotle. In view of the contemporary theories concerning metaphors, Aristotle has frequently been criticized for confining the use of metaphors to writing and ascribing them only a decorative function. Moreover, it was assumed that the thinker claimed that only extraordinarily intelligent people are able to use metaphors in an appropriate and creative fashion. While it is true that Aristotle claimed that metaphors often occur in literature and fulfill ornamental functions, he also maintained that they are equally frequently present in casual conversations. The fact is that the ancient scholar raised that issue in two of his numerous works, namely “Poetics” and “Rhetoric” and as the titles suggest he described manners of using various metaphors as well as their use both in literature, with the emphasis put on poetry, and everyday casual conversations (Mahom, 1999:70).
In “Poetics” the philosopher defines metaphor as “the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion” (Mahom, 1999:71) and states that the most appealing writing style is the one characterized by the use of metaphors. Even so, he claims that too frequent use of this figure of speech would obfuscate the gist of writing, therefore, it ought to be used in moderation. What is more, in the same work he suggests that only people gifted with genuine genius are able to invent utterly new and unique metaphors.
However, in that work, Aristotle brought up the topic of metaphors only in the context of Greek literature as it was used by poets and dramatists at that time. Mahom points out that the philosopher didn’t mean by this statement that only writers use metaphors, but that their means of coinage and usage of metaphors is extraordinary in comparison with the common, everyday use by regular people. The more general views held by Aristotle, ones that concern also the use of metaphors by common language users, can be found in his book entitled Rhetoric (Mahom, 1999:71).
Only after becoming acquainted with both of those works of Aristotle should a more comprehensive view of philosopher’s ideas be held, that is one which includes both his notions about metaphors in relation to literature, as well as in relation to the common use of language. In Rhetoric the author writes about the figures of speech that are characteristic to writing. He also suggests that certain types of metaphors need to be used in casual discourse, owing to the fact that it is often thanks to them that we can comprehend certain complex, or abstract concepts. Supporting his claims by giving examples from the public speeches of politicians, Aristotle states that “We learn above all from metaphors” (Mahom, 1999:74) as they make it easy for people to understand difficult or abstract ideas. In addition to that, he emphasizes that pedagogical value by saying that metaphors not only teach us, but that they do it in a pleasing and interesting way.
Additionally, Mahom claims that it was due to the failure to carefully examine both works of the philosopher that scholars too hastily criticized Aristotle’s views, while ascribing to him ideas which he did not acknowledge. It is true that Aristotle wrote that a real genius is needed to master a good command of metaphors. However, at that point, he meant their use in literature, for solely aesthetic purposes and not their use in common everyday speech, for which, as he thought, metaphors are indispensable. Therefore, it would not be unjustified to claim that, in fact, Aristotle’s views on metaphors were more similar to contemporary ones than to those which were ascribed to him until the second half of the XX century.
To put it chronologically, before the present-day theories are accounted for, some of the mistaken premises of the classical view will be clarified. First of all, it was by and large assumed that ordinary, every-day language was utterly deprived of any metaphorical expressions and that metaphors took advantage of mechanisms beyond the scope of casual speech. This meant that metaphors were seen only as a purely linguistic phenomenon, a figure of speech characteristic only of the literary language. Furthermore, as if Aristotle’s ideas expressed in Rhetoric were ignored, subsequent scholars claimed that whatever the issue is, no matter whether abstract or concrete, it could be apprehended virtually without the use of metaphors. In contrast to the classical assumption, cognitive linguistics holds the view that metaphors not only fulfill decorative functions and make discourse more interesting, but are embedded in the very way people think about, and conceptualize the world (Lakoff, 1993:204).
Because casual language is not metaphor-free, and most certainly literary language is not characterized only by metaphorical expressions, but other figures of speech, as well as by regular phrases, it needs to be set out clearly how one can recognize a metaphor. It is claimed that when people speak of abstract concepts such as time, God, morality or emotions they naturally take advantage of metaphors. Lakoff suggests that “those concepts that are not comprehended via conceptual metaphor might be called “literal” (Lakoff, 1993:205).
Since the notion of metaphors as a poetic figure of speech has been discussed by literary studies researchers for centuries it is mainly the relatively new view on the use of metaphors in casual language that will be touched upon in the following section. What is more, the ornamental function of metaphors in writing seems to be the most vital feature distinguishing their use in literature from everyday usage. This means that the theories that focus on the ordinary employment of metaphors are also applicable to literary studies and ought to aid their understanding. The significance of the use of metaphor in literature will therefore be covered in a further chapter of the present work.
While the perception of Aristotle’s theories concerning metaphors has clearly changed with time, his definition of metaphors, although still valid for some scholars, has been either developed or transformed into another theory. Aristotle’s successors were not unanimous in their opinions concerning metaphors and their use in literary, scientific and everyday language. For instance John Lock, a famous seventeenth century English philosopher most often associated with British empiricism, claimed in his work entitled ‘Essay concerning human understanding’ that metaphors ought not to be used in philosophical inquiry (Arseneault, 2005:40). Similarly Locke’s contemporary, namely Thomas Hobbes, in his work entitled ‘Leviathan’ condemned the use of metaphors in the language of philosophy, since as he put it “metaphors, and senseless and ambiguous words, are like ignes fatui; and reasoning upon them, is wandering amongst innumerable absurdities” (Chilton, 2005:63).
Alternatively, other equally great and well known philosophers such as the eighteenth century Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his contemporary Friedrich Nietzsche, both disagreed with the criticism of metaphors. In fact both of them not only defended the use of metaphorical phrases, but also claimed that they fulfill creative and ornamental functions better than other figures of speech (Arseneault, 2005:40). As the above examples show, philosophers differ in their understanding of the value of metaphors in our daily lives. Moreover, various scholars also disagree about what types of expressions should be considered a metaphor. Because of this, several different approaches to the analysis of metaphor have been adopted. Some theorists in their view of metaphor agree that their focus should be on live metaphors, that is metaphors with many possible interpretations, while others concentrate on metaphors with a more fixed meaning, that is lexicalized metaphors, also referred to as dead metaphors. The distinction between “live” and “dead” metaphors is a matter of degree. In addition, there are still other researchers who first and foremost focus on the forms and functions of metaphors (Arseneault, 2005:42)

