3. Experiments
3.4 Conclusion
be instituted in any follow-up studies.
Kennedy 2000) support the view that novel similes and novel metaphors are processed in essentially the same way, supporting the view from Concep- tual Metaphor Theory that both forms represent linguistic instantiations of cross-domain mappings. The most relevant evidence, however, comes from the experiments reported here: Experiments 1 and 3 make use of grammati- cal similes as stimuli, while Experiment 2 uses grammatical metaphors. All three experiments, however, point towards the same relationship between processing for the stimuli, and the metaphorical schemata upon which they are based.
As discussed in Sanford 2012, the factors bearing on the productivity of metaphors are many, including both cognitive (e.g., the embodiment of met- aphors, as described by Lakoff & Johnson 1980, whereby metaphors often draw on the physical experience of inhabiting a body) and stylistic (e.g., novelty and cleverness) constraints. Frequency is one among these. The usage statistics reported here are therefore inherently limited in explaining real creative novel metaphors.
In several cases, results for specific pairs of domains point to cases in which the metaphors used in the study were not stated at a level of schema- ticity that accurately captures the productive range of the metaphor (a criti- cism elaborated in Clausner & Croft 1997), leading to stimuli that are ques- tionable in their relation to an overarching schema. In Experiment 2, for example, results relating to the source domain HOPE run contrary to both the corpus study, and the other two experiments- apparently, because utter- ances such as ‘my hope is the sun,’ predicated directly on HOPE IS LIGHT, run contrary to a metaphor that might be more accurately described as pro- filing light sources as things that nourish hope. PEOPLE ARE BATTERIES might be more accurately phrased PEOPLE RUN ON BATTERIES, lead- ing to issues with the aptness of a stimulus such ‘kids are AAA batteries.’
Metaphors were drawn from the Master Metaphor List (Lakoff, Espenson,
& Schwartz 1991) for reasons elaborated in §4.1 (in short, if the metaphors on which the experiments in based are in error, they at least aren’t flawed in a way that reflects researcher bias). The issue underscores the need for all posited metaphors to be evaluated closely against corpus usage; that the experiments found an effect despite such issues points towards a significant effect outweighing issues relating to specific groups of stimuli.
These results are interpreted as providing strong support for the view of metaphor outlined here and in Sanford 2012. Speakers’ repeated exposure to utterances predicated on a particular cross-domain mapping license the for- mation of a metaphorical representation—a conventionalized link between two domains, corresponding to ‘X IS Y’ Lakovian conceptual metaphors.
For language users in the act of engaging in figurative speech, previous exposure to metaphorical systems has a direct, measurable effect on the way in which they use and process metaphorically predicated utterances.
The corpus study reported here indicates that metaphors vary widely from one another in their frequency of use. This variation is not surprising of itself (although the extent of this variation is something that I, at least, have found startling), but the implications of this variation for our understand- ing of metaphor are both diverse— relating not only to the processing of metaphorical utterances, but also to changes in metaphorical systems over time as usage affects the structure of the system itself in ways that have been well-attested at other levels of linguistic structure— and largely unex- plored. In accounting for both the ways in which individual speakers use metaphor and the distribution of metaphor in discourse, this study points towards deeper insight to be gained from enriching our current understand- ing of metaphor with a greater awareness of the effect of speakers’ previous exposure to metaphor on the processing of metaphorical utterances, and the ways in which this bears, cumulatively, on the emergence and diachronic development of metaphorical systems in human conceptual systems.
References
Aisenman, R. 1999. Structure-Mapping and the Simile-Metaphor Preference.
Metaphor and Symbol 14(1), 45-51.
Baayen, R. & Lieber, M. 1991. Productivity and English Derivation: a corpus-based study. Linguistics 29, 801-843.
Blank, G. D. 1988. Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity 3(1), 21-36.
Bowdle, B. & Gentner, D. 2005. The Career of Metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1), 193-216.
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. 1995. Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 425-455.
Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. & Eddington, D. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of
‘becoming.’ Language 82, 323-355.
Bybee, J & Hopper, P. 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chiappe, D. & Kennedy, J. 2000. Are metaphors Elliptical Similes? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(4), 371-398.
Clausner, T. & Croft, W. 1997. Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors.
Cognitive Science 21(3), 247-282.
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dabrowska, E. & Szczerbinski, M. 2006. Polish children’s productivity with case marking: the role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological diversity.
Journal of Child Language 33, 559-597.
