The career of metaphor

A central question in metaphor research is how metaphors establish mappings between concepts from different domains. The authors propose an evolutionary path based on structure-mapping theory. This hypothesis--the career of metaphor--postulates a shift in mode of mapping from comparison to categorization as metaphors are conventionalized. Moreover, as demonstrated by 3 experiments, this processing shift is reflected in the very language that people use to make figurative assertions. The career of metaphor hypothesis offers a unified theoretical framework that can resolve the debate between comparison and categorization models of metaphor. This account further suggests that whether metaphors are processed directly or indirectly, and whether they operate at the level of individual concepts or entire conceptual domains, will depend both on their degree of conventionality and on their linguistic form.     

Understanding and appreciating metaphors

We consider three theories that have dominated discussions of metaphor. One view is that metaphors make comparisons, the basis for the comparison being the features (or categories) that the terms of the metaphor share. The second view is that metaphors involve an anomaly. The third view is that metaphors are ‘interactive’, producing a new way of seeing the terms. We propose a new theory—the domains-interaction view—that draws on elements of all three earlier views, but borrows especially from the interaction view. We consider the implications of our theory for three questions: What are metaphors? How are they understood? What makes a good metaphor? We argue that metaphors correlate two systems of concepts from different domains. The best metaphors involve two diverse domains (more distance between domains making for better metaphors) and close correspondence between the terms within those domains. We call the degree of correspondence within-domain similarity. Metaphors are interpreted in several stages: the terms of the metaphor are encoded; the domains involved are inferred; the structures to be seen as parallel are found; the correspondences between these structures are ‘mapped’ or constructed; the terms of the metaphor are compared. If the terms are not seen to match or occupy analogous roles in their different domains, then the metaphor may be reinterpreted. The evidence on all this is tentative but supports our view. We review two studies (Tourangeau and Sternberg, 1981) that support the hypothesis that distance within domain relates negatively to aptness, whereas distance between domains relates positively. Several studies on comprehension tend to disconfirm the comparison theory's notion that the tenor and vehicle necessarily share features. Tenor and vehicle also appear to have asymmetrical roles in the interpretive process.     

Career metaphors and their application in theory and counseling practice

This article, first given as an address to the January 2002 National Consultation on Career Development, Ottawa, Ontario, draws attention to the inevitability of metaphor in human thought, discourse, and theory, including that concerning careers. The article (a) explores the benefits and the dangers of metaphorical thinking and advocates the use of “multiple metaphor” as a means of understanding careers; (b) looks particularly at metaphors in the context of new, more flexible careers; (c) introduces 10 archetypal career metaphors; and (d) considers how career counseling practice can be assisted through the facilitation of metaphorical thinking.     

Believing in Make-Believe: Looking at Theater as a Metaphor for Psychotherapy

In this essay, I explore the theatrical dimensions of psychotherapy. I argue that many of the historical, practice-related, and conceptual connections between theater and therapy often are only alluded to in the literature, but rarely made explicit. In doing so, however, it seems apparent that, as a metaphor for psychotherapy, theater perhaps offers a more appropriate fit than those narrative and conversational metaphors that have been employed so far. Proposing that theater is, in fact, the metaphor on which psychotherapy bases itself, I briefly examine some of its implications for how therapy might be conceptualized and performed. I conclude by inviting other therapists to consider — by openly acknowledging theater as a metaphor for psychotherapy — if they might then become more engaging, creative, and imaginative in their work.     

Metaphor in computer science

The language of computer science is laced with metaphor. We argue that computer science metaphors provide a conceptual framework in which to situate constantly emerging new ontologies in computational environments. But how computer science metaphors work does not fit neatly into prevailing general theories of metaphor. We borrow from these general theories while also considering the unique role of computer science metaphors in learning, design, and scientific analysis. We find that computer science metaphors trade on both preexisting and emerging similarities between computational and traditional domains, but owing to computer science's peculiar status as a discipline that creates its own subject matter, the role of similarity in metaphorical attribution is multifaceted.     

