For a few decades, the studies of cognitive linguists interested in metaphors dedicated to the identification and description of metaphors and the two dimensional relationship between mind and language. But Steen's (2008) studies on metaphorical patterns showed that there is a third communicative dimension about some metaphors which cannot be explained by the two dimensional theories of metaphor. In the third dimension, a distinction is made

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 6, Volume 12, Issue 2 - Serial Number 23, January 2021, Pages 153-175   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/jlkd.2021.68453.1009

Authors

Maryam Molaei^{* 1}; Mohammad Amin Sorahi²; Mohammad Rostampour³

¹PhD student, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh Branch

²Assistant Professor of Guilan University

³Assistant Professor of English Language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh Branch

Abstract

abstract
For a few decades, the studies of cognitive linguists interested in metaphors dedicated to the identification and description of metaphors and the two dimensional relationship between mind and language. But Steen's (2008) studies on metaphorical patterns showed that there is a third communicative dimension about some metaphors which cannot be explained by the two dimensional theories of metaphor. In the third dimension, a distinction is made between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphors. This study is aimed at introducing the theory of deliberate metaphor by analyzing Iranian newspaper headlines within the theory of deliberate metaphor. The results of this study show that in addition to the three dimensional structure of metaphors and their communicative role in exchanging information which were neglected in previous studies, in newspaper headlines like many other domains, metaphors are sometimes used quite deliberately to lead their audience attention to specific topics to be described and explained. .

Keywords

metaphor; deliberate metaphor; non-deliberate metaphor; source domain; cognitive linguistics

References

• Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American College lectures. de, 20, 39–60.
• Beger, A. (2016). Different functions of (deliberate) metaphor in teaching scientific concepts. de, 26, 57–84.
• Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London/New york.
• Charteris-Black, J. (2013). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
• Charteris-Black, J., & Musolff, A. (2003). ‘Battered hero’ or ‘innocent victim’? A comparative study of metaphors for euro trading in British and German financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 153–176. doi:10.1016/ S0889-4906(02)00012-1
• Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gibbs, R. W. (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gibbs, R.W. (2011). Are deliberate metaphors really deliberate? A question of human consciousness and action. Metaphor and the Social World, 1(1), 26–52. doi:10.1075/msw.1.1.03gib
• Gibbs, R.W. (2015a). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77–87. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.021
• Gibbs, R. W. & Chen, E. (2017). “Taking metaphor studies back to the Stone Age: A reply to Xu, Zhang, and Wu (2016)”, in: Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (1): 117–124.
• Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London/New York: Routledge.
• Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G., & M. Johnson. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
• Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking.
• Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
• Müller, C. (2011). Are ‘deliberate’ metaphors really special? Deliberateness in the light of metaphor activation. Metaphor and the Social World, 1(1), 61–66. doi:10.1075/msw.1.1.06mul
• Müller, C. (2016). Why mixed metaphors make sense. In R.W. Gibbs (Ed.). Mixing metaphor (pp. 31–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Musolff, A. (2016). Cross-cultural variation in deliberate metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and the Social World, 6(2), 205–224. doi:10.1075/ msw.6.2.02mus
• Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse‘, Metaphor and Symbol 22(1): 1–39.
• Reijnierse, G. W. (2017). The Value of Deliberate Metaphor. Utrecht: LOT.
• Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Shen, Y., & N. Balaban. (1999). Metaphorical (in)coherence in discourse‘, Discourse Processes 28(2): 139–154.
• Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4): 213–241.
• Steen, G. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification. Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
• Steen, G. (2011a). What does "really deliberate" really mean? More thoughts on metaphor and consciousness and action, 53-56.
• Steen, G. (2011b). From three dimentions to five steps:The value of deliberate metaphor. de, 83-110.
• Steen, G.J. (2013). Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 179–197. doi:10.1515/cogsem.2013.5. 12.179
• Steen, G. (2015). Developing, Testing and interprating Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of pragmatics, 67-72.
• Steen, G.J. (2016). Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In R.W.Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 113–132).
• Steen, Gerard J. 2017. “Deliberate Metaphor Theory: basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues”, in: Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (1): 1–24.
• Gerard/Dorst, A. (2010). A method for linguistic method identification. From MIP to MIPVU