Theories of metaphor

admin — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:53:51 +0000

For centuries metaphors have been perceived merely as ornaments in literature used for rhetorical and poetic purposes. Therefore apart from scholars dealing with literature studies hardly anybody had been occupied with examining their use and purpose. Only in the second half of the XX century did the situation change. It became clear then that metaphors are more important to language users than it had previously been thought (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). The traditional view of metaphors, as it came to be named, is that they are characteristic to literature and are only embellishments. This is ascribed to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who was the first one to define metaphors and their usage. And, although his definition has been acknowledged as valid for centuries, it was thought that according to him metaphors were peculiar to literature and not to everyday communication.
Since Aristotle’s times, representatives of various branches of science have become more and more interested in metaphors. Nowadays, not only philosophers and literary studies researchers deal with it, but also linguists, psychologists, anthropologists and representatives of relatively new branches of science such as cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics. Therefore, depending on the particular specialization of a scholar, different approaches to describing metaphors have been taken and various results achieved. Yet, according to Arseneault, the majority of scholars dealing with metaphors agree that “metaphor is essentially nonstandard and deviates either semantically or pragmatically from ordinary literal language” (Arseneault, 2005:40).
However, psychological research conducted since 1970s showed that metaphors are omnipresent in everyday discourse. Moreover, they are in most cases easily understood and produced. The way in which people comprehend metaphors has also been analyzed from various angles. According to one theory, in order for metaphor to be correctly interpreted, the addressee of the message has to follow several steps: “(1) analyze the literal meaning of an entire expression, (2) compare this literal meaning to the context, (3) if the literal meaning is appropriate, then stop, otherwise (4) derive an alternative meaning that makes the speaker’s/writer’s utterance sensible in the context” (Gibbs, 2005:45).
Nevertheless, this theory has been successfully challenged by psychologists and psycholinguists as it suggests that additional cognitive effort is needed in order to comprehend metaphors. This would also require more time to digest it. On the contrary numerous research results show that perception and comprehension of metaphors does not require any more time than understanding statements deprived of any metaphorical expressions (Gibbs, 2005:45).
The studies on the frequency of use of metaphors revealed that they are not only used on a regular basis in everyday discourse, but they are surprisingly often used in political speeches. Thus, scholars focused also on this particular type of discourse and came to a conclusion that it is extremely susceptible to metaphor use and that the most basic vocabulary used in politics derives metaphorically from spatial concepts in general and from the front-back and up-down image schemas in particular. Moreover, recent trends in the analysis of political metaphor focus both on historical speeches and present ones and the evidence suggests that metaphorical expressions were with equal frequency used in the past. (Chilton, 2005:63).