心理治疗中隐喻的使用、疗效检验及作用机制

隐喻是用一种具体、熟悉的概念去表达和理解一种抽象、不熟悉的概念的语言形式和认知方式,因其在心理治疗中可以有效传递治疗信息而被治疗师们广泛使用。早期的隐喻理论阐述了隐喻具有高创造性和增强长时记忆的认知加工优势,虽然不同心理治疗流派在治疗过程中对使用来访者还是治疗师产生的隐喻各有侧重,但它们都认为隐喻可以通过高创造性的内容、形成更优的长时记忆以及带来高度的认知卷入来帮助咨访双方有效加工、传递和保存治疗信息。精神分析流派强调治疗性隐喻在无意识水平上的意义交换产生的顿悟过程,认知行为疗法既强调隐喻可以促进认知图式的重构,也强调其组块性和形象性产生的记忆功能,接纳与承诺疗法认为隐喻传递信息时具有非评判、非分析、直觉经验的方式有利于促进个体发生改变,后现代疗法中强调让来访者重新叙述自己的人生故事或者发展出一种形象性或象征性表达,让来访者产生更具有功能的观点和看法。因此治疗性隐喻具备了跨越不同心理治疗理论取向的广泛认同基础。在实证研究上,大多数研究聚焦于探索在某种治疗方法中加入隐喻是否会有更佳的治疗效果,其中使用CBT作为框架的研究最为集中,有些研究发现隐喻干预在缓解心理症状方面优于常规干预,也有研究发现隐喻干预和非隐喻干预都可以有效缓解被试的心理痛苦,因此虽然没有获得十分一致的结论,但这些研究总体上证明了在心理治疗中使用隐喻是有效的。随着研究的深入,对治疗性隐喻起效的心理神经机制进行探索的实证研究也有效观测到了隐喻理论中提出的认知加工优势,包括隐喻的高创造性可以诱发顿悟（并伴随杏仁核、海马、梭状回等特异性神经网络的显著激活）、带来更佳的治疗效果,隐喻内容更容易被记住、有助于治疗持续发挥作用,以及隐喻可以增加来访者的认知卷入程度进而带来更大程度的认知改变。综上,无论从理论构建还是实证证据上,治疗性隐喻都是一种具有独特认知加工优势的认知工具和治疗信息传递途径。未来研究可以从更加科学的设置对照组、增加隐喻特异性的效果衡量指标以及探索其他可能的心理机制三个方面来进一步观察在治疗性隐喻的独特优势。最后,对在心理治疗实践中更好的使用隐喻以及研发嵌入隐喻的低成本高效益的社会心理健康服务方案提供了建议。     

Modeling adaptive cooperative and competitive metaphors as mental models for joint decision making

In this paper, joint decision making processes are studied and the role of cognitive metaphors as mental models in them. A second-order self-modeling network model is introduced based on mechanisms known from cognitive and social neuroscience and cognitive metaphor and mental model literature. The cognitive metaphors were modeled as specific forms of mental models providing a form of modulation within the joint decision making process. The model addresses not only the use of these mental models in the decision making, but also their hebbian learning and the control over the learning. The obtained self-modeling network model was applied to two types of metaphors that affect joint decision making in different manners: a cooperative metaphor and a competitive metaphor. By a number of scenarios it was shown how the obtained self-modeling network model can be used to simulate and analyze joint decision processes and how they are influenced by such cognitive metaphors.     

The neural, evolutionary, developmental, and bodily basis of metaphor

We propose that there are four fundamental kinds of metaphor that are uniquely mapped onto specific brain “networks” and present preliterate (i.e., evolutionary, including before the appearance of written language in the historical record), prelinguistic (i.e., developmental, before the appearance of speech in human development), and extralinguistic (i.e., neuropsychological, cognitive) evidence supportive of this view. We contend that these basic metaphors are largely nonconceptual and entail (a) perceptual-perceptual, (b) cross-modal, (c) movement-movement, and (d) perceptual-affective mappings that, at least, in the initial stages of processing may operate largely outside of conscious awareness. In opposition to our basic metaphor theory (B_mT), the standard theory (S_mT) maintains that metaphor is a conceptual mapping from some base domain to some target domain and/or represents class-inclusion (categorical) assertions. The S_mT captures aspects of secondary or conceptual metaphoric relations but not primary or basic metaphoric relations in our view. We believe our theory (B_mT) explains more about how people actually recognize or create metaphoric associations across disparate domains of experience partly because they are “pre-wired” to make these links.     

Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail

Metaphors can be understood in either of two ways: via a comparison process or via a categorization process. What determines which process will be used? According to a recent variant of comparison theory, novel metaphors must be processed as comparisons; only conventional metaphors can be processed as categorizations. We argue that choice of process is determined not by conventionality, but instead by the semantic and referential properties of the metaphor itself. We identified a type of novel metaphor that is indeed understood more quickly as a comparison than as a categorization. We then generated variants of such metaphors to make comparison difficult and found that these new novel metaphors were understood more quickly as categorizations than as comparisons. We conclude that metaphors can be processed as categorizations from the start, depending on their semantic and referential properties.     

Approximate Semantic Transference: A Computational Theory of Metaphors and Analogies

In this paper we start from the assumption that in a metaphor, or an analogy, some terms belonging to one domain (source domain) are used to refer to objects other than their conventional referents belonging to a possibly different domain (target domain). We describe a formalism, which is based on the First Order Predicate Calculus, for representing the knowledge structure associated with a domain and then develop a theory of Constrained Semantic Transference [CST] which allows the terms and the structural relationships of the source domain to be transferred coherently across to the target domain. We show how metaphors and analogies can be characterized in CST in such a way that many of their cognitive properties con be explained. We then propose a theory of Approximate Semantic Transference [AST] which is a computational version of CST and is derived from it by replacing the coherency requirement with approximate coherency. We show how AST can be used as a basis for designing models of cognitive processes involved in comprehending metaphors and analogies.     

AX murderers,dragons, spiders and webs: Therapeutic metaphors in couple therapy

Using metaphors in psychotherapy is not a new practice. Metaphor has long occupied the interests of theorists and practitioners of psychoanalysis. Recently, influenced by the work of Erikson, metaphors have been utilized by non-analytic therapists. This paper explores the historical background of metaphors, examines the components of metaphors, explores metaphors and the social construction of reality, and presents a discussion of the use of metaphor in couple therapy.     

“The Label Mental Illness” or “It's Showing Its Ugly Head…”: Mothers’ Conceptualizations of Mental Illness in Their Children

This grounded theory study examined the metaphors mothers used for mental illness when they had children who were. Two metaphor types were found: static and dynamic. Static metaphors for mental illness emphasized their unchanging qualities and problem-solving or learning strategies were highlighted as ways to approach them. Dynamic metaphors for mental illness highlighted how they were changeable. Positioning the diseases in a storyline, in which one could “try again tomorrow,” was one of the primary ways participants described approaching them. Clinical implications of this research may increase family engagement with treatment.     

Aptness in metaphor

We propose that in understanding a metaphor, an individual sees a concept from one class or domain in terms of its similarity in two different respects to a concept from another class or domain. The two kinds of similarity are within-domain similarity, or the degree to which two concepts occupy similar positions with respect to their own class or domain; and between-domain similarity, or the degree to which the classes or domains occupied by the concepts are themselves similar. To test this dual notion of similarity, we obtained ratings of the aptness of 64 metaphors from one group of subjects and ratings of their comprehensibility from another group of subjects. The terms of the metaphors had been scaled (based on the ratings of pretest subjects) to give measures of distance both within and between domains. Aptness of metaphors related positively to betweendomain distance, negatively to within-domain distance, and not at all to overall distance. Metaphors are thus perceived as more apt to the extent that their terms occupy similar positions within domains that are not very similar to each other. Comprehensibility also related to aptness. In a second experiment, subjects ranked a set of terms as possible completions for metaphors. For both groups of subjects in this experiment, the rank of an alternative's within-domain distance correlated with its relative popularity. Quantitative models, patterned after a model proposed by D. Rumelhart and A. A. Abrahamson (Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 5, 1–28) for analogical reasoning, afforded significant prediction of the choices of the group of subjects in which all the possible completions of a metaphor were from a single domain. The same models did not predict the choices of a group of subjects in which the possible completions of the metaphors were from different domains.     

