In 1993, George Lakoff published a paper on the cognitive-linguistic approach to metaphor in the second, revised edition of Andrew Ortony’s landmark work Metaphor and Thought. Lakoff nor the cognitive-linguistic approach had been included in the first edition, because it was published in 1979. The rise of the cognitive-linguistic approach since Lakoff and Johnson (1980) was duly reflected in the new chapter by Lakoff, with heavy emphasis on Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Its title was a provocative assumption of power in metaphor land: it was called ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’.

In this plenary talk I will claim that the contemporary theory of metaphor is in need of a make-over. I will review contemporary research on metaphor, from which I will draw conclusions that are rather opposite to the central claim in Conceptual Metaphor Theory, which holds that metaphor is processed by cross-domain mapping. I will formulate an alternative claim, that is meant to be just as provocative as Lakoff’s position in 1993: I believe that most metaphor is not processed by cross-domain mapping. This produces a paradox of metaphor, for then most metaphor is not processed metaphorically (Steen, 2008).

The paper will present and substantiate my claim by looking at psycholinguistic research and language data, but also by looking at the terminological issue of what it is to say that metaphor is a matter of thought. This has connections with issues of methodology and theory. All of these considerations can be brought together into a new contemporary theory of metaphor, which prompts exciting questions for further research.

References

Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought: Second edition (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1979/1993). Metaphor and thought: Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steen, G.J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model for metaphor. Metaphor & Symbol, 23 (4): 213-241.