Cognitive linguistics’ approaches to meaning

admin — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:51:24 +0000

In cognitive linguistics in general, and cognitive grammar in particular, at least three approaches to the study of meaning can be distinguished. First, there is the language-world approach in which sense of words is studied as correlation between the words and the state of affairs in the world, but this is not the central view of mainline cognitive linguistics. Then, there is the language-internal approach, the central view of mainline cognitive linguistics, where the meaning is studied as relations between words themselves and not the external world. Last, but by no means least, is the conceptualist approach to the study of words’ senses. Here the meaning of a phrase is identified with its conceptualization in the minds of language users (Taylor, 2002:187).
The language-world approach is considered to be a very good method of analyzing nouns, noun phrases and alike. In this approach there are two perspectives of looking at the senses and referents of nouns: a semasiological perspective and an onomasiological perspective.
· The semasiological perspective starts with language and proceeds to the perceived world in that it looks at an expression and checks when and in what kinds of situations the expression may be used appropriately.
· The onomasiological perspective does practically the same thing, but the other way round. That is, it goes from the perceived world to language and tries to find as many appropriate expressions as possible to describe a given entity, or a situation (Taylor, 2002:187).
Such methods of analyzing words are reflected in dictionaries. Most dictionaries which give lists of words and their meanings reflect the semasiological perspective, while thesauri with one word and a list of words with very close meaning (synonyms) reflect the onomasiological perspective.
The second approach to the study of meaning is language internal which focuses on the relations of words in a language. Here also two different ways of implementing the approach are noticeable: the paradigmatic relations are in the centre of attention of first of them, which examines the relations of various expressions. Such relations include synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy and entailment. The second one focuses on the syntagmatic relations which are described as the relations between items co-occurring within expressions (Taylor, 2002:187).
As cognitive linguistics assumes that language is entrenched in human cognition and people from different backgrounds and cultures do not think alike there must be some discrepancies in the way the meanings of words are perceived. Yet, careful examination of this hypothesis led linguists to conclude that there are certain prototypes, that is words central to a given category. All prototypes share certain characteristics: they have many features typical of the category that is features with a high degree of predictability; they are usually monosyllabic or relatively short words; they are learned first by children; prototypes have a large number of features in common with other category members. For instance, if one is asked to give an example of a bird, for most language users a robin, or a sparrow will be the first answer and not an ostrich, or a penguin. It means that robin and sparrow are more prototypical in a given language culture.
Such considerations led to another interesting conclusion. As there are certain words that can be said to be prototypic to a given category, there are also words whose meaning is fuzzy and which are therefore difficult to categorize. A good example might be the difference between a slope, a hill, a mount, a valley, a mountain. Where does one end and the other begins? Most probably the majority of language users would classify those words differently (Internet source 2).
Primary cognitive grammar view on word meaning is expressed by Ronald Langacker who argues that the encyclopedic approach to the meanings of words does not always do them justice. According to this linguist what a word refers to is the profile and is always “relativised to a larger background knowledge structure” called its base (Internet source 3). Langacker claims that a given word “constitutes both the designatum-the entity designated by a given word-as well as the larger knowledge unit with respect to which the designatum is relativised” (Internet source 3). It is illustrated in the following example where the word elbow includes the profile, as well as the base.

Moreover, Langacker divides linguistic expressions into two categories: nominal predications and relational predications. The former are, according to him, conceptually autonomous, which means that they refer to entities which are conceptually independent, like house, or tree. On the other hand, the latter are conceptually dependent, meaning that they can only count on other lexical items to complete their meaning. Langacker notes that we can conceptualize nominal entries without evoking any particular events. However, events cannot be realized without any participants to interact and carry them out. Thus, in the sentence: Mark ate a sandwich in the kitchen the verb ate relates to sandwich, kitchen and Mark all of which are conceptually autonomous. By analogy, in establishes a spatial relation between the kitchen and sandwich (Evans, Green, 2006: 534).
Yet, most of the approaches to the study of meaning with their different methods of analysis and perspectives are united in the study of metaphors. Although much has been recently said about their nature, usage and purpose in all varieties of discourse, there is probably equally much that remains to be said. Thus linguists attempt to account for them in many different ways, some of which can be seen in the following chapter.