The metaphor police: A case study of the role of metaphor in explanation

While many scholars have pointed to the role of metaphor in explanation, relatively little experimental research has examined whether and how metaphors are used and understood in everyday explanatory discourse. Across 3 experiments, we investigated the nature and function of metaphor in explanation by drawing on a real-world example where the terms guardian and warrior were used to metaphorically explain the role of police officers. We found, first, that the associations participants brought to mind for these concepts differed depending on whether they had previously answered questions about law enforcement (e.g., associations for warrior emphasized aggression and violence rather than strength and bravery when participants had previously answered questions about policing). Second, people were almost evenly split in their judgment of which metaphor was more appropriate to explain the role of law enforcement; this preference was highly predictive of beliefs related to policing and the criminal justice system. Third, and most important, using these metaphors to explain the job of policing causally influenced attitudes toward law enforcement in a metaphor-congruent manner (i.e., exposure to the guardian metaphor led to more positive attitudes), a finding that could not be accounted for by basic lexical priming. These studies complement existing work that has identified metaphor as a mechanism for representing abstract concepts, but also highlight the communicative and explanatory, rather than representational, functions of metaphor by showing that metaphors can encapsulate and convey an array of structured attitudes and beliefs.     

Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors

The theory of metaphor proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980a, 1980b) and Lakoff (1993) involves a mapping of conceptual structure from one semantic domain to another. We investigate properties of these conceptual domain mappings by comparing them to morphological derivational relations. Schematicity and productivity are properties that Bybee (1985) and Langacker (1987) propose for characterizing morphological derivational relations, which we apply to our analysis of metaphor. Metaphors are argued to vary in their degree of semantic schematicity: Domain relations function as generalizations over specific metaphorical expressions. We also demonstrate three points on a continuum of productivity: Conventional metaphors are highly productive, metaphorically motivated transparent idioms are semiproductive, and opaque idioms are unproductive. Each point is compared with an example of morphological productivity having a corresponding conceptual organization. The results demonstrate that semantic productivity can be characterized in the same way as morphological productivity, suggesting that form and meaning are organized by the same principles.     

Personality through metaphor: Optimism, pessimism, locus of control, and sensation seeking

In two experiments, several personality attributes evident in metaphors people use to describe everyday experiences were examined. Subjects either generated (Experiment 1) or endorsed (Experiment 2) a metaphor that represented their views about six facets of their lives (e.g., work, relationships, graduating). In self-generated metaphors, content analyses of the metaphors revealed that attributes of optimism (e.g., looking forward to the future) and pessimism (e.g., cynicism) were significant components of metaphor content. Also, modest relationships were found between the themes of optimism contained within their metaphors and scores on an optimism scale of a questionnaire designed to evaluate the optimistic and pessimistic orientations. In a second study, subjects endorsed how strongly preselected metaphors represented important aspects of their lives. These preferences were significantly related to their scores on an optimism/pessimism instrument and a locus of control inventory. These results support the notion that metaphors, like other creative productions, may prove a useful vehicle for studying personality characteristics. They also provide evidence for the construct validity of the optimism and pessimism questionnaire.     

Personality through metaphor: Optimism,pessimism, locus of control,and sensation seeking

In two experiments, several personality attributes evident in metaphors people use to describe everyday experiences were examined. Subjects either generated (Experiment 1) or endorsed (Experiment 2) a metaphor that represented their views about six facets of their lives (e.g., work, relationships, graduating). In self-generated metaphors, content analyses of the metaphors revealed that attributes of optimism (e.g., looking forward to the future) and pessimism (e.g., cynicism) were significant components of metaphor content. Also, modest relationships were found between the themes of optimism contained within their metaphors and scores on an optimism scale of a questionnaire designed to evaluate the optimistic and pessimistic orientations. In a second study, subjects endorsed how strongly preselected metaphors represented important aspects of their lives. These preferences were significantly related to their scores on an optimism/pessimism instrument and a locus of control inventory. These results support the notion that metaphors, like other creative productions, may prove a useful vehicle for studying personality characteristics. They also provide evidence for the construct validity of the optimism and pessimism questionnaire.     

The Continuity of Metaphor: Evidence From Temporal Gestures

Reasoning about bedrock abstract concepts such as time, number, and valence relies on spatial metaphor and often on multiple spatial metaphors for a single concept. Previous research has documented, for instance, both future‐in‐front and future‐to‐right metaphors for time in English speakers. It is often assumed that these metaphors, which appear to have distinct experiential bases, remain distinct in online temporal reasoning. In two studies we demonstrate that, contra this assumption, people systematically combine these metaphors. Evidence for this combination was found in both directly elicited (Study 1) and spontaneous co‐speech (Study 2) gestures about time. These results provide first support for the hypothesis that the metaphorical representation of time, and perhaps other abstract domains as well, involves the continuous co‐activation of multiple metaphors rather than the selection of only one.