Davies, M. (2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 385 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://www.americancorpus.
org.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. and Szalay, L. B. 1991. Understanding Mexicans and Americans:
cultural perspectives in conflict. Plenum Publishing Company: New York.
Gentner, D. and Wolff, P. 1997. Alignment in the Processing of Metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 331-355.
Gentner, D. and Bowdle, B. 2001. Convention, Form, and Figurative Language Processing. Metaphor & Symbol 16(3&4), 223-247.
Hare, M. L., Ford, M., & Marlsen-Wilson, W. 2001. Ambiguity and frequency effects in regular verb inflection. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (Eds) Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 181- Haught, C. 2005. A Tale of Two Tropes: On the Relation between Metaphor and 200.
Simile. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Dissertation.
Hoffman, R. 1984. Recent Psycholinguistic Research on Figurative Language.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 433 (1), 137-166.
Kövecses, Z. 1995. American friendship and the scope of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics 6, 315-346.
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. 1991. The master metaphor list. Draft 2nd ed. Technical Report, University of California at Berkeley.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Moder, C. L. 1992. Productivity and categorization in morphological classes.
Buffalo, NY: SUNY Dissertation.
Morton, J. 1969. The interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review 76, 165-178.
Pierrehumbert, J. 1994. Syllable structure and word structure: a study of triconsonantal clusters in English. In P. Keating (Ed.) Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form: Papers in Laboratory Phonology III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 68-190.
Rosch, E. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328-350.
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. 1975. Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573-605.
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Milliken, J. A. 1970. Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9, 487-492.
Sanford, D. R. 2008. Discourse & Metaphor: A Corpus-Driven Inquiry. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory 4(2), 209-234.
Sanford, D. R. 2012. Metaphors are Conceptual Schemata that are Emergent over Tokens of Use. Journal of Cognitive Science 13, 211-235.
Stefanowitsch, A. 2005. The function of metaphor: developing a corpus-based perspective. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 161-198.
Vitevich, M. S., Luce, P. A., Charles-Luce, J., & Kemmerer, D. 1997. Phonotactics and Syllable Stress: implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words.
Language and Speech 40, 47-62.
Wang, H. S. & Derwing, B. L. 1994. Some vowel schemata in three English morphological classes: experimental evidence. In M. Y. Chen and O.C. L.
Tzeng (Eds.) In honor of Professor William S.-Y. Wang: interdisciplinary studies on language and language change. Taipei: Pyramid Press. 561-575.
Manuscript received: Sep 23, 2012, in revised form: Feb 20, 2013
Appendix: Frequency Tables
COMPETITION IS…
WAR RACING
source term (x) ‘Like … x’ similes that
instantiate target metaphor source term (x)
‘Like … x’ similes that instantiate target
metaphor
soldier 4 NASCAR 6
gun 16 race track 3
bomb 13 Indy 500 3
army 43 race car 3
general 24 racer 1
tank 11 checkered flag 1
TOTAL 111 19
HOPE IS…
LIGHT A CHILD
source term (x) ‘Like … x’ similes that
instantiate target metaphor source term (x)
‘Like … x’ similes that instantiate target
metaphor
sun 3 baby 0
bulb 5 kid 0
lamp 2 parent 0
day 2 school 0
illumination 0 toy 0
ray 4 Playground 0
TOTAL 16 0
IDEAS ARE…
FOOD WRITING
source term (x) ‘Like … x’ similes that
instantiate target metaphor source term (x)
‘Like … x’ similes that instantiate target
metaphor
meat 7 pen 0
restaurant 4 paper 3
dinner 11 pencil 0
bread 12 book 22
chef 5 letter 0
breakfast 2 author 1
42 26
PEOPLE ARE…
PLANTS BATTERIES
source term (x) ‘Like … x’ similes that
instantiate target metaphor source term (x)
‘Like … x’ similes that instantiate target
metaphor
flower 68 Duracell 3
tree 140 electricity 7
garden 8 charge 0
roots 10 energy 16
leaves 17 power 1
soil 1 Energizer 0
TOTAL 244 27
THE MIND IS…
A MACHINE A BODY
source term (x) ‘Like … x’ similes that
instantiate target metaphor source term (x)
‘Like … x’ similes that instantiate target
metaphor
computer 22 blood 1
engine 2 bones 1
cog 0 legs 0
car 12 arm 0
gear 1 muscles 3
robot 1 stomach 1
TOTAL 38 6