Contemporary views on meaning

admin — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:18:26 +0000

As it was mentioned before, meaning is analyzed by many linguists from various points of view, often representing different branches of linguistics. However, no matter what point of view a given scholar assumes, certain theories are generally agreed on. Among those theories there is the most basic and probably the most important distinction of the meanings of words into their conceptual sense and their associative sense (Finch, 1998:140). The conceptual sense or meaning of a word is what can be found in its description in a dictionary. It is simply what the word designates and it is what most people mean by the meaning of a word. Within the framework of componential analysis the conceptual meaning of a given word is ascertained on the basis of its so called semantic features. There are no limitations to the number of features that are chosen to describe a word, but the most vital ones are always chosen, or ones that can easily distinguish meaning of one word from another one. If, for example, the word man was to be characterized as ‘human, male, adult’ it ought to be enough information to distinguish the meaning of this word from for example woman described as ‘human, adult, female’. An exemplary relationship between words might look as follows (Yule, 2006:101):

For the sake of comparison of certain words, or groups of words, practically any feature may be chosen. Nevertheless, when it comes to providing a definition of a word the most patently obvious, fixed and lasting features are preferred. All the same, in languages such as English one word often has more than one meaning, or conceptual sense. The English word bank might denote a piece of land along the side of a river, or a financial institution; the word bat may be used to refer to a flying creature, or a wooden stick used in baseball. The polysemic nature of most lexical items needs to be taken into consideration when a definition is to be provided, as well as the possible associative meaning variations of words.

Along with the conceptual meaning, many words have what is in linguistics called associative meaning. As the example with Friday the thirteenth showed, there can be no doubt that certain words are used in a way which indicates that there is something more to them than a simple referent. Associative meaning is a complex matter and its several different types can be distinguished, but the most easily recognized one is probably connotation. The connotation of a word is much less determined than its denotation and might vary depending on culture, or in extreme cases on former experiences of a particular language user. For instance, words such as stubborn, pig-headed and strong-willed have basically the same meaning which could be described more or less as ‘determined not to change mind’. Yet each encapsulates a distinct conceptualization with its emergent mental imagery. However, describing someone as strong-willed connotes admiration for the level of intensity of someone’s will, while pig-headed connotes frustration in dealing with someone (Finch, 1998:142).

One more type of associative meaning is collocation, although it might be a bit less obvious. Collocation is the way in which some words are often used together. A good example here is the saying ‘Merry Christmas’. Although the words happy, merry and cheerful mean essentially the same thing, it might sound awkward to wish somebody ‘cheerful Christmas’ and the only explanation here is that it is not the way people speak. Therefore, although a dictionary might provide very similar definitions for the three above mentioned words, it seems that they are not identical, if not in meaning, then in use (Finch, 1998:143). In Langacker’s terms anything that the speaker needs to know about a word in order to use it properly or comprehend it properly is part of the word in question.

Another important thing to remember about words and their associative meaning is stylistic variation. Lexical items often have closely related, almost identical meanings and they differ only in the way they are used, or rather in their formality. Some words quickly become outdated, otherwise their use is confined only to particular contexts such as a colloquial conversation, or in an academic lecture. The differences are oftentimes minute and in such cases only the most skilful language users are aware of them. The following diagram shows how many various words can refer to one concept depending on the situation (Finch, 1998:145):

The diagram above illustrates how certain words are related, in that they have the same, or very close meaning, however their usage differs depending on the situation they are to be used in. But there are also relations among words that are based on the scope of the meaning itself. Thus it can be said that the relationship is hierarchical since the words with the narrowest meanings are often included within the scope of broader terms, which still can be included in others. In such a relation the word at the lowest level, that is the one with the narrowest meaning, is called the ‘subordinate term’ while the one which includes it is called ‘superordinate term’. In the following diagram (Yule, 2006:105) ‘poodle’ is subordinate to ‘dog’ which is its superordinate. At the same time ‘dog’ is subordinate to ‘animal’, its superordinate.

