Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T00:31:39.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Class-inclusion and correspondence models as discourse types: A framework for approaching metaphorical discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2005

LIONEL WEE
LIONEL WEE
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore, Block AS 5, 7 Arts Link, Singapore 117570, ellweeha@nus.edu.sg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Psycholinguistic attempts to model metaphor processing can be broadly classified as correspondence or class-inclusion in orientation. This article develops a framework for approaching metaphorical discourse by reconstructing these processing models as discourse types that are associated with particular activity types. In doing so, it treats these discourse types as particular strategies of recontextualization, where, depending on the discourse type being used, the metaphor source – and consequently, the status of the discourse itself as metaphorical – is either foregrounded or not. The second part of the article applies the framework to texts embedded in two different activity types: popular science texts which aim to explain technical concepts, and management texts which aim to provide management tips. The former, it is shown, uses the correspondence discourse type, while the latter uses the class-inclusion type.I would like to thank Desmond Allison, Jane Hill, Benny Lee, K. P. Mohanan, Rajendra Singh, Christopher Stroud, and two anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions. Special thanks to Lim Cherng Wren for inspiring this article. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any errors that remain.

Keywords

Activity typediscourse typemetaphorrecontextualization
Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 219 - 238
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Black, Max (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Blanchard, Ken, & Shula, Don (2001). The little book of coaching: Motivating people to be winners. London: Harper Collins Business.
Briner, Bob (1996). The management methods of Jesus: Ancient wisdom for modern business. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Caballero, Rosario (2003). Metaphor and genre: The presence and role of metaphor in the building review. Applied Linguistics 24:145–67.Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynn (1999). Operationalizing ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In Lynn Cameron & Graham Low (eds.), Researching and applying metaphor, 3–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, Richard (1986). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: Norton.
Drew, Paul, & Heritage, John (1992). Analyzing talk at work. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, Paul, & Holt, Elizabeth. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society 27:495–522.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gentner, Dedre (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In David S. Miall (ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives, 106–32. Brighton: Harvester.
Gentner, Dedre (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7:155–70.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, & Bowdle, Brian F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol 16:223–47.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre; Bowdle, Brian F.; Wolff, Phillip; & Boronat, Consuelo (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In Dedre Gentner et al. (eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, 199–253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (1992). Categorization and metaphor understanding. Psychological Review 99:572–77.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. & Gerard Steen (eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, 145–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., & O'Brien, Jennifer E. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation of idiomatic meaning. Cognition 36:35–68.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8:183–206.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics 31:919–29.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel (ed.) (2001). Special issue: Models of figurative language. Metaphor and Symbol 16(3–4).Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, Sam; Keysar, Boaz; & McGlone, Matthew S. (1992). Metaphor understanding and accessing conceptual schema. Psychological Review 99:578–81.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam, & McGlone, Matthew S. (1999). When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics 31:1541–58.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam; McGlone, Matthew S.; & Manfredi, Deanna (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36:50–67.Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.
Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Goodwin, Charles, & Duranti, Alessandro. (1992). Rethinking context: an introduction. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 1–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gribbin, John (1984). In search of Schrodinger's cat: Quantum physics and reality. London: Corgi.
Grice, Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Speech acts. Syntax and semantics vol. 3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interaction phenomenon, 229–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnstone, Barbara (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Komisarjevsky, Chris, & Komisarjevsky, Reina (2000). Peanut butter and jelly management: Tales from parenthood, lessons for managers. New York: Amacon.
Lakoff, George (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd ed., 202–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark (1990). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Levinson, Stephen (1992). Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Originally published in Linguistics 17:356–99.Google Scholar
Linell, Per (1998). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text 18:143–57.Google Scholar
Low, Graham (1997). Celebrations and SQUID sandwiches: Figurative language and the manipulation of academic writing. Project report, University of York, EFL Unit.
Moon, Rosamund (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Myers, Greg (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies 5:265–79.Google Scholar
Nattinger, James. R. (1980). A lexical phrase grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly 14:337–44.Google Scholar
Nayak, Nandini, & Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (1990). Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 116:315–30.Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review 86:161–80.Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant (1998). Rethinking recontextualization in professional discourse studies: An epilogue. Text 18:301–18.Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant (2000). Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity. In Srikant Sarangi & Malcolm Coulthard (eds.), Discourse and social life, 1–27. Harlow: Pearson.
Sarangi, Srikant, & Roberts, Celia (1999). Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scheuer, Jann (2001). Recontextualization and communicative styles in job interviews. Discourse Studies 3:223–48.Google Scholar
Scheuer, Jann (2003). Habitus as the principle for social practice: A proposal for critical discourse analysis. Language in Society 32:143–75.Google Scholar
Searle, John (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, Deborah (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tourangeau, Roger, & Sternberg, Robert (1981). Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology 13:27–55.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, & Sternberg, Robert (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition 11:203–44.Google Scholar
Whitney, John O., & Packer, Tina (2000). Power plays: Shakespeare's lessons in leadership and management. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Zander, Rosamund Stone, & Zander, Benjamin (2000). The art of possibility. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.