WHAT DO METAPHORS OF UNDERSTANDING HIDE?
Philip Porwol
Słowa kluczowe:
conceptual metaphor, hiding, highlighting, frame semantics, understandingAbstrakt
Many previous studies on the conceptual function of metaphors have focused on their function of highlighting aspects of target concepts. From the beginning of this research, it was known that conceptual metaphors also hide aspects of the target concept; however, this aspect has been less studied. This study builds upon the idea that the hiding aspect of a specific metaphor should be identified in relation to other metaphors for the same concept. A method is presented to detail this relation based on the theory of semantic frames and the FrameNet resource to identify the hidden aspects and apply it to a corpus of 298 elicited metaphor texts on the target concept of understanding. The analysis revealed that certain conceptual aspects are consistently hidden by a majority of metaphors, pointing to patterns in conceptualization. Using this approach, six aspects frequently hidden by metaphors were identified: Sociality, Transfer, Ownership, Perception, Foundation and Duration.
Bibliografia
Cienki, A. (2007). Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In: D. Geeraerts, H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 170–187). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0007.
Danesi, M. (1990). Thinking is seeing: Visual metaphors and the nature of abstract thought. Semiotica, 80(3–4), 221–238; https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1990.80.3-4.221.
Danesi, M. (2001). Light permits knowing: Three metaphorological principles for the study of abstract concept-formation. Semiotica, 136, 133-149; https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2001.069.
Deignan, A., & Cameron, L. (2009). A re-examination of understanding is seeing. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 220–243; https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.220.
Fillmore, C.J. (2014). Frames, constructions, and FrameNet. In: T. Herbst, H. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions Collocations Patterns (pp. 121-166). De Gruyter Mouton; https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110356854.121.
Flusberg, S.J., Holmes, K.J., Thibodeau, P.H., Nabi, R.L., & Matlock, T. (2024). The psychology of framing: How everyday language shapes the way we think, feel, and act. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 25(3), 105–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006241246966.
Gemmell, M.S. (2015). Semantic role alignment in metaphor: A frame semantic approach to metaphoric meaning [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin]. University of Texas Libraries Repository.
https://hdl.handle.net/2152/31444.
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1969). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Volume 1: Cognitive domain. McKay.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press; https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321-347; https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052.
Kövecses, Z. (2021). Standard and extended conceptual metaphor theory. In: X. Wen, J.R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 191–203). Routledge; https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708.
Kövecses, Z. (2022). Some recent issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In: M. Prandi, M. Rossi (Eds.), Researching Metaphors. Towards a Comprehensive Account (pp. 29–41). Routledge; https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003184041.
Kövecses, Z. (2023). Metaphor and discourse. A view from extended conceptual metaphor theory. In: M. Handford, J.P. Gee (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 170–184). Routledge; https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035244.
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master Metaphor List (2nd ed.). University of California.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press; https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press.
Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174; https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Low, G. (2015). A practical validation model for researching elicited metaphor. In: W. Wan, G. Low (Eds.), Elicited metaphor analysis in educational discourse (pp. 15–37). John Benjamins Publishing Company; https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.3.01low.
Porwol, P., & Scharlau, I. (2025). An annotated corpus of elicited metaphors of explaining and understanding using MIPVU. OSF. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://doi.org.17605/OSF.IO/Y6SMX.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(3), 259–274; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00006-X.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M.R.L., Johnson, C.R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2010). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. International Computer Science Institute.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13; https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004.
Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241; https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753.
Steen, G.J., Dorst, A.G., Herrmann, J.B., Kaal, A.A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. John Benjamins Publishing Company; https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14.
Steen, G. (2011). Metaphor, language, and discourse processes. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 585–591; https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606424.
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. John Benjamins Publishing Company; https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14.
Sullivan, K. (2016). Integrating constructional semantics and conceptual metaphor. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 141–165; https://doi.org/ 10.1075/cf.8.2.02sul.
Sullivan, K. (2017). Conceptual metaphor. In: B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 385–406). Cambridge University Press; https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.025.
Sullivan, K. (2023). Three levels of framing. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 14(5), e1651; https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1651.
Taylor, C., & Drewsbury, B.M. (2018). On the problem and promise of metaphor use in science and science communication. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1); https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19il.1538.
Tkachenko, M., Malyuk, M., Holmanyuk, A., & Liubimov, N. (2020). Label Studio: Data labeling software. Open source version retrieved from https://github.com/HumanSignal/labelstudio.
