contEXt
1. INTRODUCTION
In my book Metaphor in Culture, I show that there is both universality and variation in the conceptual metaphors people produce and use.1 I argue, furthermore, that both the universality and the variation result from what I call the “pressure of coherence.” People tend to be coherent both with their bodies and the surrounding context when, in general, they conceptualize the world or when they conceptualize it metaphorically. Since the body and its processes are universal, many of our conceptual metaphors will be (near-)universal. And, in the same way, since the contexts are variable, many of our conceptual metaphors will also be variable.
In other words, the principle of the pressure of coherence takes two forms: the pressure of the body and the pressure of context.
Cognitive linguists have paid more attention to the role of the body in the creation of conceptual metaphors, supporting the view of embodied cognition. In my own work, I attempted to redress the balance by focusing on what I take to be the equally important role of the context. In particular, I suggested that there are a number of questions we have to deal with in order arrive at a reasonable theory of metaphor variation. The questions are as follows:
What are the dimensions of metaphor variation?
What are the aspects of conceptual metaphors that are involved in variation?
What are the causes of metaphor variation?
The first question has to do with “where” metaphor variation can be found. My survey of variation in conceptual metaphors indicated that variation is most likely to occur cross-culturally, within-culture, or individually, as well as historically and developmentally. I called these the “dimensions” of metaphor variation. Conceptual metaphors tend to vary along these dimensions.
* Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest 1 Kövecses 2005.
28
The second question assumes that conceptual metaphors have a number of different aspects, including the following: source domain, target domain, experi-ential basis, relationship between the source and target, metaphorical linguistic expressions, mappings, entailments (inferences), nonlinguistic realizations, blends, and cultural models. These either produce metaphor variation (e.g., blends) or are affected by it (e.g., source domain, metaphorical linguistic expressions, entailments).
The third question is the crucial one for my purposes here. It asks what the factors, or “forces,” are that are responsible for variation in conceptual metaphors.
I proposed two distinct though interlocking groups of factors: differential experi-ence and differential cognitive styles. I found it convenient to distinguish various subcases of differential experience: awareness of context, differential memory, and differential concerns and interests.
Awareness of context includes awareness of the physical context, social context, cultural context, but also of the immediate communicative situation. Differential memory is the memory of events and objects shared by a community or of a single individual; we can think of it as the history of a group or that of an individual.
Differential concerns and interests can also characterize either groups or individu-als. It is the general attitude with which groups or individuals act or are predisposed to act in the world. Differential experience, thus, characterizes both groups and individuals, and, as context, it ranges from global to local. The global context is the general knowledge that the whole group shares and that, as a result, affects all group members in using metaphors. The local context is the specific knowledge that pertains to a specific situation involving particular individuals. More generally, it can be suggested that the global context is essentially a shared system of con-cepts in long-term memory (reflected in conventional linguistic usage), whereas the local context is the situation in which particular individuals conceptualize a specific situation.
By contrast, differential cognitive styles can be defined as the characteristic ways in which members of a group employ the cognitive processes available to them. Such cognitive processes as elaboration, specificity, conventionalization, transparency, (experiential) focus, viewpoint preference, prototype categorization, framing, metaphor vs. metonymy preference, and others, though universally avail-able to all humans, are not employed in the same way by groups or individuals.
Since the cognitive processes used can vary, there can be variation in the use of metaphors as well.
In sum, the two large groups of causes, differential experience and differential cognitive styles, account for much of the variation we find in the use of conceptual metaphors.
29
2. CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCE ON THE CREATION OF METAPHORS
Let us now review some of these causes as contextual factors that influence the creation of metaphors in particular communicative contexts.
Differential experience
Surrounding discourse: Sometimes it is the surrounding linguistic context (i.e., what comes before and after a particular unit of discourse) that influences the choice of metaphors, as in the sentence “The Americanization of Japanese car industry shifts into higher gear,” analyzed by Kövecses.2 The expression shift into higher gear is used because the immediate linguistic context involves the “car industry.”
Previous discourses on the same topic: Given a particular topic, a range of conceptual metaphors can be set up. Such metaphors, that is, metaphorical source domains, often lead to new source domains in continuations of the debate involving the topic by, for example, offering a source domain relative to one of former ones.
This commonly occurs in scientific discussion.3
Dominant forms of discourse and intertextuality: It is common practice that a particular metaphor in one dominant form of discourse is recycled in other discourses. One example is Biblical discourse. Biblical metaphors are often recycled in later discourses assigning new values to the later versions.
