Refine
Year of publication
- 2008 (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Metapher (2)
- Denken (1)
- Emotion (1)
- Ethnolinguistik (1)
- Forschungsmethode (1)
- Kritische Diskursanalyse (1)
- Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese (1)
- Sprachdeterminismus (1)
- Sprache (1)
- Sprachliches Relativitätsprinzip (1)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (2)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
- Peer-Review (1)
- Verlags-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- Plural Publishing (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
Discourse metaphors
(2008)
The article introduces the notion of discourse metaphor, relatively stable metaphorical mappings that function as a key framing device within a particular discourse over a certain period of time. Discourse metaphors are illustrated by case studies from three lines of research: on the cultural imprint of metaphors, on the negotiation of metaphors and on cross-linguistic occurrence. The source concepts of discourse metaphors refer to phenomenologically salient real or fictitious objects that are part of interactional space (i.e., can be pointed at, like MACHINES or HOUSES) and/or occupy an important place in cultural imagination. Discourse metaphors change both over time and across the discourses where they are used. The implications of focussing on different types of source domains for our thinking about the embodiment and sociocultural situatedness of metaphor is discussed, with particular reference to recent developments in Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Research on discourse suggests that situatedness is a crucial factor in the functioning and dynamics of metaphor.
Badania etnolingwistyczne zdobyly w ciqgu ostatnich dwu dekad znaozna populamosc. Najwazniejsz^ formuh\ nietaforycznn okreslajqcii glowny przedmiot tych badaií jest .jçzykowy obraz swiata”. W zwiqzku z tym. iz powstaj^ obecnie projekty studiów komparatyslycznych na duzíi skalç, warto byt moze rozwazyc, czego takie ujçcie etnolingwistyki nie uwzglçdnia. Wizualna metafora obrazów implikuje, ze mówincy si\ w slanie wyjsc ix>za swiat i patrzec nan (oraz nazywac go) z zewmprz. Artykul oinawia dwie kcinsekwencje tej inetafory, które mog^ przysporzyc problemów. Po pierwsze, wyizolowanie jçzyka ze swiata ludzkich dzialan, którego jyzyk wszak jest czçsci^. prowadzi do przyjçcia kognitywistycznego modeln znaczenia jako oddzielnego stmmienia komunikaeji. Taki model nie pasuje do eodziennego doswiadezenia przezroczystosci jyzyka. Po drugie, wyizolowanie jçzyka z zycia sprzyja stosowaniu metod „bezczasowych” oraz studiom nad stowami wyalKtrahowanymi z sytuaeji, w której zostaly one uzyte (jesli nie wyjçtymi z kontekstu). Przyjmuj^c takie metafory i inetody, inozetny stracic z oczu znaczn^ czçsc tego, co jest istotne dla jyzyka poUx;znego — przedmiotu badan etnonauki.
‘Linguistic relativity’ has become a major keyword in debates on the psychological significance of language diversity. In this context, the term ‘relativity’ was originally taken on loan from Einstein’s then-recent theories by Edward Sapir (1924) and Benjamin L. Whorf (1940). The present paper assesses how far the idea of linguistic relativity does analogically build on relevant insights in modern physics, and fails to find any substantial analogies. The term was used rhetorically by Sapir and Whorf, and has since been incorporated into a cognitivist research programme that seeks to answer whether ‘language influences thought’. Contemporary research on ‘linguistic relativity’ has developed into a distinct way of studying language diversity, which shares a lot with the universalistic cognitivist framework it opposes, but little with relational approaches in science.