In this paper we explore the differences between several types of temporary conceptualization and the different ways of representing them verbally, and claim that, in the most creative or extended cases of metaphor, utterance interpretation involves a temporary conceptualization or temporary concept of the target domain. Unlike non-metaphorical temporary conceptualizations, metaphorical conceptualization requires a mechanism of cross-domain mapping (from source to target domain) and, in many of these cases, the source domain is already a temporary conceptualization of an ad hoc category, an ad hoc concept, and thus their interpretation involves a recursive temporary conceptualization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarsalouL. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968
2.
BarsalouL. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure in concepts. In NeisserU. (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge University Press.
3.
BarsalouL. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In LehrerA.KittayE. F. (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 21–74). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4.
BarsalouL. W. (2010). Ad hoc categories. In HoganP. C. (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 87–88). Cambridge University Press.
5.
BarsalouL. W. (2012). The human conceptual system. In SpiveyM. J.McRaeK.JoanisseM. F. (Eds.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 239–258). Cambridge University Press.
6.
BarsalouL. W. (2016). Situated conceptualization: Theory and applications. In CoelloY.FischerM. H. (Eds.), Perceptual and emotional embodiment. Foundations of embodied cognition volume 1 (pp. 11–37). Routledge.
7.
BarsalouL. W. (2017). Cognitively plausible theory of concept composition. In HamptonJ. A.WinterY. (Eds.), Compositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology (pp. 9–30). Springer.
8.
BarsalouL. W.YehW.LukaB. J.OlsethK. L.MixK. S.WuL. (1993). Concepts and meaning. In BealsK.CookeG.KathmanD.McCulloughK. E.KitaS.TestenD. (Eds.), Chicago linguistics society 29: Papers from parasession on conceptual representations (pp. 23–61). Chicago Linguistics Society.
BlackM. (1977). More about metaphor. Dialectica, 31(3/4), 431–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1977.tb01296.x
11.
BowdleB.GentnerD. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
12.
CarstonR. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Blackwell.
13.
CarstonR. (2010). Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x
14.
GentnerD. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(83)80009-3
KittayE. F. (1987). Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford University Press.
21.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we Live by. University of Chicago Press.
22.
LehrerA. (1974). Semantic fields and lexical structure. American Elsevier.
23.
MonfriesH. (1970). An introduction to critical appreciation for foreign learners: An anthology of prose passages and verse. Macmillan Education.
24.
RomeroE.SoriaB. (2005). Metaphoric concepts and language. In AceroJ. J.LeonardiP. (Eds.), Facets of concepts (pp. 185–208). Il Poligrafo.
25.
RomeroE.SoriaB. (2007). A view of novel metaphor in the light of Recanati’s proposals. In FrápolliM. J. (Ed.), Saying, meaning and referring. Essays on François Recanati’s philosophy of language (pp. 145–159). Palgrave.
26.
RomeroE.SoriaB. (2010). Phrasal pragmatics in Robyn Carston’s programme. In SoriaB.RomeroE. (Eds.), Explicit communication: Essays on Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (pp. 183–198). Palgrave.
RomeroE.SoriaB. (2021). Philosophy of language and metaphor. In StalmaszczykP. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the philosophy of language (pp. 639–658). Cambridge University Press.
29.
RomeroE.SoriaB. (in press). Metaphorical argumentation. Informal Logic.
30.
ShenY. (1992). Metaphors and categories. Poetics Today, 13(4), 771–794. https://doi.org/10.2307/1773298
31.
SperberD.WilsonD. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.
32.
SperberD.WilsonD. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphor. In GibbsR. W. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
33.
WilsonD.CarstonR. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language, 21(3), 404–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x