Ideology underlying discourse: Ideology underlying a piece of discourse can deter-mine the metaphors that are used. Goatly’s4 work shows that different ideologies lead to different metaphors.
Knowledge about the main elements of the discourse: The main elements of discourse include the speaker/conceptualizer1, topic/theme of discourse, and hearer/
addressee/conceptualizer2. Knowledge about any one of these may lead to the use of particular metaphors.
Physical environment: This is the physical setting in which a communicative exchange takes place. The physical setting includes the physical circumstances, viewing arrangement, salient properties of the environment, and so on. These aspects of the physical environment can influence the choice of metaphors.
Social situation: Social aspects of the setting can involve such distinctions as man vs.
woman, power relations in society, conceptions of work, and many others. They
2 See Kövecses 2005.
3 See, e.g., Nerlich 2007.
4 Goatly 2008.
30
can all play a role in which metaphors are used in the course of metaphorical conceptualization.
Cultural situation: The cultural factors that affect metaphorical conceptualization include the dominant values and characteristics of members of a group, the key ideas or concepts that govern their lives, the various subgroups that make up the group, the various products of culture, and a large number of other things.
All of these cultural aspects of the setting can supply members of the group with a variety of metaphorical source domains.
History: By history I mean the memory of events and objects in members of a group.
Such memories can be used to create highly conventional metaphors (e.g., carry coal to Newcastle) or they can be used to understand situations in novel ways.5 Interests and concerns: These are the major interests and concerns of the group or person participating in the discourse. Both groups and individuals may be dedicated to particular activities, rather than others. The commonly and habitually pursued activities become metaphorical source domains more readily than those that are marginal.
Differential cognitive styles
Experiential focus: Given multiple aspects of embodiment for a particular target domain, groups of speakers and even individuals may differ in which aspect of its embodiment they will use for metaphorical conceptualization.6
Salience: In a sense, salience is the converse of focusing on something. In focusing, a person highlights (an aspect of) something, whereas in the case of salience (an aspect of) something becomes salient for the person. In different cultures different concepts are salient, that is, psychologically more prominent. Salient concepts are more likely to become both source and target domains than nonsalient ones and their salience may depend on the ideology that underlies discourse.
Prototype categorization: Often, there are differences in the prototypes across groups and individuals. When such prototypical categories become source domains for metaphors, the result is variation in metaphor.
Framing: Groups and individuals may use the “same” source concept in metaphori-cal conceptualization, but they may frame the “same” concept differentially.
The resulting metaphors will show variation (in proportion to differences in framing).
5 Kövecses 2005.
6 See Kövecses 2005.
31
Metaphor vs. metonymy preference: Several cognitive processes may be used to conceptualize a particular target domain. Groups and individuals may differ in which cognitive process they prefer. A common difference across groups and people involves whether they prefer metaphorical or metonymical conceptu-alization for a target domain.
Elaboration: As noted by Barcelona,7 a particular conceptual metaphor may give rise to a larger or smaller number of linguistic expressions in different languages.
If it gives rise to a larger number, it is more elaborated.
Specificity: Barcelona8 notes that metaphors may vary according to which level of a conceptual hierarchy they are expressed in two groups. A group of speakers may express a particular meaning at one level, whereas the same meaning may be expressed at another level of the hierarchy by another group.
Conventionalization: Barcelona9 observes that linguistic instantiations of the same conceptual metaphor in two languages may differ in their degree of con-ventionalization. A linguistic metaphor in one language may be more or less conventional than the corresponding linguistic metaphor in another language.
These are some of the contextual factors that do seem to play a role in shap-ing metaphorical conceptualization, more specifically, in creatshap-ing (often novel) metaphors. Most of the time the factors do not function by themselves; instead, they exert their influence on the conceptualization process jointly. Several of the factors listed above can simultaneously influence the use of metaphors.
I will now examine two examples in some detail to demonstrate these mecha-nisms: First, I will analyze a case where the physical properties of a situation are (at least in part) responsible for the emergence of a (novel) metaphor. Second, I will turn to the concept of self to see how ideology as context may influence its conceptualization. The examination of the second example will lead to a need to refine the view concerning the influence of context on metaphor.
7 Barcelona 2001.
8 Barcelona 2001.
9 Barcelona 2001.
32