Therefore, the meanings and senses of sometimes very different words have certain relations which influence their usage. While it might seem quite ordinary for individual words, the case is more complex when it comes to more elaborate or novel utterances. The relations between words are vital for understanding what they precisely denote, how this meaning relates to other senses, as well as how it may further develop.

One such development can be noticed in metaphorical expressions, that is phrases which transfer some of the semantic features of one word (concept) onto another. Although, for a long time, it was assumed that metaphors are characteristic only of literature, recent discoveries proved that they are also abundant in the everyday speech. Some metaphorical expressions have been in use for so long that they are already lexicalized and are considered to be ‘dead metaphors’. Phrases such as: foot of the mountain, hand on a clock, or eye of the needle are just a few instances of metaphors which are in common use, yet they illustrate in what way word meanings may change. Although it might not seem so, the processes of such changes of meaning are cognitively complex. Therefore they are accounted for in more detail in the further part of this thesis.

What is meant by ‘meaning’

admin — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:35:20 +0000

The question of what is ‘meaning’ is very complex, thus the answer is far from straightforward. Although certain aspects of meaning are seemingly easy to explain, such as, for example, the denotation of concrete nouns, in many instances the issue is not quite clear-cut. The meaning of words has traditionally been studied by semantics, a branch of linguistics dealing with the meaning of words and phrases as such, frequently omitting their use in sentences. The meaning of words and their use, as well as the differences between the ‘dictionary’ meaning of words and speaker intended meaning is studied by pragmatics in general, or by semantics in cognitive linguistics. Going even further, the meaning of larger extracts of both spoken and written texts is analyzed by discourse analysis.

According to Finch (1998:136) discourse analysts suggest that what one utterance means can in some cases have up to five possible interpretations. The first is a surface meaning which is described as the meaning, or sense of which all parties are aware. The second constitutes of the speaker’s meaning, i.e. what the speaker really intended to convey. This is not consciously known by the listener. Next comes the hearer’s meaning, which is what the hearer perceives, but may not be consciously intended by the speaker. Finally there is the listener’s meaning, i.e., what is understood by a person who overhears the conversation, but does not participate in it.

However, even in the case of the most easily explainable words, i.e., nouns, there are many intricacies which make it difficult to state appropriately what a given word indeed means. Dictionary entries usually give the most basic explanations based on various relations between words, or in the case of concrete nouns pictures are sometimes shown to illustrate what the word denotes. Yet, it is not so easy with abstract nouns such as love, truth, or strength. Also, many words seem to mean something more than what the dictionary shows at the first glance. For instance ‘Friday the thirteenth’ could be defined in a dictionary as a day between Thursday the twelfth and Saturday the fourteenth, and that would reflect the location of the day in concrete terms of the phrase. Yet, for many speakers from western countries this day is associated with misfortune, but probably even the most advanced and thorough dictionaries will not mention it.

Being aware of the difficulties mentioned above while trying to account for all the words and all their possible senses, various scholars have undertaken the study of this complex matter. Philosophy, as a queen of all sciences, demanded a language that would both enable the unambiguous formulating of thoughts and at the same time provide the flexibility which would allow it. That is probably why philosophers were among the first scholars to analyze languages thoroughly. At the end of the XIXth century, quite some time before the birth of modern linguistics tradition, Gottlob Frege, a German philosopher and mathematician, distinguished between the meaning of a word as a sense, and as a reference. According to Frege, the word’s meaning as a reference is to tell that a thing is, while the meaning as sense tells the language users what a thing is. In other words, “meaning as reference proposes an identity, while meaning as sense proposes interpretation” (Cunningham, 2005:566).

Such views made some advances in the study of words and their meanings. Needles to say, this got incorporated into semantics as the difference between denotation and connotation. However, in the western linguistic tradition it was the very famous scholar Ferdinand de Saussure who started systematically describing the meanings of words and his pioneering works paved the way for further analysis and the emergence of modern linguistics.

The nature of signs according to Saussure.

Saussure claimed that a word is made up of two elements, namely the physical form (string of letters in writing, and phonemes in speech) and the sense, also known as the meaning. However, in Saussurean terminology a sound image is called the signifier, whereas what the word refers to is described as the signified. This is so, since, for Saussure, words are signs and the signifier acts as a label not for any object, but for the mental concept. Only the combination of signifier and signified can denote an object which Saussure calls the referent. Finch (1998:139) summarizes it in the form of a graph on the example of the sign tree: