1995 Murphy - On Metaphoric Representation

8/22/2019 1995 Murphy - On Metaphoric Representation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1995-murphy-on-metaphoric-representation 1/32

f - , , p " j

; 2 - i

E L S E V I E R Cogni t ion 60 (1996) 173-204

C O G N I T I O N

On metaphoric representat ion

G r e g o r y L . M u r p h y *

Univers i ty of Il linois, 40 5 North Ma thew s Avenue , U rbana, IL 61801, US A

Rec eived 9 January 199 5, f inal vers ion accep ted 17 January 1996

A b s t r a c t

The ar t ic le d iscusses claims that conceptual s t ructure is in some par t metaphor ical , as

identified by verbal metaphors l ike LOV E IS A JOU RNEY. Tw o m ain in terpretat ions of

this view are discussed. In the f irst, a target domain is not explicitly represented but is

instead unders tood through reference to a d if ferent domain . For example, ra ther than a

detai led concep t of love per se , one could m ake reference to the concept of a journey. In the

seco nd interpretation, there is a separate representation o f love, but the content of that

representat ion is inf luenced by the me taphor such that the love concept takes on the same

structure as the journe y concept. It is argu ed that the first interpretation is not fully coh eren t.

Th e se cond interpretation is a possible theory of me ntal representation, but the article raises

a num ber of emp ir ical and theoret ical problems for i t. I t is con cluded that m any of the data

ci ted as evidence for metaphor ic representat ions can be accounted for by s tructural

s imilar i ty between domains .

1 . I n t r o d u c t i o n

A n i n t r i g u i n g v i e w h a s r e c e n t l y a r i s e n i n c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e

n a t u r e o f m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h i s v i e w i s e x e m p l i f i e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g

p a s s a g e s :

. . . m o s t p e o p l e t h i n k t h e y c a n g e t a l o n g p e r f e c t ly w e l l w i t h o u t m e t a p h o r .

W e h a v e f o u n d , o n t h e c o n t ra r y , t ha t m e t a p h o r i s p e r v a s i v e i n e v e r y d a y l i fe ,n o t j u s t i n l a n g u a g e b u t i n t h o u g h t a n d a c t io n . O u r o r d i n a r y c o n c e p t u a l

s y s t e m , i n t e r m s o f w h i c h w e b o t h t h i n k a n d a c t , i s f u n d a m e n t a l l y

m e t a p h o r i c a l i n n a t u r e . ( L a k o f f a n d J o h n s o n , 1 9 80 , p . 3)

* E-mail: gm urphy@ s.psych.uiuc.edu.

001 0-0 27 7/9 6/$ 15 .00 © 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All r ights reserved

P I I S 0 0 1 0 - 0 2 7 7 ( 9 6 ) 0 0 7 ! ! - 1



174 G.L. Mu rphy / Cogni tion 60 (1996) 1 73-2 04

T h e b a s i c - l e v e l m e t a p h o r s a l l o w u s t o c o m p r e h e n d a n d d r a w i n f e r e n c e s

abou t t he se [ emot ion] concep t s , us ing our knowledge o f f ami l i a r , we l l -

s t ruc tured dom ains . (Kove cses , 1986, p . 117)

I n shor t , t he l ocus o f me taphor i s no t i n l anguage a t a l l , bu t i n t he way

we concep tua l i ze one menta l doma in in t e r ms o f ano the r . ( L akof f , 1993 ,

p . 203)

. . . h u m a n c o g n i t i o n i s f u n d a m e n t a l l y s h a p e d b y v a r i o u s p o e ti c o r fi g u ra t iv e

processes. (Gibbs, 1994, p. 1)

As the se quo ta t ions i nd i ca t e , some r e sea r che r s i n cogn i t i on and l anguage havea r gued tha t m en ta l r ep r e sen ta t ion is a t l e a s t i n pa r t me tapho r i c . Ra th e r t han see ing

m e t a p h o r s a s b e i n g s o l e l y o r e v e n p r i m a r i l y a l i n g u i s t i c p h e n o m e n o n , t h e y h a v e

pr oposed i t a s a mode o f r epr e sen ta t ion and though t . T he r ea son ing beh ind th i s i s

t ha t c e r ta in a spec ts o f ou r kno wled ge a r e d i f fi cu l t f o r peop le t o r epr e sen t : T hey a r e

ove r ly abs t r ac t and complex , and the r e f o r e t hey a r e r epr e sen ted in t e r ms o f

ea s i e r -to - unde r s t and doma ins , t ha t is , me tap hor i ca l ly ( Kovecse s , 1986 , p . 6 ;

L akof f , 1987, pp . 84- 85 ; L ak of f and Johnson , 1980 , p . 115). T hus , wh en we th ink

about abs t rac t ideas such as inflation, t he m ind, o r ange r , w e u s e m o r e c o n c r e t e

concep t s , a p r ocess which "a l lows us t o r e f e r t o i t [ an abs t r ac t concep t ] , quan t i f yi t, i den t i f y a pa r t i cu l a r a spec t o f i t . . . and pe r haps even be l i eve tha t we

unde r s t and i t " ( L a ko f f and Johnso n , 1980 , p . 26).

T he a r gument f o r me taphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion i s o f t en made a s pa r t o f an

a r g u m e n t f o r C o g n i t i v e L i n g u is t ic s , as c h a m p i o n e d b y L a k o f f a n d h i s c o l le a g u e s .

How eve r , I be l i eve tha t the i s sue o f m e taphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion i s an in t e r e s t ing and

r ad ica l i dea wh ich de se r ves a t t en t ion in i ts ow n r igh t. L ak of f ( 1987) and L ako f f

a n d J o h n s o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) p r e s en t th e u s e o f m e t a p h o r in t h o u g h t as j u s t o n e p a r t o f a n

ove r a r ch ing theor y o f t he na tu r e o f t he mind . Bu t t he i r a r gument s abou t

"ob jec t iv i s t me taphys i c s , " gene r a t ive appr oaches t o l i ngu i s t i c s and o the r con t r o -

ve r s i a l i dea s may have d r awn a t t en t ion away f r om th i s spec i f i c c l a im. T he r e f o r e ,

i n t h i s a r t i c l e I w i l l examine me taphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion a s a t heor y o f concep tua l

s t r uc tu r e . I w i l l no t be addr e ss ing mos t o f t he o the r v i ews o f i t s p r oponen t s . Of

those v i ews , me taphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion ha s p r obab ly had the mos t d i r ec t i n f luence

o n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e se a rc h , t h r o u g h t h e o r i es o f i d i o m a n d m e t a p h o r c o m p r e h e n s i o n

(see Gibbs , 1992, Gibbs , 1993; Gibbs and O 'Br ien, 1990; Glucksberg, 1993;

Keysa r and B ly , i n p r e ss ) . T ha t sa id , howeve r , i t w i l l be imposs ib l e t o avo id

m e n t i o n i n g o t h e r v ie w s e x p r e s se d b y L a k o f f a n d J o h n s o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) o r L a k o f f

( 1987) , because some of t hem a r e used to p r ov ide suppor t f o r t he no t ion o f

me taphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion .

T he nex t sec t ion o f t h i s a r t i c l e w i l l b r i e f ly r ev i ew bas i c t e r mino logy and f ac t s

abou t l i ngu i s t i c me taphor . T hen two no t ions o f me taphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion w i l l be

desc r ibed and c r i t ic i zed , in t u r n . F ina l ly , I w i l l d r aw some co nc lus ion s on h ow

pr oponen t s o f t h i s v i ew migh t addr e ss t he p r ob lems r a i sed in t h i s a r t i c l e .



G.L. Murphy / Cognit ion 60 (1996) 1 73 -20 4 175

2. Metaphor

On e d i s ad v an tag e in d i s cu s s in g me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n i s th a t i t i s n ece s s a ry

to d i s cu s s v e rb a l me tap h o r . An d a s i s we l l k n o wn , me tap h o r i s o n e o f th e mo s t

d i f f i cu l t an d in t r an s ig en t p ro b lems in l an g u ag e . I n d eed , ev en d e f in in g me tap h o r i s

b y n o mean s an ea s y t a s k . Fo r th e p r e s en t p u rp o s e s , t h en , a m in ima l d e s c r ip t io n

(no t rea l ly a def in i t ion) wi l l have to su f f ice .

In verba l metaphor , there a re usua l ly two exp l ic i t par ts : a topic, wh ich i s th e

en t i ty b e in g t a lk ed ab o u t , an d th e vehicle, wh ich i s th e me tap h o r ic ma te r i a l b e in g

pred ica ted o f the top ic . (Some au thors re fe r to these as the target and source,

r e s p ec t iv e ly . ) Fo r ex amp le , in L ee is a block of ice, Lee is the top ic , and block of

ice i s t h e v eh ic le . T h e imp l i c i t co n n ec t io n b e tween th e two i s o f t en r e f e r r ed to a s

th e ground. In th is case , the g round is tha t b locks o f ice have a co ld tempera tu re ,an d th i s i s in t e rp re ted in t e rms o f emo t io n a l u n re s p o n s iv en es s . M o re g en e ra l ly , th e

r e la t io n b e tween t emp e ra tu r e an d emo t io n p ro v id es th e g ro u n d .

In o rd e r f o r a s en ten ce to b e p e r ce iv ed a s me tap h o r ic , t h e v eh ic le c an n o t ap p ly

in a s t ra ig h t fo rward w ay to th e to p ic . Fo r ex amp le , Lee is an attorney does no t ( in

th i s co n tex t ) r eq u i r e an y s p ec ia l g ro u n d fo r i t s in t e rp r e ta t io n . T h e u s u a l , f ami l i a r

m e a n i n g o f attorney spec i f ies a person wi th a par t icu la r p ro fess ion , and s ince Lee

i s t h e n ame o f a p e r s o n , th e r e i s n o in co n s i s t en cy in ca l l in g L ee an a t to rn ey .

H o w e v e r , block of ice l i t e r a l ly mean s th e s o l id , f r o zen s t a t e o f th e s u b s tan ce H 2 0 ,

an d s in ce a p e r s o n i s ty p ica l ly n e i th e r H2 0 n o r f ro zen , th i s p red ica te c an n o t b eap p l i ed to L ee in a s t r a ig h t fo rward way . T h e re mu s t b e s o me k in d o f map p in g

f ro m th e u s u a l mean in g o f th i s p h ra s e to th e co n v ey ed , n o n l i t e r a l mean in g .

I t i s no t necessary tha t someth ing have no l i te ra l in te rp re ta t ion in o rder to be

in te rp re ted as a m etap hor , as has o f ten been po in ted ou t (e.g. , K eysar , t989 ;

Mo rg an , 1 9 7 9 ) . Fo r ex amp le , a ( b ad ) ro ck ' n ' r o l l s o n g in c lu d ed th e ly r i c "A g u y

co u ld g e t p n eu mo n ia s i t t i n g n ex t to y o u . " Al th o u g h th i s h a s a c l ea r l i t e r a l

in t e rp r e ta t io n (p e rh ap s th e ad d re s s ee h ad v i r a l p n eu mo n ia ) , i n th e co n tex t o f th e

s o n g th e me tap h o r ic in t e rp r e ta t io n , ag a in eq u a t in g t emp e ra tu r e wi th emo t io n a l

p ro p e r t i e s , was mu ch mo re s a l i en t . I n th a t in t e rp r e ta t io n th e r e was a map p in g

b e tween th e l i t e r a l mean in g ( ca tch in g a d i s ea s e ) an d th e in t en d ed mean in g

(emot iona l co ldness ) .

Al th o u g h th i s b r i e f d e s c r ip t io n h a s n o t g o n e v e ry f a r in d e f in in g me tap h o r ,

mu ch t e s s ex p la in in g h o w p eo p le u n d e r s t an d i t , i t i n c lu d es two p o in t s th a t wi l l b e

imp o r tan t l a t e r . F i r s t , u n d e r s t an d in g a me tap h o r r eq u i r e s o n e to g o b ey o n d th e

l i te ra l , s t ra igh t fo rward in te rp re ta t ion o f the veh ic le . In some sense , Lee i s c lear ly

n o t a b lo ck o f i c e , b i l lb o a rd s a r e n o t r e a l ly w a r ts , en cy c lo p ed ia s a r e n o t r e a l ly g o ld

min es , an d s o o n . No te th a t th i s c l a im d o es n o t a s s u me an y p a r t i cu la r p s y ch o -

l in g u i s t i c mo d e l o f h o w me tap h o r s a r e u n d e r s to o d . T h a t i s , a l th o u g h me tap h o r s

can be iden t i f ied as d i f fe ren t f rom l i te ra l sen tences , th is does no t en ta i l tha t

metaphors a re more d i f f icu l t to unders tand o r tha t l i te ra l language has p r io r i ty ( see

Gibbs , 1984 , Gibbs , 1994 ; Keysar , 1989 ; Or tony e t a l . , 1978) . My po in t i s on ly

th a t Lee is a block of ice a n d Put a block of ice in the cooler i n v o lv e r a th e r

d i f fe ren t in te rp re ta t ions o f block of ice.



176 G.L. Murphy / Cogni t ion 60 (1996) 173-204

Seco n d , th e in t e rp r e ta t io n o f a me tap h o r r eq u i r e s co n s t ru c t in g a r e l a t io n ( th e

g ro u n d ) o r a cce s s in g a map p in g b e tween th e to p ic d o ma in an d th e v eh ic le d o ma in

(B lack , 1 9 7 9 ) . I n o rd e r to u n d e r s t an d L ee i s a b lock o f ice and Encyc loped ias a re

go ld mines , co ld n es s mu s t b e eq u a ted wi th emo t io n a l u n re s p o n s iv en es s , an d th e

f in an c ia l v a lu e o f a g o ld min e mu s t b e r e l a t ed to th e in t e l l e c tu a l v a lu e o f an

en cy c lo p ed ia . Un le s s th i s co n n ec t io n i s mad e , th e s en ten ce ap p ea r s an o ma lo u s o r

ju s t f a l s e .

A l th o u g h L a k o f f an d J o h n s o n (1 9 8 0 ) d o n o t p ro v id e a d e ta i l ed th eo ry o f v e rb a l

me tap h o r , t h e i r d i s cu s s io n s eems to accep t th i s k in d o f v iew. T h a t i s , i n in s i s t in g

th a t r ep re s en ta t io n s a r e me tap h o r ic o r me to n y mic , th ey a r e co n t r a s t in g th em wi th a

mo re s t r a ig h t fo rward r e l a t io n ( ca l l ed direct unders tanding b y L a k o f f a n d J o h n so n ,

1980 , pp . 176 f f .) . (Hen cefo r th I sha l l re fe r to La ko f f and John son , 1980 , as

" L & J . " ) S i n c e t h e m e t a p h o r i c r e l a t i o n i s n o t d i r e c t , s o m e k i n d o f m a p p i n g i sn eces s a ry . An d in f ac t , mu ch o f L & J an d Ko v ecs e s (1 9 8 6 ) co n s i s t s in s p e l l in g o u t

th e map p in g s b eh in d v a r io u s co n cep tu a l me tap h o r s .

3. Tw o interpretat ions of metap horic representat ion

As l in g u i s t an d p h i lo s o p h e r , r e s p ec t iv e ly , L ak o f f an d J o h n s o n d o n o t p ro v id e a

d e ta i l ed p s y ch o lo g ica l mo d e l o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n , n o r a p ro ces s mo d e l

fo r h o w s u ch r ep re s en ta t io n s wo u ld b e u s ed in u n d e r s t an d in g an d th o u g h t - a tl e a st , mo d e l s o f th e s o r t ex p ec ted in co g n i t iv e p s y ch o lo g y . No n e th e le s s , t h ey mak e

cons tan t re fe rence to concep tua l s t ruc tu re , though t and unders tand ing (e .g . , s ee the

o p en in g q u o ta t io n ) . Mo s t o f th e l i t e r a tu r e o n me tap h o r ic co n cep t s f o cu s e s o n

rep re s en ta tio n , w i th l it t l e to s ay ab o u t p ro ces s . C o g n i t iv e p s y ch o lo g y h a s lo n g h e ld

th a t b o th r ep re s en ta t io n an d p ro ces s a r e n eces s a ry to d e f in e an y p s y ch o lo g ica l

mo d e l , b ecau s e i t i s t h e p ro ces s e s th a t t r an s fo rm th e r ep re s en ta t io n s in to o v e r t

b eh av io r (An d e r s o n , 1 97 8) . T h u s , l a ck in g an ex p l i c i t p s y ch o lo g ica l mo d e l o f

me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n , i t w i l l b e n eces s a ry fo r me to mak e ce r t a in a s s u mp t io n s

ab o u t h o w me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n s a r e co n s t ru c ted an d u s ed . I h av e mad e wh a t

I b e l i ev e to b e p lau s ib le a s s u mp t io n s ab o u t p ro ces s in g , b u t wi th o u t d e ta i l ed

d i s cu s s io n in mo s t d e s c r ip t io n s o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n i t i s p o s s ib le th a t I

h av e mis s ed o th e r p o s s ib i l i t i e s . I n s h o r t , t h i s a r t i c l e i s ab o u t th e p s y ch o lo g ica l

mo d e l I h av e d e r iv ed f ro m th e wr i t in g s o f L & J ( an d o th e r s ) r a th e r th an b e in g

ab o u t th e i r o wn ex p l i c i t mo d e l s . Ho wev e r , i t i s s u r e ly in cu mb en t o n th e

p ro p o n en t s th ems e lv es to mak e s u ch ma t t e r s c l ea r , an d th e l a ck o f a d e ta i l ed

p ro ces s in g mo d e l i s a p ro b lem wi th th e v iew a s a p s y ch o lo g ica l a cco u n t o f

concep tua l s t ruc tu re .

I wi l l d e s c r ib e two g en e ra l in t e rp r e ta t io n s o f th e c l a im fo r me tap h o r ic

represen ta t ion , which I ca l l the s t rong a n d w e a k vers ions . In b r ie f , the s t rong

v e r s io n a rg u es th a t s o me co n cep t s a r e n o t u n d e r s to o d v ia th e i r o w n r ep re s en ta t io n s

b u t in s t ead b y (me tap h o r ic ) r e f e r en ce to a d i f f e r en t d o ma in . We d o n ' t r e a l ly

u n d e r s t an d emo t io n s v e ry we l l , f o r ex amp le , an d s o we th in k o f th em in t e rms o f

t emp e ra tu r e s , wh ich we d o u n d e r s t an d . T h e weak v e r s io n d o es n o t c l a im th a t we



G.L. Murphy / Cognit ion 60 (1996) 173-204 177

think of actual temperatures when considering emotions, but instead that we do

have a well-developed conceptual structure for emotions (or whatever). However,

the existence of systematic verbal metaphors in our culture has influenced the

structure of our concepts so that they are consistent with the metaphor. That is, the

structure of the domain of emotions has been influenced by the many metaphors

relating emotions to temperatures.

3.1 . The s trong vers ion o f metaphor ic representa t ion

In the strong version of metaphoric representation, some mental representation

is metaphorical in the same sense that Lee i s a b lock o f ice is metaphorical: One

thing is understood through its relation to another thing that is not truly (literally)

the same sort of entity. L&J (p. 176) acknowledge that there are some things thatare directly (nonmetaphorically) understood, via our immediate experience with

our environment. But this is not true for all concepts: "many aspects of our

experience cannot be clearly delineated in terms of the naturally emergent

dimensions of our experience. This is typically the case for human emotions,

abstract concepts, mental activity .. . Though most of these can be exper ienced

directly, none of them can be fully comprehended on their own terms. Instead, we

must understand them in terms of other entities and experiences, typically other

k inds of entities and experiences" (p. 177). Thus, the strong version of metaphoric

representation takes the notion of understanding one thing in terms of anotherseriously. One reason for these metaphoric mappings is that an abstract concept

becomes g r o u n d e d through its relation to a more basic domain. Eventually, the

mappings may lead back to sensorimotor or other bodily bases for concepts (L&J,

Chs. 12-13).

For example, take the metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR (L&J capitalize

conceptual metaphors). This metaphor is evidenced by a number of common

expressions (L&J, p. 4, italics in the original, indicating the metaphoric com-

ponent):

Your claims are indefens ib le .

He a t t a c k e d e ve r y w e a k p o i n t in my argument.

His criticisms were r ight on target .

I demol i shed his argument.

In the strong view, our direct representation of arguments is a set of connections

to another domain, which provides an interpretation of the entities in the a r g u m e n t

concept. For example, the matter under dispute in the argument corresponds to the

object (land, power) being fought over in a war. Each person is interpreted as a

combatant; the arguments are weapons used to protect one 's own view or to attack

the opponent's; arguments in favor of one's position are viewed as defenses;

arguments criticizing the other person's assumptions or position are viewed as

offensive maneuvers; and so on. On this view, when I think about arguments, I use

my knowledge of war to reason about and understand the argument.



178 G,L. Murphy / Cognit ion 60 (1996) 173 -20 4

W h en s t a ted ex p l i c i t ly , t h e s t r o n g v iew m ay s eem to o ex t reme to d e s c r ib e

an y o n e ' s v i ew. No n e th e le s s , s o me o f th e s t r o n g es t c l a ims mad e fo r me tap h o r ic

represen ta t ion seem to requ ire th is so r t o f rep resen ta t ion . And , as I wi l l a rgue

b e lo w, s o me o f th e mo re r ecen t d i s cu s s io n s o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n s eem to

in c lu d e th e s t r o n g v iew a s o n e p a r t o f a mo re co mp lex th eo ry . T h u s , th i s v i ew

mer i ts fu r ther a t ten t ion .

L & J mak e i t c l e a r o n v i r tu a l ly ev e ry p ag e o f th e i r b o o k ( an d in th e t i t l e ) th a t

th ey d o n o t v i ew me tap h o r s a s s imp ly way s o f t a lk in g ab o u t th in g s : Me tap h o r s a r e

v eh ic le s o f th o u g h t . I n f ac t , L ak o f f ( 1 9 9 3 ) a rg u es th a t me tap h o r i s r e a l ly a

co n cep tu a l map p in g o f a c e r t a in k in d , an d v e rb a l me tap h o r s a r e s imp ly ex p re s -

s io n s o f th e u n d e r ly in g map p in g - th a t i s , t h e v e rb a l m e tap h o r i s s eco n d a ry . O n

the s t rong in te rp re ta t ion o f the i r v iew, there i s l i t t le s t ruc tu re to the metaphor ica l

co n cep t i t s e l f ; i n s t ead , th e s t r u c tu r e co mes f ro m th e "v eh ic le " co n cep t . Fo rex amp le , p eo p le d o n ' t h av e in d ep en d en t id ea s ab o u t th e p a r t s an d ev en t s in v o lv ed

in an a rg u men t . I n s t ead , w h a t th ey h a v e i s a s e t o f p o in te r s to th e i r co n cep t o f w a r .

On th e s t ro n g in te rp r e ta t io n , i t r e a l ly i s o u r co n cep t o f wa r th a t we u s e wh en

th in k in g ab o u t a rg u men ts . P e rh ap s th e r e a r e s ep a ra te u n i t s f o r th e co mp o n en t s o f

an a rgument , such as the opponen ts , the pos i t ions , o r the poss ib le reso lu t ions o f

th e a rg u men t . Ho w ev e r , i f th e co n ce p t i s r ep re s en ted m e tap h o r ica l ly , t h e s e

co mp o n en t s c an n o t b e in d ep en d en t ly d e f in ed an d r ep re s en ted . I n s t ead , th ey mu s t

m ere ly b e l in k ed to th e ap p ro p ri a t e e l em en t o f th e v eh ic le co n cep t. I n a r e a l s en se ,

th en , o n e d o es n o t re a l ly u n d e r s tan d an a rg u m en t - o n e o n ly u n d e r st an d s wa r , an dth e u n d e r s t an d in g o f a rg u men ts i s p a r a s i t i c o n th i s co n cep t . S imi la r ly , L ak o f f an d

T u r n e r ( 1 9 8 9 , p . 6 2 ) s a y t h a t t h e L I F E I S A J O U R N E Y m e t a p h o r s h o w s t h a t t h e

"s t ru c tu r in g o f o u r u n d e r s t an d in g o f l i f e co mes f ro m th e s t ru c tu r e o f o u r

k n o w l e d g e a b o u t j o u r n e y s . " T h i s c l a i m s e e m s c o n s i st e n t w i t h th e s t r on g v i e w , a s

does the s ta tement (L&J , p . 5 ) , " T h e e s s e n c e o f m e t a p h o r i s u n d e r s t a n d in g a n d

e x p e r i e n c i n g o n e k i n d o f th i n g i n te r m s o f a n o t h e r . " (See a lso Lakof f , 1993 , p .

206.)

3 . 2. T h e w e a k v ie w o f m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a ti o n

A d i f f e r en t in t e rp r e ta t io n o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n i s th a t th e me tap h o r s

h av e s o me in f lu en ce o n th e r ep re s en ta t io n o f th e to p ic co n cep t s , b u t th e s e co n cep t s

n o n e th e le s s h av e th e i r o wn s ep a ra te r ep re s en ta t io n s . T h a t i s , t h e me tap h o r may

in f luence the s t ruc tu re o f the top ic conce p t , bu t the rep rese n ta t ion i t se l f i s no t

me tap h o r ic .

F o r e x a m p l e , c o n s i d e r t h e m e t a p h o r A R G U M E N T S A R E W A R . O n t h e w e a k

v i e w , t h e c o n c e p t o f a r g u m e n t h as i t s o wn r ep re s en ta t io n , s ep a ra te f ro m th a t o f

w a r . T h e co n cep t h a s s o me co n cep tu a l p r imi t iv e s an d r e l a t io n s th a t a r e n o t th e

s ame a s th a t o f w a r - i t s p a r t s a r e d e f in ed in th e i r o w n t e rms r a th e r th an in t e rms

o f th e me tap h o r . No n e th e le s s , o n e mig h t a rg u e th a t th e p r ev a len ce o f th i s

me tap h o r in l an g u ag e an d o u r th in k in g h a s r e s u l t ed in th e s t r u c tu r e o f th e

a r g u m e n t co n cep t b e in g s imi la r to th e s t r u c tu r e o f th e w a r concep t . Thus , the



G.L. Murphy / Cognition 60 (1996) 173-204 179

metap h o r h a s h ad s o me cau s a l e f f ec t o n th e co n cep t o f a r g u m e n t , b u t th e

r ep re s en ta t io n o f th e co n cep t i s n o t i t s e l f me tap h o r ica l . T h e c r i ti c a l d i f f e ren ce

b e tween th e s t ro n g an d weak v e r s io n s , th en , h a s to d o wi th in d ep en d en ce o f

r ep re s en ta t io n . I n th e s t r o n g v e r s io n , I re a l ly d o n o t h av e a we l l -d ev e lo p ed co n cep t

o f a r g u m e n t separa te f rom w a r - wh en I th in k ab o u t a rg u men ts , I u s e my

c o n c e p ts o f w a r s ( I ' m " u n d e r s t a n d i n g o n e k i n d o f t h i n g in t e rm s o f a n o t h e r " ) . I n

th e weak v e r s io n , I h av e a co mp le te , s ep a ra te co n cep t o f a r g u m e n t wh ich I u s e to

r ea s o n ab o u t a rg u men ts , b u t i t s co n ten t an d s t ru c tu r e h av e b een in f lu en ced b y my

k n o w l e d g e o f w a r .

3 . 3 . A n a l t e r n a t i v e v i e w

On e p ro b lem in th in k in g ab o u t me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n i s th a t a p l au s ib le

a l t e rn a t iv e h y p o th es i s i s n o t r e ad i ly fo u n d in L & J o r L ak o f f ( 1 9 8 7 ) . T h ey

p r imar i ly co n t r a s t th e i r v i ews wi th a co l l e c t io n o f c l a ims ab o u t me tap h y s ic s ,

l a n g u a g e a n d t h e m i n d t h a t t h e y c a l l " O b j e c t i v i s m . " T h i s m o n o l i t h i c v i e w i s o n e

th a t man y p s y ch o lo g i s t s wo u ld n o t wan t to co mmi t th ems e lv es to . No n e th e le s s ,

th ey may f ee l th a t L & J ' s s t r o n g v iews ab o u t me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n a r e n o t

co r r ec t . E v en w h en d i s cu s s in g m e tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta tio n m o re s p ec i f i c a lly , L a k o f f

(1 9 9 3 ) id en t i f i e s i t s o p p o n en t s ( th e " t r ad i t io n a l " v iew) a s h av in g v e ry ex t r eme

v iews , s u ch a s " ' A l l ev e ry d ay co n v en t io n a l l an g u ag e i s l i t e r a l , an d n o n e i sme tap h o r ica l . A l l s u b jec t ma t t e r c an b e co mp reh en d ed l i t e r a l ly , w i th o u t

me tap h o r " (p . 2 0 4 ) . A l th o u g h th e r e may b e p eo p le wh o h o ld th e s e v iews , th e r e

s eems to b e co n s id e rab le g ro u n d b e tween th i s ex t r eme p o s i t io n an d th e me tap h o r ic

r ep re s en ta t io n v iew, an d th i s m id d le g ro u n d i s n o t ad d re s s ed b y p ro p o n en t s o f

me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n .

I wi l l , there fo re , p ropose an a l te rna t ive hypo thes is tha t cou ld se rve as a bas is o f

co mp ar i s o n , t h e s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y v i e w . O n th i s v i ew, th e re i s n o s t ro n g fo rm o f

m etaphor ic rep re sen ta t ion - a l l concep ts a re d i rec t ly rep resen ted . Fur thermo re , the

p rev a len ce o f m e tap h o r ic w ay s o f t a lk in g ab o u t c e r t ain d o ma in s d o es n o t g en e ra l ly

re f lec t the in f luence o f the metaphor on the rep resen ta t ion (as in the weak vers ion) .

In s t ead , th e me tap h o r s a r i s e o u t o f th e s imi la r i ty o f p r e - ex i s t in g co n cep tu a l

s t ruc tu res (p lus a var ie ty o f d iscou rse fac to rs , d iscussed be low) . M etaph ors suc h as

A R G U M E N T I S W A R a r is e o u t o f t he s t r uc tu r al s i m i l a r i ty o f th e c o n ce p t s o f

a rg u men ts an d th e co n cep t s o f wa r s : T h e r e l a t io n s o f th e co mp o n en t s o f a r g u m e n t

can b e p ro jec ted o n to th e r e l a t io n s o f w a r i n a co h e ren t way ( s ee Gen tn e r an d

Cle m ent , 1988). So , i t is no t super f ic ia l s imi la r i ty tha t i s a t p lay here , bu t

s imi la r i ty o f re la t iona l s t ruc tu re . Th is s t ruc tu ra l s imi la r i ty permits peop le to

co n s t ru c t u n d e r s t an d ab le v e rb a l me tap h o r s . T h o s e th a t a r e th e mo s t in t e r e s t in g o r

r e v e a li n g " s t i c k " a n d m a y b e c o m e c o n v e n t i o n a l w a y s o f t a lk i n g . T h o s e t h a t a re

u n rev ea l in g o r p o o r co r r e s p o n d en ces d o n o t s t i ck an d s o d o n o t b eco me

co n v en t io n a l .

A cav ea t i s imp o r tan t h e r e . T h e s t ru c tu r a l s im i la r i ty v iew i s n o t a th eo ry o f

n o v e l v e rb a l me tap h o r . I am n o t s ay in g th a t L ee i s a b l o c k o f i c e m e a n s j u s t t h a t



180 G.L, Mu rphy / Cogni tion 60 (1996) 173- 20 4

L ee i s s im i la r to i c e . T h e p o in t o f Lee is a block of ice i s t o s ay s o me th in g ab o u t

L ee , n o t ju s t t o p o in t o u t a g lo b a l s im i la r i ty o f L ee an d i c e (Cam ac an d

Glu ck s b e rg , 1 98 4; M an f r ed i an d G lu ck s b e rg , 1 99 4) . T h e s t ru c tu ra l s im i la r i ty v iew

s a y s o n ly t h at th e " c o n c e p t u a l m e t a p h o r s " i d e n ti f ie d b y L & J c a n b e e x p l a i n e d b y

co n cep tu a l s im i la r i ty wi th o u t r e s o r tin g to me tap h o r ic co n cep t s o r men ta l r e l a t io n s .

T h e s t ru c tu r a l s im i la r i ty v iew i s n o t o n e th a t I am g o in g to a rg u e fo r in d e ta i l .

My c la im i s th a t i t i s a p l au s ib le v iew th a t c an acco u n t f o r mu ch o f th e ev id en ce

ab o u t co n cep tu a l s t r u c tu r e th a t h a s b een u s ed to a rg u e fo r me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta -

t io n . Becau s e i t d o es n o t mak e an y c l a ims ab o u t me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n ( a

n o t io n th a t wi l l s o o n b e c r i t ic i zed ) , an d b ecau s e i t d o es n o t c l a im a cau s a l r o le fo r

me tap h o r s o n men ta l r ep re s en ta t io n s , i t s eems to b e a s imp le r h y p o th es i s . As a

r e s u l t , i f i t c an n o t b e r e j ec ted in f av o r o f o n e o f th e me tap h o r v iews o n emp i r i c a l

g ro u n d s , th e s t r u c tu ra l s im i la r i ty v iew s h o u ld b e p r e fe r r ed. T h e re a r e n o d o u b to th e r n o n me tap h o r ic ex p lan a t io n s o f th i s ev id en ce th a t d e s e rv e a t t en t io n a s we l l .

4. Strong metaphoric representation

T h e s t ro n g v iew o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n d o es n o t s eem ea s i ly t en ab le . L e t

u s c o n t i n u e w i t h t h e A R G U M E N T I S W A R e x a m p l e . M y k n o w l e d g e o f w a r

co n ta in s a co n s id e rab le amo u n t o f in fo rma t io n , wh ich i s wid e ly k n o wn in o u r

cu l tu r e . I k n o w ab o u t s p ec i f i c wa r s , ab o u t th e g en e ra l ev en t s an d s u b ev en t sin v o lv ed in a wa r , ab o u t s o me o f th e cau s e s an d co n s eq u en ces o f wa r , ab o u t th e

co mb a tan t s , weap o n s an d b a t t l e s in v o lv ed in wa r s o f d i f f e r en t e r a s .

S u p p o s e t h a t m y c o n c e p t o f argument were ca r r i ed b y a s e t o f p o in te r s to my

war co n cep t . My u n d e r s t an d in g o f a rg u men ts wo u ld b e in d i r ec t , t h ro u g h th e p a r t s

an d r e l a t io n s o f th e war co n cep t . Fo r ex amp le , th e p eo p le a rg u in g wo u ld h av e

p o in te r s to th e co mb a tan t s ; t h e s t a t emen t s mad e in th e a rg u men t wo u ld h av e

p o in te r s to th e p o s i t io n s t ak en d u r in g b a t t l e ; t h e re s u l t o f th e a rg u m en t wo u ld h av e

p o in te r s to th e o u tco m e o f th e w a r ( e .g . , i d en t i fy in g w in n e r s an d lo se r s) . I n th i s

w a y , w e c o u l d e x p l a i n w h y p e o p l e s a y " I u n d e r m i n e d h e r p o s i t i o n , " b e c a u s e h e r

a rg u men t wo u ld b e l ik e a s t r o n g h o ld th a t co u ld b e l i t e r a l ly u n d e rcu t in a b a t t l e ,

p h y s ica l ly w eak en in g i t. As in wa r , t h i s wo u ld in d ica te a b ad tu rn fo r m y o p p o n en t

in th e a rg u men t .

I f th e s e p o in te r s a r e l ik e m o s t o th e r p o in te r s d e s c r ib ed in th eo r ie s o f m en ta l

rep resen ta t ion (e.g. , An derso n and Bow er , 1973 ; Co l l ins and Qui l l ian , 1969;

Fah lman , 1 9 7 9 ) , t h en my co n cep t o f an a rg u men t wo u ld in c lu d e a lo t o f in co r r ec t

in fo rma t io n . Fo r ex amp le , I m ig h t th in k th a t wh en p eo p le a rg u e , th ey g o to h ig h

lo ca t io n s , in o rd e r to s h o o t an d k i l l t h e i r ad v e r sa r i e s. I m ig h t th in k th a t n ap a lm an d

m is s i l e s a r e ty p ica l ly u s ed in mo d em a rg u men ts , an d th a t th e p a r t ic ip an t s wea r

u n i fo rms . I m ig h t th in k th a t th e lo s e r o f th e a rg u me n t h a s to p ay r ep a ra t io n s to th e

win n e r , an d s o o n . Ho wev e r , I c an a s s u re th e r ead e r th a t I d o n o t th in k th e s e

th in g s .

I t s eems c lea r th a t th e s e p o in te r s c an n o t b e th e u s u a l p o in te r s th a t a r e u s ed to

d e f in e a co n cep t . Fo r ex amp le , my co n cep t o f dog po in ts to var ious a t t r ibu tes , such




a s h a v i n g f u r , b a r k i n g , h a v i n g f o u r l e g s , b e i n g a m a m m a l , a n d s o o n . H o w e v e r ,

t h e s e p o i n t e r s a r e t ak en a s r ep re s en t i n g r ea l i ty - I d o b e l i ev e th a t d o g s a r e

( n o r m a l l y ) f o u r - l e g g e d , t h a t th e y b a r k , a r e m a m m a l s a n d h a v e f u r. W h a t i s i t a b o u t

t h e p o i n t e r s f r o m a r g u m e n t to w a r t h a t p r e v e n t t h e d r a w i n g o f i n c o r r e c t

i n f e r e n c e s ? I f a r g u m e n t f i t s L & J ' s q u o t a t i o n g i v e n e a r l i e r , " T h e e s s e n c e o f

m e t a p h o r i s u n d e r s t a n d in g a n d e x p e r i e n c i n g o n e k i n d o f t h i n g in t e rm s o f

a n o t h e r , " t h e n m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a r g u m e n t s s h o u l d b e v i a c o n n e c t i o n s t o t h e

a c t u a l c o n c e p t o f w a r . A n d y e t , m a n y t h i n g s I b e l i e v e a b o u t w a r s I d o n ' t b e l i e v e

a b o u t a r g u m e n t s . . . i n f a ct , m o s t t h i n g s I b e l i e v e a b o u t w a r s I d o n ' t b e l i e v e

a b o u t a r g u m e n t s , e v e n t h o u g h I c o n c u r w i t h m a n y o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s t h a t

L & J p o i n t o u t .

O n e p o s s i b l e a n s w e r i s t h a t t h e p o i n t e r s b e t w e e n a r g u m e n t a n d w a r a r e n o t i n

f ac t t h e u s u a l s o r t o f p o i n t e r - o r p e rh ap s , ev e n t a l k i n g i n t e rm s o f p o i n t e r s i ss o m e h o w m i s l e a d in g . T h e c o n n e c t i o n h e r e is n o t t h e s a m e a s th a t b e t w e e n d o g a n d

f u r o r m a m m a l . I n s te a d , p e r h a p s t h e c o n n e c t i o n i ts e l f i s m e t a p h o r i c a l - a s i m p l e

p o i n t e r o r e q u a t i o n c a n n o t c a p t u r e t h e r e l a t i o n .

T h e r e i s a s e r i o u s p r o b l e m w i t h a n y a c c o u n t r e q u i r i n g m e t a p h o r i c c o n n e c t i o n s ,

n a m e l y h o w a m e t a p h o r i c m e n t a l r e l a t i o n i s t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d . A s p o i n t e d o u t

e a r l ie r , a n y m e t a p h o r n e e d s t o b e i n t e r p re t e d , b e c a u s e t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e

t o p i c a n d v e h i c l e is n o t c o m p l e t e l y d e s c r i b e d i n th e m e t a p h o r i ts e lf . T h e s t a t e m e n t

t h a t E n c y c l o p e d i a s a r e g o l d m i n e s d o es n o t ex p l i c i t l y p o i n t o u t t h a t i t i s t h e

i n f o r m a t i o n i n e n c y c l o p e d i a s t h a t is b e i n g r e l a t e d t o t h e g o l d , a n d t h a t t h e v a l u e o fg o l d i s b e i n g p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e v a l u e o f t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . N o r d o e s t h e s t a t e m e n t

e x p l a i n w h a t i s i r r e l e v a n t a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t o p i c a n d v e h i c l e : I t d o e s n ' t

s a y t h a t t h e e l e c t r ic a l c o n d u c t i v i t y o f g o l d i s n o t b e i n g r e l a t e d t o e n c y c l o p e d i a s ; it

d o e s n ' t s a y t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t m i n e s a r e u n d e r g r o u n d i s i r r e l e v a n t . N o n e t h e l e s s , i n

u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e m e t a p h o r , m o s t r e a d e r s w o u l d m a k e t h e v a l i d a t t r i b u t i o n s a n d

n o t t h e i n v a l i d o n e s .

T h i s l a c k o f e x p l i c i t n e s s in r e la t i n g t h e to p i c a n d v e h i c l e c a u s e s n o p r o b l e m f o r

a p e r s o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a v e r b a l m e t a p h o r , a s s u m i n g t h e p e r s o n a l r e a d y k n o w s a

c o n s i d e ra b l e a m o u n t a b o u t e n c y c l o p e d i a s a n d g o l d m i n e s . It b e c o m e s p r o b l e m a t ic ,

h o w e v e r , w h e n i t i s t a k e n a s a m o d e l o f m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h e o b v i o u s

q u e s t i o n i s : w h o i s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e m e t a p h o r i c l i n k ? P r e s u m a b l y t h e r e i s n o

h o m u n c u l u s w h o k n o w s e n o u g h a b o ut e n c y c l o p e d i a s a n d g o l d m i n e s to w o r k o u t

t h e c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e ta t i o n o f t h e m e t a p h o r i c l i n k. T h e l i n k is s u p p o s e d t o r e p r e s e n t

t h e c o n c e p t , s o i t c a n ' t r e q u i r e k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e c o n c e p t in o r d e r to w o r k .

A n o t h e r d i f fi c u lt y o f t h e s t ro n g v e r s i o n o f m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s t h a t p a rt s

o f t h e m e t a p h o r w i l l t h e m s e l v e s b e m e t a p h o r i c a l l y u n d e r s t o o d i n m a n y i n s t a n c e s .

I n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e A R G U M E N T I S W A R m e t a p h o r , w e w o u l d n e e d t o a c c e s s

i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e e n t it i e s a n d e v e n t s i n v o l v e d i n w a r, a n d t h e m e t a p h o r i c

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v i e w a r g u e s t h a t p e o p l e , o b j e c t s a n d e v e n t s a r e t h e m s e l v e s

r e p r e s e n t e d m e t a p h o r i c a l l y . F o r e x a m p l e , i f w e r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e p e o p l e i n t h e

a r g u m e n t m i g h t g e t a n g r y , t h e n w e w o u l d h a v e t o d e a l w i t h m a n y d i f f e r e n t

m e t a p h o r s f o r a n g e r i d e n t i f ie d b y K o v e c s e s ( 1 9 8 6 ) a n d L a k o f f ( t 9 8 7 ) . T h u s , i n

u n d e r s t a n d i n g a r g u m e n t s , w e w o u l d h a v e t o m e t a p h o r i c a l l y r e a s o n a b o u t w a r ,



182 G.L. Murphy / Cogni tion 60 (1996) 17 3-2 04

wh ich wo u ld r eq u i r e u s to me tap h o r ica l ly r ea s o n ab o u t p eo p le , wh ich mig h t

r eq u i r e u s to me tap h o r ica l ly r ea s o n ab o u t th e i r emo t io n s , an d s o o n . I t i s u n c lea r

h o w man y emb ed d ed me tap h o r s i t i s r e a s o n ab le to ex p ec t p eo p le to b e ab le to

h an d le .

In shor t , the idea tha t argument i s rep resen ted th rough a l ink (o r l inks ) to war

s im p ly d o es n o t s eem to wo rk . I f t h e l in k is a n o rma l o n e , a s ty p ica l ly u n d e r s to o d

in co g n i t iv e p s y ch o lo g y , th en in co r r ec t a t t r ib u te s o f wa r s wo u ld ro u t in e ly b e

a t t rib u ted to a rg u m en ts . I f t h e l in k i t s e l f i s me tap h o r ic , t h en th e th eo ry s eem s to b e

ap p ea l in g to a h o mu n cu lu s wh o in te rp r e t s th e me tap h o r . T h u s , I co n c lu d e th a t th e

s t ro n g v iew o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n i s n o t th eo re t i c a l ly co h e ren t an d s h o u ld

be re jec ted .

In co n c lu s io n , th i s s t r o n g v iew o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n d o es n o t ap p ea r to

b e s u cces s fu l . Ho wev e r , i t may b e th a t a l e s s amb i t io u s v e r s io n o f th e th eo rywo u ld d o b e t t e r . T h i s i s d i s cu s s ed in th e n ex t s ec t io n .

5 . T h e w e a k v i e w o f m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n ta t i o n

O n th e w eak v iew o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n , th e r ep re s en ta tio n i t s e l f i s

d i r ec t . T h a t i s , a rg u men ts a r e r ep re s en ted v ia s y mb o ls th a t s t an d fo r a rg u e r s ( n o t

combatan ts ) , c la ims (no t ba t t le pos i t ions ) , var ious a rgument par ts (no t ba t t les ) , and

s o o n . Ho wev e r , t h e co n ten t an d s t ru c tu r e o f th i s r ep re s en ta t io n i s s o meh o wc a u s a l l y i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e m e t a p h o r A R G U M E N T I S W A R . I t i s n o t c l e a r f r o m

L & J h o w th i s c au s a l s t r u c tu r in g wo u ld wo rk - th a t i s , h o w war i s ch o s en a s th e

v eh ic le fo r in t e rp r e t in g argument, an d h o w i t mo d i f i e s th e to p ic . My g u es s i s th a t

th e cau s a l f a c to r i s th e h ea r in g o f id io ms an d co l lo ca t io n s th a t emb o d y th e s e

me tap h o r s ( in p a r t , s in ce th ey p lace s o mu ch emp h as i s o n v e rb a l ex p re s s io n s in

the i r wr i t ing) . For example , Barsa lou e t a l . (1993 , p . 56 ) sugges t tha t hear ing

id io ms can h av e lo n g e r - t e rm co n cep tu a l e f f ec t s : "Fo r ex amp le , th e ex p lo d in g

co n ta in e r me tap h o r [ fo r an g e r ] may l e ad s p eak e r s to b e l i ev e th a t emo t io n s r e f l e c t

p s y ch ic en e rg ie s in " r eg io n s o f th e m in d , " b r eak in g fo rth f ro m t im e to t ime to

p ro d u ce b eh av io ra l o u tb u r s t s . I n th i s way , th e me tap h o r ica l l ev e l may p ro v id e

in tu i t iv e th eo r i e s ab o u t a s p ec t s o f d i r ec t ex p e r i en ce th a t r ema in u n o b s e rv ab le . "

T h e q u es t io n a t i s s u e , th en , i s wh e th e r s u ch v e rb a l me tap h o r s c au s e o r in f lu en ce

concep tua l s t ruc tu re , as the weak v iew sugges ts , o r ins tead re f lec t p re -ex is t ing

con cep tu a l s t ruc tu re , as the s t ruc tu ra l s imi la r i ty v iew c la im s .

Un l ik e th e s t r o n g in te rp r e ta t io n o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n , th e weak o n e

s t r ik e s me a s a r e a s o n ab le emp i r i c a l c l a im . T h a t i s , a l th o u g h th e s p ec i f i c c au s a l

l in k i s n o t g en e ra l ly s p e l l ed o u t b y p ro p o n en t s o f me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n , i t i s

p o s s ib le to co n s t ru c t a p s y ch o lo g ica l a cco u n t o f th i s s o rt t h a t i s n o t th eo re t i c a l ly

incoheren t , as I a rgued tha t the s t rong v iew was . Thus , in th is sec t ion , I wi l l be

co n s id e r in g th e emp i r i c a l ev id en ce fo r th e weak v iew, a s we l l a s s p ec i f i c

a rg u men ts fo r an d ag a in s t i t . I w i l l a rg u e th a t th e ev id en ce d o es n o t y e t s u p p o r t

th i s v i ew v e ry w e l l , e s p ec ia l ly in re l a t io n to th e s imp le r s t ru c tu ra l s im i la r i ty th eo ry

descr ibed ear l ie r .



G.L, Murphy / Cognit ion 60 (1996) 1 73-2 04 18 3

5 . I . Prob l em s o f c ir cu lar it y o f ev idence

As readers on th is top ic know , a la rge por t ion , perhaps the majo r i ty o f the tex t

of th is l i terature (e.g ., Ko vec ses , 1986; La koff , 1987, La kof f , 1993; L& J) is tak en

u p wi th ex amp le s o f me tap h o r s in ev e ry d ay u s e . T h i s i s th e p r imary s o u rce o f

ev idence tha t the p roponen ts p rov ide fo r the i r pos i t ion . There i s a p rob lem wi th

th i s ev id en ce , wh ich can b e ex p la in ed b y an a lo g y to th e Sap i r -Wh o r f h y p o th es i s .

As i s we l l k n o wn , th e Wh o r f i an h y p o th es i s i s th a t l an g u ag e in f lu en ces th o u g h t b y

d e te rmin in g wh a t c a teg o r i e s an d d i s t in c t io n s we mak e . Ho wev e r , c r i t i c s o f th e

Wh o r f i an h y p o th es i s h av e p o in ted o u t th a t mu ch o f th e ev id en ce g iv en fo r i t h a s

been c i rcu la r (e .g . , Au , 1988) . A parody o f tha t ev idence goes as fo l lows .

Wh o r f i an : E s k imo s a r e g r ea t ly in f lu en ced b y th e i r l an g u ag e in th e i r p e r cep t io no f s n o w. Fo r ex amp le , th ey h av e N wo rd s fo r sn o w [N v a r i e s wid e ly - s ee

P u l lu m, 1 99 1] , w h e rea s E n g l i s h o n ly h a s o n e , snow . Ha v in g a l l th e s e d i f f e r en t

wo rd s mak es th em th in k o f s n o w v e ry d i f f e r en t ly th an , s ay Amer ican s d o .

Sk ep t i c : Ho w d o y o u k n o w th ey th in k o f s n o w s o d i f f e r en t ly ?

Wh o r f i an : L o o k a t a l l t h e wo rd s th ey h av e fo r i t ! N o f th em! T h ey mu s t mak e a

lo t o f d i s t in c t io n s b e tween k in d s o f s n o w th a t we d o n ' t , s in ce we ju s t c a l l i t a ll

SNOW.

In th i s a rg u men t , t h e c l a im i s mad e th a t l an g u ag e in f lu en ces th o u g h t o r

p e rcep t io n . Bu t th e o n ly ev id en ce g iv e n fo r th e c l a im s ab o u t co g n i t iv e d i f f e r en ces

i s l in g u i s t i c , i n th i s c a s e th e ex ac t s ame ev id en ce a s was g iv en fo r l in g u i s t i c

d i f f e ren ces . So , th e a l l eg ed N wo rd s E s k imo s h av e fo r s n o w i s b o th th e p r ed ic to r

(a l ingu is t ic d i f fe rence) and the p red ic ted da ta ( the cogn i t ive d i f fe rence) . In the

ca s e o f th e Wh o r f i an h y p o th es i s , wh en p e rcep tu a l o r co g n i t iv e d i f f e r en ces we re

te s t ed mo re s y s tem a t i ca l ly , t h ey s e ld o m s h o w ed th e c l ea r d i ff e r en ces th a t

Whorf ians had hoped fo r (e .g . , Au , 1983 ; Heider , 1972 ; see Lucy , 1992 , fo r a

m u c h m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c v i e w o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s ) .

T h e s ame k in d o f c r i t i c i s m co u ld b e mad e o f th e ev id en ce fo r th e weak

me tap h o r ic v iew, in my o p in io n . I n L & J , a cu l tu r a l me tap h o r i s id en t i f i ed o n th e

b as i s o f v a r io u s id io ms an d co l lo ca t io n s , s u ch a s I des t royed her a rgumen t ; he

lambas t ed me i n c la s s ; she undermined my pos i t i on . T h en a me tap h o r ic r ep re -

s en ta t io n i s p ro p o s ed o n th e b a s is o f th e s e d a ta , s u ch a s AR G U M E N T IS WA R.

Wh a t p r ed ic t io n s o r co n s eq u en ces a r e d e r iv ed f ro m th i s me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta -

t ion? In L&J , i t i s fu r ther id ioms and co l loca t ions : He can ' t de f end aga ins t t ha t

argumen t , e tc . T h e re i s an ab s en ce o f o th e r p s y ch o lo g ica l d a ta g iv en in s u p p o r t o f

th is v iew. Lakof f (1993 , pp . 205 , 246) iden t i f ies f ive types o f ev idence fo r the

me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n v iew: Fo u r o f th em a re l in g u i s t i c ) an d o n e o f th em i s

On e ty p e o f ev id en ce L ak o f f p r o v id es i n v o lv es r ea so n in g o r " in f e r en ce p a t t e r n s . " Bu t t h e ev id en ce

for th is is apparen t ly s imi lar i ty o f verba l metaph ors across dom ains - aga in , lingu is t ic ev idence .



184 G.L. Murphy / Cognition 60 (1996) 173-204

p s y ch o l in g u i s t i c ex p e r imen t s . No tab ly , n o n e o f th em p ro v id es a n o n l in g u i s t i c

meas u re o f co n cep tu a l s t r u c tu r e . S tan d a rd th eo r i e s o f co n cep t s h av e h ad imp l i ca -

t io n s fo r f in d in g s in in d u c t io n , p ro b lem-s o lv in g , o b jec t r e co g n i t io n , co n cep tu a l

d ev e lo p men t an d memo ry , amo n g o th e r a r ea s . I t wo u ld b e u s e fu l to s ee ev id en ce

fo r me tap h o r ica l co n cep t s f ro m th e s e d o ma in s , i n o rd e r to e s cap e th e l in g u i s t i c

c i rcu la r i ty .

T h e r e l i an ce o n l in g u i s t i c ex p re s s io n s r a i s e s a p ro b lem o f in t e rp r e ta tio n , a s w e l l.

I n r ecen t wo rk , Key s a r an d B ly (1 9 9 5 ) h av e a rg u ed th a t o n ce o n e u n d e r s t an d s an

id io m, i t i s ex t r eme ly d i f f i cu lt t o in t e rp r e t i t i n a d i f f e ren t w ay . T h ey d em o n s t r a t ed

th i s b y in tro d u c in g "n e w " id io ms to s u b jec ts - a c tu a l ly , a r ch a ic id io ms wh o s e

mean in g s we re n o t k n o wn to th e i r s u b jec t s . T h ey u s ed s u ch id io ms a s the goose

hangs high t o mean o p p o s i t e th in g s to d i f f e r en t s u b jec t s , i n th i s c a s e , " th in g s a r e

g o i n g w e l l " o r " t h i n g s a r e g o i n g b a d l y . " T h e n t h e y a s k e d s u b je c t s to e v a lu a t e t hel ik e l ih o o d th a t th e id io m co u ld h av e th e o th e r mean in g .

On ce s u b jec t s h ad l e a rn ed a g iv en mean in g fo r an id io m, th ey we re l e s s ab le to

accep t th e p o s s ib i l i ty th a t i t co u ld h av e h ad th e o th e r mean in g , r eg a rd le s s o f

wh e th e r th a t m ean in g was h i s to r i c a l ly co r rec t . K ey s a r an d B ly a rg u ed th a t th is

d emo n s t r a t e s th a t p a r t o f o u r u n d e r s t an d in g o f an id io m i s a b ack ward s -wo rk in g

ra t io n a le th a t a t t emp ts to mak e th e id io m co mp reh en s ib le . T h u s , o n ce y o u b e l i ev e

tha t the goose hangs high m e a n s " t h i n g s a r e g o i n g w e l l , " y o u c a n a r r i v e a t a

ju s t i f i c a t io n su ch a s " th e r e i s a f r e s h ly -k i l l ed g o o s e h a n g in g in th e l a rd e r, an d s o

th e re wi l l b e p len ty o f f o o d . " T h i s ju s t i f i c a t io n i s in co mp a t ib le wi th th e o p p o s i t emean in g , wh ich th en ap p ea r s to b e an u n l ik e ly in t e rp r e ta t io n .

Key s a r an d B ly ( in p r e s s ) p o in t o u t th a t th e me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n v iew o f

id io ms a s s u mes th a t o u r in tu i t io n s ab o u t id io ms an d co l lo ca t io n s co r r ec t ly

r ep re s en t th e co g n i t iv e an a ly s i s o f th e s e p h ra s e s . Fo r ex amp le , wh en we h ea r A t

that point, I blew up, w e c a n c o n v i n c i n g l y a n a l y z e t h i s a s a n e x a m p l e o f A N G E R

I S P R E S S U R E I N A H E A T E D C O N T A I N E R . B u t K e y s a r a n d B l y a r g u e t h a t t h e

me tap h o r m ay n o t in f ac t r ev ea l th e id io m ' s u n d e r ly in g rep re s en ta tio n . I n s t ead , i t

may a l s o b e a b ack ward s -wo rk in g r a t io n a le , mu ch l ik e th a t d ev i s ed b y th e i r

sub jec ts fo r the goose hangs high. I f th is i s the case , then the concep tua l

me tap h o r s th a t L & J id en t i fy may n o t b e th e u n d e r ly in g r ep re s en ta t io n s o f th e

v e rb a l ex p re s s io n s p r e s en ted a s ev id en ce , b u t in s t ead may b e a p o s t h o c an a ly s i s

th a t i s r e ad i ly accep ted , g iv en o u r k n o wled g e o f th e mean in g s o f th e t e rms .

T h i s a rg u men t i s n o t a c tu a l ly ev id en ce ag a in s t th e me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n

v iew ( an d s ee Gib b s , 1 99 4, f o r an o p p o s in g v iew ) , b u t i t d o es p o s e a p ro b lem fo r

ev id en ce g iv en in f av o r o f th e v iew. T h a t i s , Key s a r an d B ly ' s d a ta s u g g es t th a t a

m e t a p h o r i c a n a l y s i s o f a n i d i o m o r o t h e r e x p re s s io n m a y b e c o n v i n c i n g e v e n i f i t

i s n o t th e u n d e r ly in g r ep re s en ta t io n o f i t s mean in g .

T h e n ex t s ec t io n s o f th e a r t ic l e r a is e s o me th eo re t ic a l an d em p i r i c a l p ro b lems o f

me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n , f o cu s in g o n th e weak in te rp r e ta t io n .

5.2. Problem of multiple metaphors

On e o f th e mo s t in t e r e s t in g a s p ec t s o f th e l i t e r a tu r e o n me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta -

t io n i s th a t i t p o in t s o u t th e d iv e r s e me tap h o r s th a t we u s e in d e s c r ib in g ev e ry d ay




ac t iv i t i e s , w i th o u t co n s c io u s ly r ea l i z in g th a t a me tap h o r i s in v o lv ed . Mu ch o f th e

co n ten t o f L & J i s a li s t in g o f l a rg e n u m b er s o f me tap h o r s fo r a d o m a in . T h es e

co l l ec t io n s o f me tap h o r s a r e in d eed imp re s s iv e , b u t th ey a l s o r a i s e a p ro b lem fo r

th e me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n v iew. In man y ca s e s , t h e r e a r e mu l t ip l e me tap h o r s

fo r a g iv en d o m a in . H e re a r e ju s t s o me o f th e me tap h o r s Ko v ecs e s (1 9 8 6 )

p ro v id es fo r love:

L O V E I S

L O V E I S

L O V E I S

L O V E I S

L O V E I S

(p. 95)L O V E I S

A J O U R N E Y ( p . 6 )

A N O P P O N E N T ( p . 9 8 )

A U N I T Y ( O F T W O C O M P L E M E N T A R Y P A R TS ) (p . 6 2)

A H I D D E N O B J E C T ( p . 9 7 )

A V A L U A B L E C O M M O D I T Y (IN A N E C O N O M I C E X C H A N G E )

I N S A N I T Y ( p. 9 1 )

L & J a l s o ex p l i c i t ly p o in t o u t th a t th e re a r e o f t en d i f f e r en t me tap h o r s ab o u t th e

s ame d o ma in (p . 9 7 ) . T h ey g iv e a s ex amp le s :

A R G U M E N T I S A C O N T A I N E R

A R G U M E N T IS A B U I L D IN G

A R G U M E N T I S A J O U R N E Y

A R G U M E N T I S W A R

A l t h o u g h L & J h a v e m e n t i o n e d t h i s p h e n o m e n o n o f m u l t i p l e m e t a p h o r s a n d

inc luded i t in the i r accoun t , i t does no t seem to ac tua l ly be p red ic ted by the

u n d e r ly in g th eo ry . Fo r ex amp le , o n ce o n e h a s u n d e r s to o d love b y co n cep tu a l i z in g

i t a s a jo u rn ey , i t i s n o t c l ea r a p r io ri w h y o n e wo u ld n eed to fu r th e r co n cep tu a l i ze

i t a s a b a t t l e o r u n io n o r wh a tev e r .

L & J (p . 1 0 5 ) s u g g es t th a t mu l t ip l e me tap h o r s " to g e th e r s e rv e th e co mp lex

p u rp o s e o f ch a rac te r i z in g th e co n cep t o f an a rg u men t in a l l o f i t s a s p ec t s , a s we

co n ce iv e th e m " ( see a l s o p. 2 2 1 ) . Ho w ev e r , t h i s ex p lan a t io n ap p ea r s to b e d i r ec t ly

co n t r a ry to th e s p i r i t o f th e me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n v iew. T h e ex p lan a t io n

as s u mes th a t th e r e i s an in d ep en d en t co n cep tu a l i za t io n o f argumen t , an d mu l t ip l e

m etapho rs a re nee ded to charac te r ize a l l o f i ts aspec ts . I f co r rec t , then , metapho rs

a r e n o t s e rv in g a s c au s a l o rg an ize r s o f th e d o ma in b u t a r e o p e ra t in g a f t e r th e f ac t

to d e s c r ib e o r ch a rac te r i ze th e d i r ec t ly - r ep re s en ted d o ma in . (T h i s i s s u e wi l l b e

d i s cu s s ed fu r th e r in r eg a rd to th e In v a r i an ce P r in c ip le b e lo w. )

T h e re a r e o th e r p ro b lems o f mu l t ip l e me tap h o r s fo r a s in g le d o ma in . Su p p o s e

t h a t t h e m e t a p h o r L O V E I S A J O U R N E Y h a s h a d a c a u sa l i n fl u e n ce o n o u r

co n cep t s o f love. So , the lovers a re conce ived o f as peop le tak ing a t r ip toge ther

to ward a co mmo n d es t in a t io n , s t a r t in g a s s t r an g e r s , h av in g man y ex p e r i en ces , an d

then end ing the t r ip (perhaps l iv ing happ i ly ever a f te r ) . I f th is i s a v iab le metaphor

fo r love, t h e n i t i s h a r d t o s ee h o w t h er e i s a ls o r o o m f o r L O V E I S A V A L U A B L E

CO M M O DIT Y . O n th is m e tap h o r (Ko v ecs e s , 1 98 6, p . 9 5 ) , " a l a rg e p a r t o f th e

c o n c e p t o f L O V E i s v i e w e d a s a n d c o m p r e h e n d e d i n t e r m s o f c o m m e r c i a l




transactions." Here, lovers are seen as "merchants exchanging goods," which are

of equal value. But in a commercial transaction, the goal is to maximize profit, so

the participants have opposing goals. This is contrary to the journey metaphor, in

which lovers begin with the same goal and work in concert (i.e., they are going to

the same place). There are other notable differences between these metaphors (e.g.,

the amount of time involved, the notions of progress and adventure in a journey

but not in a commercial exchange). In short, it is difficult to see how these two

metaphors could be simultaneously structuring the same concept. That is, hearing

expressions like "We've come a long way" would tend to create one structure for

love , whereas "I gave you my hear t" would tend to create another. Since there are

numerous metaphors for love in our culture (e.g., LOVE IS INSANITY, LOVE IS

A SICKNESS), the confusion must be even worse than that described here. It may

be that hearing a metaphor does have some effect on concepts like love , but it isdifficult to see how multiple metaphors can result in a coherent conceptual

structure.

One possible reply to this objection is that there are different concepts for the

same thing - for example, one love concept for the journey version, another for

the insanity version, another for the commercial transaction version, and so on.

Lakoff's (1987) notion of r ad i a l c a t e gor i e s might be an example of this. The

challenge for this view would be to explain how these concepts are coordinated

and used in thought and behavior. For example, how do people know which

concept to use when no verbal metaphor is given in the situation? Or are all themetaphors used? If the metaphors are very different, how are conflicting inferences

handled? Although one can imagine an account in which abstract concepts had

multiple conflicting versions, clearly such an account would need to be explained

in some detail.

Another possible way out of the multiple metaphor problem is to propose that

the different metaphors address different parts of the topic concept. For example,

LOVE IS A JOURNEY could influence the structure of the entire love relation-

ship, whereas LOVE IS INSANITY could influence the representation of the

lovers' mental states during one part of that journey (the initial, infatuation stage).

Although this move might help reduce the problem of conflicting metaphors, it is

still not clear that the metaphors don't conflict. If the participants in love are

insane, then how can they enter into a commercial transaction? If they are sick,

then how do they carry out a lengthy journey? Also, some metaphors seem clearly

to be describing some of the same aspects of the concept (e.g., LOVE IS A

JOURNEY and COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION both seem to cover the

temporal events in a love relationship). A detailed analysis of such potentially

conflicting cases would be helpful.

Perhaps as a result of considerations of this sort, later descriptions of the

metaphoric representation view have attempted to constrain the metaphoric

mapping in a way that might lessen the problem of multiple metaphors. Lakoff

(1993, p. 215) proposes an "Invariance Principle": "Metaphorical mappings

preserve the cognitive topology (that is, the image-schema structure) of the source

domain [vehicle], in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target

domain [topic]" (see also Lakoff, 1990). That is, the nature of the metaphoric




m a p p i n g f r o m a r g u m e n t s t o w a r i s c o n s t r a i n e d b y t h e " i n h e r e n t s t r u c t u r e " o f

a r g u m e n t s . O n e w a y t o i n t e r p r e t t h i s p r i n c i p l e i s i n t e r m s o f a s k e l e t o n a n a l o g y

( G e o r g e L a k o f f h a s s u g g e s t e d t h i s i n a p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , t h o u g h t h e

f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s a r e m y o w n ) . E a c h d o m a i n h a s a f r a m e w o r k o r s k e l e t o n t h a t i s

d i r e c t l y r e p r e s e n t e d - t h e i n h e r e n t s t ru c t u re o f t h e d o m a i n . T h i s f r a m e w o r k

i d en t i f i e s t h e g en e ra l s t ru c t u re o f t h e co n cep t ( t h o u g h i n s o m e ca s e s , t h i s i s q u i t e

f r ag m en t a ry ) , b u t i t l e av es m an y o f t h e d e t a i l s b l an k , b eca u s e t h ey a r e d i f f i cu l t t o

d i r e c t l y c o n c e p t u a l i z e . T h e f r a m e w o r k , t h e n , i s t h e d i r e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , a n d t h e

m e t a p h o r s a d d t h e " f l e s h " t o t h e s k e l e t o n b y f i l l i n g i n i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s n o t

d i r e c t ly r e p r e s e n t e d - i n m a n y c a s e s , t h e b u lk o f t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e c o n c e p t .

P e r h a p s t h e s k e l e t o n o f argument i n c l u d es t h e i n fo rm a t i o n t h a t i t i s a v e rb a l

i n t e rc h a n g e b e t w e e n t w o p e o p l e w h o a r e o p p o s e d i n s o m e w a y . T h i s i n f o r m a t io n

i s r a t h e r v a g u e , a n d t h e m e t a p h o r A R G U M E N T I S W A R s u p p l i e s f u r t h e rs p e c i f i c a t i o n o f i t . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e i d e a t h a t p e o p l e t a k e " p o s i t i o n s " i n t h e i r

a r g u m e n t w o u l d b e i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t p o s i t i o n s a r e t a k e n i n b a t t l e . O t h e r

m e t a p h o r s w o u l d p r o v i d e d i f f e r e n t i n f e r e n c e s . D i f f e r e n t m e t a p h o r s w o u l d b e

c o n s i s t e n t t o t h e d e g r e e t h a t t h e y w o u l d a l l b e w o r k i n g f r o m t h e s a m e g e n e r a l

f r a m e w o r k ( s k e l e t o n ) , b u t t h e y c o u l d d i f f e r c o n s i d e r a b l y i n s o m e o f t h e i r

i m p l i ca t i o n s ( t h e f l e s h ad d ed t o t h e s k e l e t o n ) .

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e I n v a r i a n c e P r i n c i p l e c a n n o t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y p r e s e r v e

m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a ti o n a n d s o lv e th e p r o b l e m o f m u l t i p l e m e t a p h o r s - t w o

i n co m p a t i b l e p ro p e r t i e s m u s t b e a t t r i b u t ed t o it in o rd e r fo r it to d o b o t h jo b s . T h es k e l e t o n i s a d i r ec t r ep re s en t a t i o n , an d s o t o t h e d eg ree t h a t i t i s i n v o l v ed i n

c o n c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e c o n c e p t i s n o t o r g a n i z e d m e t a p h o r i c a l l y ( w h i c h i s

w h y i t i s s a i d t o o f t e n b e m i n i m a l ) . T h e " f l e s h " a d d e d t o t h e s k e l e t o n i s a n

e x a m p l e o f t h e s t r o n g v i e w o f m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n : T h e m e t a p h o r i s f i l l i n g

t h e g ap s i n th e f r a m e w o r k b y t r a n s f e r ri n g i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e m e t a p h o r i c d o m a i n

t o t h e t o p i c d o m a i n . T h u s , t h e r e i s n o d i r e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h i s m e t a p h o r i c

m a t e r i a l, w h i c h r e s u lt s i n th e s a m e p r o b l e m s a s w e r e r a i se d f o r t h e s tr o n g v i e w o f

m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I n p a r t i c u l a r , w h a t i s t o s t o p p e o p l e f r o m m a k i n g

i n f e r e n c e s t h a t a re e m p i r i c a l l y i n c o r r e c t a b o u t t h e t a rg e t d o m a i n ? T h a t i s, w i t h o u t

m o r e c o n t e n t i n t h e argument c o n ce p t, t he A R G U M E N T IS W A R m e t a p h o r w o u l d

a l l o w p eo p l e t o i n fe r t h a t g u n s a r e u s ed , e t c . I n o rd e r t o p rev en t t h i s , t h e s k e l e t o n

m u s t b e d e t a i l e d e n o u g h t o s p e c i f y w h i c h i n f e r e n c e s a re p e r m i s s i b l e a n d w h i c h a r e

n o t : N o o n e i n f e r s t h a t g u n s a r e u s e d i n a r g u m e n t s , b e c a u s e o n e a l r e a d y k n o w s

t h a t t h ey a r e n o t . H o wev e r , t h i s t u rn s o u t t o b e s i m p l y a fo rm o f d i r ec t

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a f t e r al l, s i n c e t h e i n h e r e n t s tr u c tu r e o f t h e d o m a i n m u s t b e d e t a i l e d

e n o u g h t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t c a n a n d c a n n o t b e s a i d a b o u t th e c o n c e p t . T h a t i s, i f t h e

s k e l e t o n ( o r o t h e r l i t e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n m e m o r y ) t r u l y p r e v e n t s t h e i n c o r r e c t

i n f e r e n c e s , t h e n t h e c o n c e p t s e e m s t o b e d i r e c t l y r e p r e s e n t e d ; i f i t c a n n o t p r e v e n t

t h e m , t h e n i t i s e m p i r i c a l l y in c o r r e c t. T h u s , t h e s k e l e t o n n e e d s t o b e b o t h e x t e n s i v e

( t o p r e v e n t i n c o r r e c t i n f e r e n c e s ) a n d m i n i m a l ( t o a l l o w m e t a p h o r i c m a p p i n g s ) . I f

o n e d o e s n o t a s s u m e t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d m e t a p h o r i c a l l y , t h e n t h i s

p a rad o x d o es n o t a r i s e .

I n s u m m a r y , i f a c o n c e p t i s s tr u c tu r e d m e t a p h o r i c a l l y , th e p r e s e n c e o f m u l t ip l e ,

c o n f l i c t i n g m e t a p h o r s i s a s e r io u s p r o b l e m . R e f e r e n c e s to " i n h e r e n t s t r u c t u r e " o f



188 G.L. Murphy / Cogni t ion 60 (1996) 173-204

t h e t a rg e t d o ma in ap p ea r to r eq u i r e th a t i t a l r e ad y b e n o n me tap h o r ica l ly r ep re -

s en ted . I f t h e n o t io n th a t me tap h o r s in f lu en ce co n cep t s i s to b e r e t a in ed , th en , a

mu ch mo re co mp le te ex p lan a t io n wi l l b e n eed ed fo r h o w co n f l i c t in g me tap h o r s a r e

reso lved .

5 . 3 . P o l y s e m y

L & J in c lu d e a v a s t n u mb er o f ex amp le s o f me tap h o r s in th e i r d i s cu s s io n .

H o w e v e r , a n u m b e r o f t h e m m a y s tr i ke th e r e a d e r a s n o t b e i n g m e t a p h o r ic a l a t a l l

( i ta l ics in the o r ig ina ls ) :

I n f l a t io n h a s g o n e u p .

G e t u p . W a k e up .

Y o u ' r e w a s t i n g m y t i m e .

H e r e g o i s f r a g i l e .

T h e s h ip i s c o m i n g i n t o v i e w .

W e ' l l j u s t h a v e t o g o o u r s e p a r a t e w a y s . [abou t a re la t ionsh ip ]

H e r a n o u t of ideas .

H e ' s s e e k i n g h is fo r tune .

(T h e re a r e ev en mo re ex amp le s in Ko v ecs e s , 1 9 8 6 , th a t a r e s a id to b eme tap h o r ica l o r me to n y mic , wh ich a r e n o t s o o n my r ead in g , s u ch a s : Sh e co u ld n ' t

co n ta in h e r j o y ; H e f l u s h e d wi th p r id e ; Af te r win n in g th e r ace , h e wa lk ed to th e

ros t rum w i t h h i s h e a d h e l d h i g h ; H e w a s s m i l i n g p ro u d ly a f t e r th e r ace ; H is

cr i t ic ism h u r t her p r ide . )

T h es e ex amp le s a r e mean t to i l l u s t r a t e co n cep tu a l me tap h o r s s u ch a s INFL A-

T I O N S I S A T H I N G a nd P E O P L E A R E C O N T A I N E R S . W h y is In f la t ion is r is ing

a m e t a p h or ? ( i ' v e s l i g h tl y c h a n g e d t h e i r In f l a t i o n h a s g o n e u p e x a m p l e , s i m p l y to

be ab le to re fe r to the verb r ise r a t h e r t h a n t h e c o m p o u n d v e r b go up . ) L & J ( p .

1 71 ) p ro v id e th e fo l lo win g an a ly s i s : "a . W e v iew in f l a t io n a s a SU BS T A N CE (v ia

a n o n t o l o g ic a l m e t a p h o r) , b . W e v i e w M O R E a s b e i n g o r i e n te d U P ( v i a a n

o r i en ta t io n a l me tap h o r ) . We u n d e r s t an d th e s e n t e n c e i n t e rms o f th e s ame two

m e tap h o r s . " P re s u m ab ly , th i s m e tap h o r ex i s t s b ecau s e in f l a tio n i s an ab s tr ac t

co n cep t , wh ich can mo re ea s i ly b e th o u g h t o f a s a p h y s ica l o b jec t c a r ry in g o u t

f ami l i a r p h y s ica l a c t iv i t i e s , l i k e r i s in g . I n th i s an a ly s i s , L & J d o n o t co n s id e r th e

a l t e rn a t iv e v iew th a t th i s s en ten ce i s n o t me tap h o r ic an d i s u n d e r s to o d v ia th e

l i t e r a l mean in g s o f th e wo rd s .

I t s h o u ld b e n o ted , th o u g h , th a t th e s ame k in d o f ev id en ce i s n o rma l ly t ak en b y

l in g u i s t s a s ev id en ce o f p o ly s emy , th e f ac t th a t wo rd s h av e a n u mb er o f r e l a t ed

mean in g s . Ru h l ( 1 9 8 9 ) , f o r ex amp le , co n s id e r s n u mero u s ex amp le s o f u s e s o f th e

verb hit. He f in d s b o th p h y s ica l an d n o n p h y s ica l u s e s o f th e v e rb th a t s eem

semant ica l ly re la ted (e .g . , 1 d i d n ' t m e a n t o h i t y o u ; T h e b i r d h i t t h e w i n d o w ; I ' m

rea l ly h i t t ing the bo ok s n ow ; W hen th e t ru th h i t me , I cou ldn "t be l iev e i t.) . T h e r e

are two s t ra teg ies tha t one cou ld take to dea l wi th such da ta (Cruse , 1986 ;




Sw eetser , 1986). O ne (R uh l ' s cho ice) is to a rgue tha t h it i s s imp ly u n s p ec i f i ed a s

to p h y s ica l o r n o n p h y s ica l co n tac t ; t h e wo rd mean in g i s ab s t r ac t en o u g h to

en co mp as s b o th u s e s . T h e o th e r s t r a t eg y i s to a l lo w h it to have two re la ted

s eman t i c en t r i e s , o n e p h y s ica l an d o n e n o n p h y s ica l . On e co u ld t ak e e i th e r

ap p ro ach in ex p la in in g th e Inflation b r is ing ex amp le . P e rh ap s th e mean in g o f rise

i s g en e ra l en o u g h to en co mp as s p h y s ica l in c r ea s e s in th e v e r t i c a l d imen s io n a s

we l l a s o th e r in c r ea s e s . Or p e rh ap s rise h as two (o r mo re ) en t r i e s d i s t in g u i s h in g

th es e two k in d s o f in c r ea s e s . T h es e ex p lan a t io n s a r e n o t ad h o c acco u n t s d e s ig n ed

ju s t f o r th e s e p u ta t iv e me tap h o r s , a s th ey a r e n eces s a ry to ex p la in man y o th e r

e x a m p l e s o f p o l y s e m y , s u ch a s chicken u s ed to r e f e r to an an ima l an d s o me mea t ,

a n d b o o k used to re fe r to an ob jec t and a tex t .

L & J a s s u m e ( r a th e r th an ex p l i c i t ly a rg u e ) th a t th e r ea l mea n in g o f rise is

p h y s ica l r i s in g , an d an y o th e r k in d o f in c r ea s e i s a me tap h o r ica l mean in g . T h i sa s s u mp t io n tu rn s o u t to b e mu ch th e s ame a s th e i r th eo ry o f co n cep t s ap p l i ed to

lan g u ag e ; n ame ly , i t s ay s th a t o n ly s imp le p h y s ica l ex p e r i en ces can b e d i r ec t ly

en co d ed in l in g u i s t i c mean in g , an d n o n p h y s ica l o r ab s t r ac t r e l a t io n s mu s t b e

ex p re s s ed v ia me tap h o r . T h u s , th e i r c l a im th a t Inflation is rising i s metaphor ic i s

b a s ica l ly an a s s u mp t io n o f th e i r th eo ry , r a th e r th an ev id en ce fo r i t .

L & J ap p ea r to r eco g n ize th e d an g e r o f th i s a rg u men t , b ecau s e th ey s p en d

cons iderab le space ( in Chs . 18 and 27) address ing i t . They f i r s t cons ider an

a l te r n a ti v e t h e y c a ll t h e H o m o n y m y A r g u m e n t , w h i c h s a y s th a t t h ei r e x a m p l e s d o

no t cons t i tu te metaphors bu t ins tead re f lec t the fac t tha t words can have d i f fe ren t ,u n re la t ed mean in g s ( l ik e b a n k o r ca l f ) . L & J r ig h t fu l ly d i s mis s th i s v i ew o f th e i r

ex amp le s , b ecau s e i t d o es n o t p r ed ic t wh y i t i s t h a t th e wo rd s h av e th e mean in g s

th ey d o . Al th o u g h i t i s p l au s ib le th a t b a n k i s a h o mo n y m, i t i s n o t p l au s ib le th a t

des troy s imp ly h ap p en s to in c lu d e mean in g s th a t ap p ly to b a t t l e s an d a rg u men ts ,

o r tha t rise b y c o i n c i d e n c e c a n a p p l y to p h y s i c a l a n d n o n p h y s i c a l m o v e m e n t s . T h e

two mean in g s ap p ea r c lo s e ly r e l a t ed .

Ho wev e r , t h i s a rg u men t d o es n o t ad d re s s th e p o s s ib i l i ty th a t wo rd s l ik e rise are

p o ly s emo u s , an d th a t th e d i f f e r en t mean in g s a r e r e l a t ed b y s imi la r i ty . T h u s ,

Inflation is r is ing may n o t b e me tap h o r ic . L & J a rg u e th a t th i s i s u n l ik e ly , b ecau s e

s u ch w o rd s d o n o t h av e in h e ren t s t ru c tu re th a t co u ld b e r e l a t ed b y s imi la r i ty . T h e y

co n s id e r th e co n cep t love: "Here th e o b jec t iv i s t mu s t n o t o n ly b ea r th e b u rd en o f

c la imin g th a t lo v e h a s in h e ren t p ro p e r t i e s s im i la r to th e in h e ren t p ro p e r t i e s o f

jo u rn ey s , e l e c t ro mag n e t i c p h en o men a , an d s i ck p eo p le ; h e mu s t a l s o c l a im th a t

love i s su f f ic ien t ly c lea r ly def ined in te rm s o f these inhe ren t p roper t ies so tha t

th o s e s imi la r i t i e s wi l l ex i s t " ( p. 2 1 5 ) . T h e a rg u men t th a t love does no t have i t s

own s t ruc tu re i s no t qu i te fa i r , s ince i t c r i t ic izes a pos i t ion tha t L&J (p . 105)

t h e m s e l v e s e m b r a c e d w h e n e x p l a i n in g w h y i t i s t h at t he s a m e d o m a i n h a s s o m a n y

metaphors ( see p rev ious sec t ion) . There they sa id tha t the reason tha t there a re so

m a n y m e t a p h o r s f o r love i s t h a t th ey we re n eed ed to acco u n t f o r a l l t h e way s th a t

we th in k o f lo v e . T h u s , i t is i n co n s i s t en t f o r th em to a rg u e th a t p o ly s em y can n o t b e

e x p l a i n e d b y s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e m e a n i n g o f love t o s o m e a s p ec t o f jo u rn ey s , e t c.

In fac t , the use o f rise t o r e f e r to b o th p h y s ica l an d n o n p h y s ica l in c r ea s e s can b e

e x p l a i n e d b y t h e s i m i l a r it y o f t h e t w o m e a n i n g s , c o m b i n e d w i t h w e l l -k n o w n r u l es



19 0 G . L . M u r p h y / C o g n i t io n 6 0 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 1 7 3 - 2 0 4

ab o u t p o ly s emy . Nu n b e rg (1 9 7 8 , Nu n b e rg (1 9 7 9 ) a rg u es th a t th e s ame wo rd can

h av e mu l t ip l e mean in g s i f s p eak e r s c an r e ly o n l i s t en e r s b e in g ab le to r eco v e r th e

in ten d ed m ean in g , g iv e n th e u s u a l u s e o f th e wo rd . ( I am s im p l i fy in g co n s id e rab ly

here ; see a lso Clark , 1991 . ) Tha t i s , g iven one sense o f rise t o in d ica te p h y s ica l

mo v emen t , c an I in f e r th e u s e th a t mean s a n o n p h y s ica l in c r ea s e , g iv en th e

s en ten ce an d d i s co u r s e co n tex t? In th i s c a s e , s in ce I k n o w th a t in f l a t io n can n o t

p h y s ica l ly r is e b u t th a t i t c an ce r t a in ly in c r ea s e , i t i s p o s s ib le to d e r iv e th e in t en d ed

n o n p h y s ica l mean in g . Me tap h o r d o es n o t s eem n eces s a ry to ex p la in th i s ex amp le .

O f co u r se , t h e s imi la r i ty h e r e i s n o t o f s u p e r f ic i a l f ea tu r e s b u t o f u n d e r ly in g

re la t io n s ( i . e , , an en t i ty u n d e rg o es a ch an g e s u ch th a t i t s v a lu e o n a d imen s io n

in c rea s e s ) . I f we n eed ed to ca r e fu l ly d i s t in g u i s h p h y s ica l an d n o n p h y s ica l r i s in g ,

we co u ld h av e s ep a ra te wo rd s in E n g l i s h to en co d e th i s d i s t in c t io n . Ho wev e r , i t i s

g en e ra l ly q u it e o b v io u s in co n tex t w h ich k in d o f r i s in g i s in t en d ed , an d s o th e co s tin ad d in g v o cab u la ry i s ap p a ren t ly g r ea te r th an th e n eed fo r g r ea te r a ccu racy in

th is case .

I n su m m a r y , a n u m b e r o f th e " m e t a p h o r s " t h a t L & J a n d o th e rs i d e n t i fy m a y

w e l l n o t b e m e t a p h o r s a t a l l . O n e m i g h t c l a i m t h i s a b o u t t h e A R G U M E N T I S

WAR cas e , f o r ex amp le . I t may we l l b e th a t attack i s s imp ly u n s p ec i f i ed fo r

p h y s ica l o r v e rb a l a t t a ck , an d s o i t s mean in g ap p l i e s eq u a l ly we l l t o b o th (Ru h l ,

1 98 9) . P e rh ap s th e v e rb a l a t t a ck i s ju s t a l e ss ty p ica l ex amp le o f th e s ame c o n cep t

(Co le m an an d K ay , 1 9 8 1 ). O r i t co u ld b e th a t b o th m ean in g s a r e r ep re sen ted in th e

lex ico n . I f an y o f th e s e a r e t r u e , th en mu ch o f th e ev id en ce th a t L & J ad d u ce mayn o t in f ac t p ro v id e ev id en ce fo r me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n . Of co u r s e , t h i s k in d o f

p o ly s em y i s an imp o r tan t an d in te r e s t in g to p ic in i ts o wn r ig h t , an d o n e mig h t we l l

wan t to in v es t ig a te h o w i t i s r ep re s en ted an d p ro ces s ed in l an g u ag e u s e . Ho wev e r ,

tha t i s a d i f fe ren t top ic f rom metaphor ic rep resen ta t ion , and i t does no t seem

o b v io u s th a t me tap h o r wi l l b e n eces s a ry to acco u n t f o r i t .

5.4. Motivation for metaphoric representation

T h e p r imary mo t iv a t io n th a t L & J an d Ko v ecs e s (1 9 8 6 ) g iv e fo r th e n eces s i ty o f

metaphor ic rep resen ta t ion is tha t the source domain is too d i f f icu l t o r abs t rac t fo r

p eo p le to g r a s p d i r ec t ly 2 As a l r ead y n o ted , L ak o f f ( 1 9 9 3 , p . 2 4 4 ) a rg u es th a t

me tap h o r i s th e ma in way in wh ich p eo p le u n d e r s t an d ab s t r ac t co n cep t s . I n s u ch

cas e s , a me tap h o r ic map p in g to an a l r ead y -u n d e r s to o d d o ma in can h e lp u s to

u n d e r s t a n d t h e m o r e c o m p l e x d o m a i n .

In h i s r ev iew o f Ko v ecs e s (1 9 8 6 ) , Or to n y (1 9 8 8 ) p o in t s o u t a p ro b lem wi th th i s

2 G e o r g e L a k o f f h a s o b j e c t e d t o t h i s d e s c r i p ti o n o f t h e r e a s o n t h a t s o m e c o n c e p t s c a n n o t b e d i r e c t l y

r ep re s en t ed . Ra t h e r t h an s o m e co n cep t s b e i n g ' d i f f i cu l t , ' t h e p ro b l em i s s a id to b e t h a t t h e n a t u r e o f th e

ex p e r i en ce can n o t a l l o w d i r ec~ r ep re s en t a t i o n . W h en t h e ex p e r i en ce i s n o t s u f f ic i en t l y w e l l - s t r u c t u r ed ,

me t ap h o r i s n eed ed t o s t r u c t u r e i t . I d o n o t u n d e r s t an d t h e n o t i o n o f ex p e r i en ce ( a s o p p o s ed t o

co n cep t s ) b e i n g w e l l o r p o o r l y s t r u c t u r ed , n o r d o I u n d e r s t an d h o w t h e i r t h eo ry p r ed i c t s t h a t a n g e r i s

n o t w e l l s t r u c t u r ed w h i l e c o n t a i n e r a n d w a r a re . T h u s , I s h a l l co n t i n u e t o u s e th e n eu t r a l t e rm ' d i f f i cu l t '

t o d e s c r i b e c o n c e p t s t h a t c a n n o t b e d i r e c t l y r e p r e s e n t e d .



G,L. Murphy / Cognition 60 (1996) 173-204 191

v iew. K o v ecs e s fo cu s e s o n th e me tap h o r ic s t r u c tu r in g o f em o t io n co n cep t s , a to p ic

a l s o co n s id e red a t l en g th b y L & J ( e .g . , t h e i r d i s cu s s io n o f love) a n d b y L a k o f f

(1 9 8 7 ) . Ho wev e r , Or to n y p o in t s o u t th a t th e emo t io n s th a t a r e s t r u c tu r ed b y th e s e

me tap h o r s h av e g en e ra l ly b een ex p e r i en ced b y ch i ld r en m u ch ea r l i e r an d mo re

ex ten s iv e ly th an th e d o m a in s th a t a r e s a id to s t ru c tu re th em. S in ce th e ex p e r i en t i a l

b a s i s o f th o u g h t i s a t en e t o f th e me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n v iew, i t i s ex t r eme ly

p u zz l in g w h y i t i s th a t emo t io n s a r e n o t d i r ec tly r ep re s en ted v ia o u r ex p e r i en ces o f

th em, an d a re in s t ead r ep re s en ted in t e rms o f wa r f a r e, j o u rn ey s , in s an i ty , s i ck n es s ,

an imal behav io r , p ressu re in c losed con ta iners , and so on . Tha t i s , every ch i ld has

ex p e r i en ced an g e r , b u t i t i s u n l ik e ly th a t th e ch i ld u n d e r s t an d s th e p h y s ic s o f

p ressure in c losed con ta iners tha t leads to the express ions he f l ipp ed h is l id; the

pressure bui l t unt i l he exploded; he couldn ' t hold in h is anger anymore, and so on .

Or to n y a s k s wh e th e r i t i s n ' t mo re l ik e ly th a t th e ch i ld l e a rn in g th e s e ex p re s s io n scan u n d e r s t an d th em th ro u g h h i s o r h e r ex p e r i en ce o f an g e r , r a th e r th an th ro u g h

th e p h y s ic s o f en c lo s ed co n ta in e r s . T h i s c r i t i c i s m ap p l i e s to a n u mb er o f o th e r

me tap h o r s c i t ed in f av o r o f th e me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n v iew, fo r ex amp le ,

A R G U M E N T I S W A R , L I F E I S A G A M B L I N G G A M E ( L & J , p . 1 5 5 ) ,

P R O B L E M S A R E P R E C I P I T A T E S I N A C H E M I C A L S O L U T I O N ( L & J , p.

148) , e tc . I f one h as l i t t le unde rs tand in g o f p rob lem s , i t s eems u n l ik e ly tha t one

wo u ld h av e a g o o d en o u g h u n d e r s t an d in g o f p r ec ip i t a t e s in a s o lu t io n fo r th i s

me tap h o r to b e h e lp fu l .

On e p o s s ib le r e s p o n s e to th i s p ro b lem i s to s ay th a t a l th o u g h ch i ld r en mayex p e r i en ce emo t io n s , l i f e , p ro b lems , an d a rg u men ts b e fo re th ey ex p e r i en ce

p re s s u r i zed co n ta in e r s , g amb l in g g ames , ch emica l s o lu t io n s , e t c . , t h ey may n o t

under s tand o r k n o w h o w to co n cep tu a l i ze th e fo rmer . T h u s , th e me tap h o r s may

a id th e fo rma t io n o f r ep re s en ta t io n s o r r e a s o n in g in ab s t r ac t d o ma in s . T h i s

assumpt ion would need empir ica l suppor t , as i t i s no t a t a l l c lea r tha t war , say , i s

eas ie r fo r ch i ld ren to concep tua l ize than a rguments a re ( see foo tno te 2 ) . There i s

ev id en ce th a t 3- an d 4 -y ea r -o ld ch i ld r en can r ea so n ab o u t em o t io n s to s o me d eg ree

(Wel lman , 1990 , Ch . 6 ) , so any metaphor ic domains tha t in f luence in i t ia l

u n d e r s t an d in g o f emo t io n s wo u ld h av e to b e acq u i r ed b e fo re th en .

I f ch i ld r en l e a rn th e s t r u c tu r e o f a d o ma in in p a r t t h ro u g h id io ms an d

co l lo ca t io n s ex p re s s ed in l an g u ag e ( e.g ., t h ro u g h h ea r in g m i l i t a ry t e rms ap p l i ed to

a rg u men ts ) , t h en a p ro b lem i s th a t ch i ld r en may n o t u n d e r s t an d s u ch ex p re s s io n s .

Mu ch wo rk f in d s th a t ch i ld r en ' s co mp reh en s io n o f v e rb a l me tap h o r s i s q u i t e p o o r

un t i l 8 -10 years o f age (e .g . , Reyno lds and Or tony , 1980 ; Winner e t a l . , 1976) . In

p a r t i cu la r , ch i ld r en d o n o t u n d e r s t an d th e p s y ch o lo g ica l mean in g s o f co n c re te

ad jec t iv e s l ik e hard, deep a n d co ld u n t i l 8 o r 9 y ea r s o f ag e (As ch an d Ne r lo v e ,

1 96 0) . P e rh ap s o f g r ea te r co n ce rn , A ck e rm an (1 9 8 2 ) fo u n d th a t ch i ld r en h av e

g rea t d i f fi cu l ty u n d e r s t an d in g ev en co m m o n id io ms in a n eu t r a l co n tex t ( o n e th a t

d o es n o t p ro v id e c lu e s ab o u t th e mean in g o f th e id io m) . F i r s t - an d th i rd -g rad e r s

(6 -8 y ea r s o ld ) co u ld n o t p a r ap h ra s e th e id io ms co r r ec t ly , n o r d id th ey r e s p o n d

ab o v e ch an ce o n a co mp reh en s io n q u es t io n . Su ch ev id en ce r a i s e s two p ro b lems .

Fir s t , i f ch i ld ren do no t unders tand the verba l co l loca t ions tha t express the

u n d e r ly in g me tap h o r s , i t i s u n c lea r h o w th e co l lo ca t io n s co u ld b e in f lu en c in g



192 G.L. Murphy / Cognit ion 60 (1996) 1 73-2 04

conceptual structures. Second, if concepts of emotions and other abstract ideas are

metaphorical, then it should not be difficult for children to understand verbal

expressions of that structure.

Kovecses (1986, pp. 117-118) notes this problem through a related phenom-

enon - when emotion terms are metaphorically applied to concrete events, such as

a raging s torm. He points out that since emotions were hypothesized to be too

abstract to be directly understood, emotion terms should not be used to structure

concrete concepts like s torms . To explain this phenomenon, he proposes a process

of "secondary metaphorization," in which an abstract domain, once it is

metaphorically structured, can then "be used to structure and understand f u r t h e r

the physical domains that were originally employed to structure and understand the

abstract ones" (p. 118). (He does not explain why, on his view, the physical

domains should need further structuring.) This proposal results in there being nometaphors which could contradict the metaphoric representation view, since any

domain can now be used to understand another, through primary or secondary

metaphorization. (His proposal does not seem to have been adopted by other

proponents of metaphoric representation.)

5 .5 . Metonymy

Up until now I have been discussing metaphoric representation of the sort Lee i s

a b lock o f i ce , in which the topic, Lee, is interpreted in terms of a differentdomain, such as frozen water. There is a different nonliteral trope that has also

been identified as being a possible source of metaphoric representation, namely

m e t o n y m y , in metonymy, something is referred to by virtue of a related attribute or

part. For example, in The Whi te House i s s tudying the repor t , it is not a building

that is studying the report - the United States executive branch of government is

being referred to by the building in which the president lives and works. Similarly,

the baseball manager who says We need Bo ggs ' s g love ba ck in t he f i e l d is really

referring to Boggs's fielding ability, rather than to his actual glove.

Lakoff (1987, p. 77) argues that "Metonymy is one of the basic characteristics

of cognition. It is extremely common for people to take one well-understood or

easy-to-perceive aspect of something and use it to stand either for the thing as a

whole or for some other aspect or part of it." Examples of the Whi t e House sort

are a main evidence for this claim. If this claim were only a linguistic one, then it

might not be problematic. However, Lakoff's intention seems to be to extend

metonymy to representations of concepts as well (see Lakoff, 1987, pp. 84-85) .

The problems raised above for metaphoric representation seem to be even stronger

for metonymic representation. Most problematic is that there is usually no

mapping of properties between the target domain and the metonymic domain. For

example, although a baseball fielder is associated to his glove, the properties of the

glove are not similar to the properties of the fielder. If we understand the concept

of a baseball glove, we wo n' t thereby be able to understand the concept of a fielder

(e.g., the fielder isn't made of leather, doesn't have a worn spot in the middle,

doesn't require oiling, etc.); similarly, knowing a lot about the actual White House




w o n ' t l e ad t o c or r e ct k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e e x e c u t iv e b r a n c h o f t h e U S g o v e r n m e n t

o r th e p r e s id en cy . T h u s , a l th o u g h me to n y mic ex p re s s io n s a r e ex t r eme ly co mmo n

in s p eech , me to n y my d o es n o t s eem to b e a c an d id a te fo r a n o n l i t e r a l f o rm o f

concep tua l rep resen ta t ion .

L ak o f f ( 1 9 8 7 ) a rg u es th a t an o th e r f o rm o f me to n y my o ccu r s wh en p eo p le t r e a t

an en t i r e c a teg o ry o f o b jec t s b y th in k in g o f a s in g le p ro to ty p ica l s u b ca teg o ry . Fo r

ex amp le , h e s u g g es t s th a t th e co n cep t o f m o t h e r re l ies on the s te reo typ ica l

ex amp le o f a mo th e r wh o n o rma l ly co n ce iv e s an d g iv e s b i r th to th e ch i ld r en , th en

s tay in g a t h o me to ca r e fo r th em. Al th o u g h th e r e a r e man y mo th e r s wh o h av e o n ly

s o me o f th e s e f ea tu r e s , t h e p ro to ty p ica l c a s e may g rea t ly in f lu en ce o u r th in k in g o f

mo th e r s in g en e ra l , an d o th e r s u b ca teg o r i e s may b e d e f in ed in t e rms o f i t . E v en i f

th i s i s a c a s e o f me to n y my (wh ich i s n o t c l ea r ) , i t s eems th a t i t i s f u l ly co n s i s t en t

wi th u s u a l th eo r i e s o f co n cep t s th a t h av e id en t i f i ed wh a t mak es ex amp le spro to typ ica l (e .g . , Barsa lou , 1985) and tha t have a rgued tha t p ro to types a re used in

th in k in g ab o u t th e en t i r e c a teg o ry (Ro s ch , 1 97 5) . No n o n l i t e r a l th o u g h t p ro ces s e s

or rep resen ta t ions seem ca l led fo r here .

T h e re i s a weak e r c l a im fo r me to n y my , mad e b y Gib b s (1 9 9 4 , Ch . 7 ) , wh ich

s eems mu ch mo re f ea s ib le . G ib b s p o in t s o u t th a t me to n y ms may in f lu en ce th e way

th a t a co n cep t i s a cce s s ed , an d th e r e fo re may in f lu en ce wh a t o n e th in k s ab o u t

wh en ac t iv a t in g th a t co n cep t . F o r ex amp le , b y r e f e r r in g to Bo gg s "s g love , o n e d o es

n o t s imp ly acce s s o n e ' s co n cep t o f Bo g g s , b u t in s t ead emp h as ize s th e in fo rma t io n

abou t h im as a f ie lder (as opposed to a ba t te r , fa ther , e tc . ) . Metonymic ways o fr e f e r r in g to a p e r s o n mig h t mak e mo re s a l i en t s o me ch a rac te r i s t i c s th an a d i f f e r en t

w a y w o u l d .

Fu r th e r emp i r i c a l wo rk i s n eed ed to in v es t ig a te h o w s u ch me to n y mic ex p re s -

s io n s in f lu en ce th e wa y p eo p le th in k o f o b jec t s an d p eo p le . Su ch in f lu en ces d o n o t

seem, however , to requ ire non l i te ra l concep ts . In fac t , as Gibbs (1994) po in ts ou t ,

f ami l i a r mo d e l s o f ev en t s ( s c r ip t s an d s ch ema ta ) h av e a l r ead y p ro v id ed mech a -

n i s ms b y wh ich en t i r e men ta l s t r u c tu r e s c an b e ev o k ed b y r e f e r r in g to a r e l a t ed

ob jec t , loca t ion o r even t (e .g . , when one says I w en t t o a r e s ta u r a n t t o ex p la in th a t

o n e h a s ea ten d in n e r - s ee Sch an k an d Ab e l s o n , 1 97 7) . E x ac t ly h o w m e to n y m ic

re f e r en ces in l an g u ag e a r e u n d e r sto o d i s a f a s c in a t in g q u es t io n , b u t "m e to n y m ic

co n cep t s " may n o t b e r eq u i r ed a s p a r t o f th e ex p lan a t io n .

5 . 6. L in g u i s t i c a n d p s ych o l i n g u i s t i c ev id e n ce

T h ere i s a co n s id e rab le amo u n t o f l i t e r a tu r e d i s cu s s ed b y th e p ro p o n en t s o f

me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta t io n th a t I h av e n o t to u ch ed o n h e re . T h i s i s l a rg e ly b ecau s e I

d o n o t s ee mu ch o f th i s l i t e r a tu r e a s d i r ec t ly ad d re s s in g i s s u es o f co n cep tu a l

s t ruc tu re , as opposed to ques t ions o f l ingu is t ic theory o r language p rocess ing . 1

r e f e r h e r e to wo rk o n me tap h o r an d id io m co mp reh en s io n , s y n tax , s eman t i c s ,

l ingu is t ic chan ge and poe t ic metaph or ( see Gibb s , 1992 , G ibbs , 1994 ; Lakof f ,

1987 ; Lak of f and Turner , 1989 ; Sweetser , 1990). H ow ever , s ince th is w ork is

o f t en s a id to p ro v id e s u p p o r t f o r me tap h o r ic mo d es o f r ep re s en ta t io n an d th o u g h t ,

I w i l l b r i e f ly ad d re s s s o me o f i t h e r e .



194 G.L. Murphy / Cognit ion 60 (1996) 1 73 -20 4

On e v e ry ac t iv e l in e o f r e s ea r ch i s in th e co mp reh en s io n o f id io ms th a t a r e

proposed to re f lec t under ly ing concep tua l metaphors (e .g . , Gibbs , 1993 ; Gibbs and

O ' Br ien , 1 99 0; Nay ak an d Gib b s , 1 99 0) . A cco rd in g to th i s wo rk , m an y id io ms a r e

u n d e r s t o o d b y v i r t u e o f c o n v e n t i o n a l c o n c e p t u a l m e t a p h o r s s u c h a s A N G E R I S

P R E S S U R E I N A C L O S E D C O N T A I N E R ( s e e G l u c k s b e r g e t a l . , 1 9 9 3 , f o r a n

o p p o s in g v iew) . Fo r ex amp le , Gib b s (1 9 9 2 ) s h o wed th a t wh en a p a r ag rap h was

co n s i s t en t wi th th e u n d e r ly in g me tap h o r fo r an id io m, s u b jec t s r a t ed i t a s mo re

accep tab le an d r ead i t f a s t e r th an wh en th e p a r ag rap h was in co n s i s t en t in s o me

way . I n o n e ex p e r imen t , s u b jec t s we re a s k ed to ex p la in th e r ea s o n th a t f lu id mig h t

escape a c losed con ta iner (e .g . , increased p ressure) . Then Gibbs wro te scenar ios

th a t in c lu d ed o r co n t r ad ic t ed th i s r e a s o n . Su b jec t s f o u n d a me tap h o r l ik e M a r y

f l ipped he r l id to be more accep tab le in the scenar io tha t inc luded th is reason (e .g . ,

a s cen a r io th a t t a lk ed ab o u t in c r ea s ed p s y ch o lo g ica l p r e ss u re ). F ro m s u chev id en ce , G ib b s co n c lu d ed th a t th e u n d e r ly in g me tap h o r i s in v o lv ed in in t e rp r e t in g

th e id io m.

N o t a l l re s ea r ch e r s a ccep t th i s a s ev id en ce fo r co n cep tu a l m e tap h o r s . S to ck e t al .

( 1 9 9 3 ) s u g g es t th a t th e mean in g o f th e id io m may b e mo re co n s i s t en t wi th o n e

s cen a r io th an an o th e r, ev e n i f i t i s n o t me tap h o r ica l ly s t r u c tu r ed - f o r ex amp le , to

f l ip one ' s l id m ean s to lo s e co n t ro l o f o n e ' s an g e r , ev en i f th e r e i s n o u n d e r ly in g

me tap h o r o f p r e s s u re in a c lo s ed co n ta in e r . T h u s , s cen a r io s th a t in c lu d e a s p ec t s o f

th e id io m ' s m ean in g o r p lau s ib le in f e r en ces f ro m i t w i l l b e mo re co n s i s t en t wi th i t.

Ho wev e r , i t s eems to me th a t r eg a rd le s s o f wh e th e r th i s co u n te r a rg u men t i sco r r ec t , t h e c l a im o f me tap h o r ic concep t s m a y n o t b e n e c e s s a r y t o e x p l a i n G i b b s

an d co l l e ag u es ' d a ta . T h e i r c l a ims a r e ab o u t id io m r ep re s en ta t io n an d p ro ces s in g ,

an d s o th is ma y b e a m a t t e r o f h o w a s e t o f l i n g u i s t ic ex p re s s io n s a r e rep re s en ted -

n o t m o r e g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e o f h o w anger , say , i s unders tood . I t i s poss ib le tha t

w h e n p e o p l e h e a r i d i o m s s u c h a s She f l ipped her l id o r He hit the roof, t h e y

in te rp r e t th e s e in p a r t t h ro u g h a co n v en t io n a l way o f t a lk in g ab o u t an g e r . T h a t i s ,

s u ch id io ms co u ld r e f l e c t l i n g u i s t i c co n v en t io n s ab o u t h o w to t a lk ab o u t an g e r

(p e rh ap s mo t iv a ted b y co n cep tu a l s im i la r i ty ) , r a th e r th an r e f l e c t in g me tap h o r ic

u n d e r s t an d in g o f an g e r . E x p o s u re to s u ch co n v en t io n s co u ld we l l i n f lu en ce h o w

p eo p le c r ea te an d in te rp r e t id io ms , e v en i f t h ey d o n o t co n cep tu a l i ze an g e r

(n o n l in g u i s ti c aUy ) in t e rms o f p r e s su re in a h ea ted co n ta in e r . T h u s , I w o u ld a rg u e

th a t f in d in g s o n id io m co mp reh en s io n a r e n o t d i r ec t ev id en ce fo r co n cep tu a l

s t ru c tu r e , t h o u g h th ey may we l l b e c r i t i c a l to u n d e r s t an d l an g u ag e p ro ces s in g .

An o th e r en te rp r i s e th a t h a s b een c i t ed a s s u p p o r t in g th e id ea o f me tap h o r ic

r ep re s en ta t io n i s s eman t i c an a ly s e s o f in d iv id u a l l ex ica l i t ems o r s eman t i c f i e ld s ,

s u ch a s B r u g m a n a n d L a k o f f s a n a l y si s o f o v e r (L ak o f f , 1 9 8 7 , p p . 4 1 6 -4 7 1 ) , an d

Swee t s e r ' s (Swee t s e r , 1 9 9 0 ) an a ly s e s o f h i s to r i c a l ch an g e o f wo rd mean in g . T h e

la t t e r i s o f p a r t i cu la r in t e r e s t , b ecau s e i t a l s o ad d re s s e s i s s u e s o f p o ly s emy th a t

we re r a i s ed ea r l i e r . Fo r ex amp le , Swee t s e r d o cu men ts th a t wo rd s r e l a t ed to v i s io n

o f t en h av e mean in g s r e l a t ed to men ta l co mp reh en s io n ( a s in 1 see your po in t ;

m e n t a l d iscernmen t a n d percep t ion ; a rg u men ts th a t a r e opaque o r t ransparent) .

Simi la r ly , wo rd s r e l a t ed to au d i t io n o f t en h av e mean in g s o f co mp reh en s io n an d

o b ed ien ce . Sh e a rg u es th a t wo rd s wi th mean in g s r e l a t ed to men ta l a c t iv i ty o f t en




originally had meanings based on sense perception (see the section on asymmet-

ries, below).

Sweetser (1990) interprets these very interesting phenomena in terms of

metaphoric structuring of mental events that she calls the Mind-as-Body Metaphor

(p. 28). However, she also observes that "these connections are not random

correspondences, but highly motivated links between parallel or a n a l o g o u s areas"

(p. 45), and she provides a compelling analysis of these domains that reveals

considerable similarities between our concepts of vision and of comprehension.

Thus, vision is one of our primary ways of acquiring information, and in seeing

something clearly, we are able to form an accurate representation of it. This has an

obvious parallel with nonvisual mental activities of comprehension, in which one

attempts to understand a fact or situation by constructing an accurate representa-

tion of it. Furthermore, just as vision can be directed to some degree by focusingthe eyes on different locations, mental processes may be focused through attention

on various facts, leading to different pe rspe c t i v e s , v i e w po in t s , etc.

The comparisons that Sweetser (1990) draws out between disparate domains

provide an intriguing explanation for polysemy of current vocabulary and for

historical change of word meanings in related domains. However, these com-

parisons do not seem to be metaphoric in the sense described here. That is, her

analysis reveals underlying structural similarities between different domains, just

as I am proposing. Sweetser points out (correctly, in my view) that traditional

feature and logical-referential approaches to semantics cannot explain the patternsshe observes. However, her analyses are perfectly consistent with a cognitive

approach to polysemy based on literal, rather than metaphoric, similarity.

Similarly, Lakoff's (Lakoff, 1990, Lakoff, 1993) analysis of the meaning of a

proverb is a good example of how structural similarity can explain the use of a

verbal trope.

In summary, these other linguistic and psycholinguistic data do not seem to

require metaphoric representation in order to be explained. Furthermore, one must

be careful in drawing direct inferences from linguistic phenomena to conceptual

structure. For example, idioms about anger such as s h e b i t m y h e a d o f f may not

directly reflect metaphoric representation of the concept of a n g e r . Of course, one

might well hope that linguistic patterns can be related to underlying conceptual

structure. But there must be independent evidence for such structure, rather than

the linguistic data providing the main evidence, which raises the problem of

circularity.

6 . T h e s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y a l t e r n a t i v e

Earlier I identified a view that I called S t ruc tura l S im i la r it y , which might serve

as a competitor to the metaphoric representation view. Briefly, this view argues

that concepts such as l ov e , j ourne y , d i s e ase , i n san i t y , ange r , and so on, are

represented separately, with their own structures. The existence of idioms relating

love to journeys or anger to insanity results from the structural similarity of these




d o ma in s . T h a t i s , s a l i en t a s p ec t s o f a lo v e a f f a i r c an b e b ro u g h t in to co r r e -

s p o n d en ce wi th s a l i en t a s p ec t s o f a jo u rn ey . Al th o u g h n o t a l l a s p ec t s o f b o th can

b e d i r ec t ly r e l a t ed , th e r e i s en o u g h co r r e s p o n d en ce fo r th e r e l a t io n to b e

m ean in g fu l . I t is wo r th r ee m p h as iz in g th a t i t i s th e structure o f th e co n cep t s , r a th e r

than super f ic ia l p roper t ies , tha t a re s imi la r on th is accoun t . Al though I do no t f ind

i t n ece s s a ry to ad o p t a s p ec i f i c th eo ry o f s im i la r i ty ( th eo r i e s o f s im i la r i ty a r e

u n d e rg o in g co n s id e rab le d ev e lo p men t a t t h i s t ime ) , t h e s t r u c tu r e -map p in g th eo ry

o f Gen tn e r an d co l l e ag u es wo u ld ce r t a in ly d o we l l i n ex p la in in g th e s e r e l a t io n s

(see Fa lke nh a ine r e t a l . , 1989 ; G en tner , 1983 ; M ark m an and Gen tner , 1993). The

c r i t i c a l d i f f e r en ce b e tween th e s t ru c tu r a l s im i la r i ty an d th e me tap h o r ic r ep re s en ta -

t io n v iews i s th a t th e m e tap h o r ic v iew c la ims th a t th e me tap h o r ic r e l a t io n s s e rv e to

s t r u c t u r e t h e t o p i c c o n c e p t . T h a t i s , t h e L O V E I S A J O U R N E Y m e t a p h o r c a u s e d

o u r love co n cep t to h av e a c e r t a in s t ru c tu re . On th e s t ru c tu r a l s im i la r i ty v iew, th ed o m a i n s o f love and journey are s ep a ra te ly r ep re s en ted an d journey d id n o t

cau s a l ly in f lu en ce th e s t r u c tu r e o f love.

A fa i r q u es t io n to a s k i s wh e th e r th i s v i ew can av o id th e p ro b lems th a t I h av e

ra ised fo r the metaphor ic rep resen ta t ion v iew. I wi l l a rgue tha t i t can . F i r s t , i t

o b v io u s ly av o id s th e s e r io u s th eo re t i c a l p ro b lems th a t th e s t r o n g me tap h o r ic v iew

en g en d e red . No me tap h o r ic l in k s a r e p ro p o s ed , an d th e p ro b lem o f in co r r ec t

me tap h o r ic in f e r en ces s im p ly d o es n o t a r i s e. Fu r th e r , t h e s t r u c tu r a l s im i la r i ty v iew

d o es n o t h av e a p ro b lem wi th mu l t ip l e me tap h o r s fo r a s in g le d o ma in . Fo r a

c o m p l e x c o n c e p t s u c h a s love, i t i s no t su rp r is ing tha t there a re d i f fe ren t k inds o fco r r e s p o n d en ces th a t c an b e mad e to i t . E ach me tap h o r ty p e s imp ly p ick s o u t

d i f f e r en t a s p ec t s o f th e co n c ep t ' s co n ten t . ( I n th e s ame w ay , a p e t d o g can

s imu l t an eo u s ly b e s imi la r to a wo l f , a p e t h am s te r o r a s t a tu e o f a d o g - e ach in a

d i f f e r en t r e s p ec t . ) T h e jo u rn ey me tap h o r t ak es a b ro ad v iew o f an en t i r e lo v e

a f fa i r, i n c lu d in g b o th p a r t i c ip an t s . T h e in s an i ty m e tap h o r t ak es a m u ch n a r ro wer

v iew, fo cu s in g o n th e emo t io n a l r e ac t io n s o f o n e o f th e p a r t i c ip an t s , d u r in g th e

in i ti a l , i n f a tu a t io n p e r io d o f a r e l a t io n s h ip . B ecau s e th e co n cep t o f lo v e i s a s s u med

to h av e a r ep re s en ta t io n in d ep en d en t o f th e me tap h o r s , t h e r e i s n o p ro b lem wi th

d i f f e r en t me tap h o r s p ick in g o u t d i f f e r en t a s p ec t s o f th e co n cep t .

T h i s mu l t ip l i c i ty o f s im i la r i t i e s b e tween d o ma in s h a s in f ac t b eco me an

i m p o r t a n t p h e n o m e n o n i n re c e n t d i s c u ss i o n s o f s i m i la r i ty . F o r e x a m p l e , M e d i n e t

a l . ( 1 9 9 3 ; s ee a l s o Mark man an d Gen tn e r , 1 9 9 3 ) s h o wed th a t a s in g le s t imu lu s

co u ld b e v iew ed a s s im i la r to two in co m p a t ib le s t imu l i . In o n e o f th e i r s t imu l i ( see

th e i r F ig u re 1 ) , a h an d - l ik e f ig u re was amb ig u o u s b e tween h av in g th r ee o r f o u r

" f in g e r s . " Wh en s u b jec t s co mp ared i t t o an u n amb ig u o u s ly th r ee - f in g e red f ig u re ,

th ey id en t i f i ed i t a s h av in g th r ee f in g e r s b u t d i f f e r in g in s h ap e ; wh en th ey

compared i t to a four - f ingered f igure , they iden t i f ied i t as hav ing four f ingers , bu t

d i f f e r in g in th e s i ze o f th e f in g e r s . I n s h o r t , s imp le s imi la r i ty co mp ar i s o n s o f t en

cau s e an i t em to b e in t e rp r e ted d i f f e r en t ly , d ep en d in g o n w h a t i t is b e in g co m p ared

to . T h u s , th e ex i s t en ce o f m u l t ip l e d i ff e r en t me tap h o r s ap p l i ed to th e s am e d o m a in

i s co n s i s t en t wi th a s im i la r i ty -b a s ed ex p lan a t io n . T h e p ro b lem wi th th e me tap h o r ic

r ep re s en ta t io n v iew a r i s e s wh en i t a s s u mes th a t th e me tap h o r causes the s t ruc tu re

o f th e co n cep t , an d i t d o es n o t ex p la in h o w th o s e p o ten t i a l ly in co mp a t ib le c au s e s

can be coord ina ted to resu l t in a coheren t s t ruc tu re .



G.L. Murphy / Cognit ion 60 (1996) 173 -20 4 197

T h e n e x t p r o b l e m t r a i se d f o r t h e m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v i e w w a s t h a t s o m e

o f it s e x a m p l e s c o u l d b e d u e t o p o l y s e m y r a t h e r th a n m e t a p h o r . T h i s i s s u e s i m p l y

d o es n o t a r i s e fo r t h e s t ru c t u ra l s i m i l a r i t y v i ew , b ecau s e i t d o es n o t n eed t o c l a i m

t h a t Inf lat ion is r is ing o r H e ' s s e e k in g h i s f o r t u n e a re m et ap h o r i c . Th e s t ru c t u ra l

s i m i l a r i t y v i e w a l s o d o e s n o t h a v e p r o b l e m s w i t h m e t a p h o r s i n w h i c h a c o n c r e t e

d o m a i n i s d e s c r i b e d i n t e r m s o f a m o r e a b s t r a c t d o m a i n ( s e e n e x t s e c t i o n ) .

I n s u m m a r y , a l t h o u g h t h e s t ru c tu r a l s i m i l a r i ty v i e w i s a b a r e - b o n e s e x p l a n a t i o n

o f t h e m e t a p h o r i c d a t a p r o v i d e d b y L & J , i t s e e m s t o d o q u i t e w e l l i n a c c o u n t i n g

f o r t h e g e n e r a l p h e n o m e n o n , a n d i t a v o i d s a l m o s t a ll o f t h e p r o b l e m s r a i s e d f o r

m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a ti o n . A s I s t a te d a b o v e ( s e e t h e s e c t i o n o n p o l y s e m y ) , L & J ' s

a r g u m e n t s a g a i n s t s u c h a s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y v i e w a r e n o t v e r y c o m p e l l i n g . F o r

t h e m o s t p a r t , t h e y a m o u n t t o a r e s t a t i n g o f t h e m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v i e w

(e . g . , t h a t s o m e co n cep t s d o n o t h av e s u f f i c i en t i n h e ren t s t ru c t u re t o s u p p o r ts i m i l a r it y r e la t io n s ). T h e r e i s a d e c i d e d l a c k o f d i s c u s s i o n i n L & J o r L a k o f f ( 1 9 8 7 )

o f s p e c i f i c n o n m e t a p h o r i c a l m o d e l s o f c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e a n d s i m i l a r i t y . S u c h a

d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n is n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e t h e w e a k e r s t ru c t ur a l s i m i l a r i ty v i e w c a n b e

r e j e c t e d i n f a v o r o f a m u c h s t r o n g e r , m o r e c o m p l e x , m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

v i e w .

6 .1 . T h e a s y m m e t r y p r o b l e m

A s j u s t m e n t i o n e d , th e s t r u ct u ra l s i m i l a ri t y v i e w d o e s n o t f a ll p r e y t o O r t o n y ' s( O r t o n y , 1 9 8 8 ) c r i t i c i s m t h a t i n s o m e c a s e s t h e m o r e c o m p l e x d o m a i n i s u s e d a s

t h e v eh i c l e r a th e r t h an t h e t o p i c o f t h e m e t ap h o r . S i n ce t h e s t ru c t u ra l s i m i l a r i t y

v i e w d o e s n ' t c l a i m t h a t o n e d o m a i n i s u n d e r s t o o d i n t e r m s o f t h e o t h e r, it i s n ' t

b o t h e r e d b y c a se s s u c h as A R G U M E N T I S W A R , w h e r e th e m e t a p h o r i c v e h i c l e

s e e m s t o b e l e s s c o n c e p t u a l l y b a s i c t h a n t h e t o p i c . H o w e v e r , t h i s f l e x i b i l i t y c a n

a l s o b e u s ed t o c r i t i c i z e t h e s i m i l a r i t y ap p ro ach . T h a t i s , t h e re i s a d e f i n i t e p a t t e rn

o f d i r e c t i o n a l i t y t o t h e c o n c e p t u a l m e t a p h o r s d i s c u s s e d i n t h is l it e ra t ur e , w h e r e a s

( t h e a r g u m e n t g o e s ) s i m i l a r i t y s h o u l d b e s y m m e t r i c a l . F o r e x a m p l e , w h y a r e t h e r e

s o m a n y e x p r e s s i o n s d e s c r i b i n g l o v e i n t e r m s o f a j o u r n e y , a n d h a r d l y a n y t h a t

d e s c r i b e a j o u r n e y i n t e r m s o f l o v e ? W h y a r e n ' t t h e r e i d i o m s r e l a t i n g w a r t o

a r g u m e n t s ? A f t e r ta k i n g a c r i ti c a l h i l l i n a b a tt le , o n e c o u l d s a y " T h e i r p r e m i s e h a s

b e e n f o u n d t o b e i n c o r r e c t , " y e t t hi s d o e s n o t s e e m t o b e a r e a s o n a b l e e x p r e s s i o n .

A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s , a b s t r a c t d o m a i n s s e e m t o b e d e s c r i b e d i n c o n c r e t e

t e r m s m o r e t h a n v i c e v e r s a . S w e e t s e r ( 1 9 9 0 ) a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e i s a t e n d e n c y

f o r c o n c r e t e w o r d s t o t a k e o n m o r e a b s t r a c t m e a n i n g s o v e r t i m e . T h i s a s y m m e t r y

h a s b e e n t a k e n a s r e f l e c t i n g u n d e r l y i n g c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e - a r g u m e n t s m u s t b e

u n d e r s t o o d i n t e r m s o f w a r , a n d n o t v i c e v e r s a . S i m i l a r i t y d o e s n o t e x p l a i n s u c h

a s y m m e t r i e s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s c r i t i c i s m .

Th e re a r e t wo p ro b l em s wi t h t h i s a rg u m en t . Th e f i r s t i s t h a t s i m i l a r i t y i s n o t i n

f ac t s y m m et r i ca l . I n h i s c l a s s i c 1 9 7 7 a r t i c l e , Tv e r s k y d i s cu s s ed v i o l a t i o n s o f

s y m m e t r y a t s o m e l e n g t h, a n d h i s co n t ra s t m o d e l h a s m e c h a n i s m s b y w h i c h

a s y m m e t r i e s c a n b e h a n d l e d . O n e f o r m o f a s y m m e t r y t h a t h a s b e e n w e l l

d o c u m e n t e d is t h a t a le s s t y p ic a l i t e m s e e m s s i m i l a r t o a t y p ic a l i t e m , b u t n o t v i c e

v e rs a . F o r e x a m p l e , o n e m i g h t s a y t h a t a v e r y t a l e n t e d c o l l e g e b a s k e t b a l l p l a y e r is



19 8 G.L. Murphy / Cognit ion 60 (1996) 1 73-2 04

similar to Michael Jordan, but one would not say that Michael Jordan is similar to

the same player. Asymmetries can also be found in behavioral measures of

similarity, such as patterns of confusion in perceptual identification (Tversky,

1977). Thus, asymmetry per se does not rule out an explanation based on

similarity, as similarity is not inherently symmetrical.

The second point is that asymmetries in metaphor may well reflect discourse or

conceptual differences other than metaphoric representation. One simple reason for

why there are metaphors based on LOVE IS A JOURNEY but not JOURNEY IS

LOVE is that people wish to talk about love much more than they wish to talk

about journeys. Love is a very complex, salient and interesting topic, and a wide

variety of metaphors and collocations have arisen as a result. Furthermore, people

use metaphors for complex socio-emotional reasons (see Gibbs, 1994, p. 124 ff.,

for an interesting discussion), and it is likely that such reasons will be operationalin some domains more than others. For example, one may feel the need to use a

denigrative metaphor in describing a failed love affair more than in describing a

wrong turn off the freeway. Thus, the asymmetry may well be partly due to such

discourse considerations.3

Another possible explanation for asymmetry may be that more complex

domains are often harder to describe than simpler domains. Sweetser's (Sweetser,

1990) argument that word meanings take on abstract meanings over time may

reflect a natural progression from concrete to abstract meanings. It is not surprising

that a language might have a word meaning "to see something" before it has aword meaning "to comprehend a point, '4 so that words describing the former

could be co-opted to describe the latter. More generally, it is very simple to use a

single, concrete word to describe a simple concept such as chair; it is not

surprising that a wider variety of expressions have arisen to describe different

aspects of love, insanity, life and other complex domains.

In summary, although there may be an asymmetry in conventional metaphors,

this in itself is not evidence against the similarity explanation. Of course, a

complete account of why we have the verbal metaphors we do will require spelling

out the discourse factors alluded to, but that will be necessary whatever theory of

conceptual structure one has.

6.2. Arguments against the similarity view

L&J (Ch. 18) argue against a view that is somewhat similar to the structural

similarity view, which they call "the abstraction theory," because it claims that

3 Fo r ex am p le , i t h a s b een n o ted th a t co l l eg e s tu d ent s h av e d ev e lo p ed h u n d r ed s o f s l an g m e tap h o r s

for ac t iv i t ies such as vomit ing and sexual ac t iv i t ies . However , i t seems tha t the best exp lanat ion fo r th is

i s i n te r m s o f so c i a l f a c to rs , r a th e r th an u n d e r ly in g co n cep tu a l m e tap h o r s su ch a s VO M I T I N G I S

P R A Y I N G , V O M I T I N G I S S P E A K I N G , e tc .

4 A l th o u g h S wee t se r ( 1 9 9 0 ) sh o ws co n v in c in g ly t h a t cu r ren t wo r d s t h a t h av e m ean in g s r e l a ted to

v i s io n a l so t en d to h av e m ean in g s r e l a t ed to ab s t r ac t m en ta l a c t i v i t y , sh e p r e sen t s l e s s ev id en ce th a t

th e i r h is to ri c a l p r ed ecesso r s w e r e n o t p o ly sem o u s in t h e sam e way . T h u s , i t is n o t a lway s c l ea r wh a t t h e

h is to r ica l p rogress ion i s .



G+L. Murphy / Cognition 60 (1996) I 73 -2 04 199

c o n c e p t s a re a b s tr a c t e n o u g h t o in c l u d e b o t h m e t a p h o r i c a n d n o n m e t a p h o r i c us e s -

t h a t is , a r g u m e n t s a n d w a r a r e i n d e e d s i m i l a r a t a n a b s t ra c t ( b u t n o t m e t a p h o r i c )

l e v e l. O n e o f t h e i r a r g u m e n t s r a i se s a n i n t e r e s ti n g p o i n t t h a t d e s e r v e s s o m e

a t t en t i o n .

T h i s a r g u m e n t i s t h a t t h e a b s t r a c t i o n v i e w " d o e s n o t s e e m t o m a k e a n y s e n s e a t

a l l w i t h r e s p e c t t o U P - D O W N o r i e n t a t i o n m e t a p h o r s , s u c h a s H A P P Y I S U P ,

C O N T R O L I S U P, M O R E I S U P, V I R T U E IS U P , T H E F U T U R E IS U P,

R E A S O N I S U P , e tc . W h a t s i n g l e g e n e r a l c o n c e p t w i t h a ny c o n t e n t at a ll c o u l d b e

a n a b st ra c ti on o f H E I G H T , H A P P I N E S S , C O N T R O L , M O R E , V I R T U E , T H E

F U T U R E , R E A S O N a n d N O R T H a n d w o u l d p r ec i se ly fit t h e m al l ?" (p p.

1 0 7 - 1 0 8 ) , T h a t i s , L & J a r e a r g u i n g t h a t n o s i m i l a r i t y c a n c a p t u r e a l l o f t h e

m e t a p h o r i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s t h e y h a v e i d e n t i f i e d , e x c e p t i n a n a d h o c m a n n e r .

H o w e v e r , n o t e t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y v i e w d o e s n o t c l a i m t h a t t h e e x a c ts a m e c o n c e p t i s p r e s e n t i n a ll o f t h e se , b u t r a t h e r th a t a c o r r e s p o n d e n c e c a n b e

m a d e b e t w e e n t h e s e d i m e n s i o n s a n d d o w n - u p . T h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e m a y b e

s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t i n e a c h c a s e . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e l i t e r a t u r e o n d i m e n s i o n a l

a d j e c t i v e s d o e s g i v e s u g g e s t i o n s f o r s im i l a r it i e s ac r o s s s e e m i n g l y d i f fe r e n t

d i m en s i o n s ( e .g . , C l a rk , 1 9 7 3 ; C ru s e , 1 9 8 6, C ru s e , 1 9 9 2; Leh re r an d Leh re r , 1 9 8 2;

Mu rp h y , 1 9 9 5 ) . F o r ex am p l e , t h e p o s i t i v e d i r ec t i o n s (u p , m o re , t a l l , h o t ) a r e

t y p i c a l l y p e r c e p t u a l l y m o r e s a l i e n t t h a n o r e v a l u a t i v e l y p r e f e r r e d t o t h e n e g a t i v e

d i r ec t i o n s (d o wn , l e s s , s h o r t , co l d ) .

M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v i e w d o e s n o t p r o v i d e a n yb e t t e r a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a l l t h e s e m e t a p h o r i c a l c o m p a r i s o n s , w h y h a p p y i s u p

ra t h e r t h an d o wn , an d s o fo r t h . Th i s v i ew i s c au g h t i n a d i l em m a . I f i t ad m i t s t h a t

t h e r e i s a s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e d o m a i n s t h a t e x p l a i n s t h e s e m e t a p h o r s , t h e n

m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n m a y n o t b e n e e d e d t o e x p l a in t h e li n g u i st i c d a t a - t h e

d o m a i n s a r e s i m i la r . B u t i f i t d e n i e s t ha t t h e r e i s a n y i n d e p e n d e n t s im i l a r it y , th e n i t

c a n n o t p o s s i b l y e x p l a i n w h y t h e r e i s t hi s s e t o f m e t a p h o r s a n d n o t s o m e o t h e r s e t -

i t c a n ' t e x p l a i n w h y a l l t h e s e t h i n g s a r e U P e i t h e r . L & J ' s a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t t h e

a b s t ra c t io n v i e w w o u l d t h e n a p p l y t o t h e ir o w n m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v ie w . I n

s h o r t , m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n m u s t a r g u e t h a t t h e m e t a p h o r s a r e e s s e n t i a l l y

a r b it ra r y ( w h i c h s e e m s p r i m a f a c i e i m p l a u s i b le ) , o r e l s e t h a t t h e r e i s i n d e p e n d e n t

s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e c o n c e p t s , w h i c h i s e x a c t l y w h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e v i e w p r o p o s e s .

7 . C o n c l u s i o n

7.1. Possible future directions

A l t h o u g h t h e s t ro n g v i e w s e e m s u n t e n a b le , t h e w e a k m e t a p h o r i c r ep r e s e n ta t io n

v i e w i s a n i n t e r e s t i n g o n e ; i t i s n o t i m p l a u s i b l e t h a t t h e h e a r i n g o f c e r t a i n

c o l lo c a t io n s o v e r a n d o v e r m i g h t h a v e s o m e e f f e c t o n t h e w a y w e c o n c e i v e o f

ce r t a i n en t i t i e s o r ev en t s . I h av e p ro p o s ed t h e s t ru c t u ra l s i m i l a r i t y v i ew b ecau s e i t

i s a m u c h s i m p l e r v i e w t h a t a p p e a r s t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e p r e s e n t d a t a . F o r t h e



200 G.L . M urp hy / C ogni ti on 60 (1996) 173 -20 4

metaphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion v i ew to make a s t r onge r c a se , I sugges t t ha t t he

f o l lo w i n g t h r e e p o i n t s n e e d d e v e l o p m e n t .

F i r st , a mo r e p r ec i se mo de l o f m e taphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion mus t be cons t r uc ted . I t

i s no t now c l ea r ho w i t is t ha t conc ep tua l me taphor s a r e sup posed to be l e a r ned by

member s o f a cu l tu r e o r even how d i r ec t ly - r epr e sen ted s t r uc tu r e i s a cqu i r ed . A

mor e de t a i l ed psycho log ica l mode l o f concep tua l r epr e sen ta t ion i s needed , which

would exp l i c i t l y addr e ss puzz l e s such a s mul t i p l e me taphor s s t r uc tu r ing the same

concep t . Unt i l a mor e exp l i c i t mode l i s cons t r uc t ed , i t w i l l no t be c l ea r wha t i s

mean t by me taphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion , o r i f i t i s even poss ib l e t o r ea l i ze i t .

Second , t he empi r i c a l ba se f o r t he t heor y mus t be expanded beyond l i ngu i s t i c

phenomena . As I po in t ed ou t i n my ana logy to t he Whor f i an hypo thes i s , t he r e i s a

c i r cu l a r i t y he r e , such tha t l i ngu i s t i c da t a a r e used to i den t i f y me taphor s , bu t t he

ma in conc r e t e p r ed i c t i ons t he t heor y makes a r e abou t s imi l a r l i ngu i s t i c andpsych o l ingu i s t i c da t a . S ince the t heo r y i s abou t concep tua l r epr e sen ta t ion , t he k in d

of da t a f am i l i a r t o co gn i t i ve psycho log i s t s shou ld be p r ed ic t ed a s w e l l. T ha t i s,

p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t m e m o r y , p r o b l e m s o l v i n g , i n d u c t i o n , m e a s u r e s o f c o n c e p t u a l

s t ruc tu re ( such a s t yp i ca l i t y and ca t egor iza t ion) , l e a r n ing and p e r f o r man ce sh ou ld

become mor e cen t r a l t o t he t heor y .

T h i r d , I would sugges t t ha t t he p r oponen t s o f t h i s v i ew con t r a s t i t w i th a

spec i f i c , r e a sonab le a l t e r na t ive hypo thes i s . T he a r gument s i n L &J and L akof f

( 1987) aga ins t t he Objec t iv i s t s a r e no t a lways r e l evan t . M os t cogn i t i ve psycho-

log i s t s do no t i den t i f y w i th t h i s pos i t i on , wh ich L & J a t tr ibu t e t o t hem wi l ly - n i l l y .F u r t h e rm o r e , s o m e o f th e a r g u m e n ts L & J g i v e a g a i n st n o n m e t a p h o r i c v i e w s a r e

on ly va l id f o r t he f u l l Objec t iv i s t pos i t i on , no t t he much mor e modes t pos i t i ons

t h a t m a n y p s y c h o l o g i s ts m i g h t h o ld ~ F o r e x a m p l e , in t h e s a m e v o l u m e a s L a k o f f

( 1993) , Gen tne r and Jez io r sk i ( 1993) a r gue tha t ana logy and me taphor a r e w ide ly

used in sc i en ti f ic t hou gh t ( wh ich seems s im i l a r t o L a ko f f ' s v iew) , bu t t hey do n o t

appea r t o use m e tapho r i c repr e sen ta t ion as L & J desc r ibe it. T hus , t he r e appea r s t o

b e r o o m f o r a g r e e m e n t w i t h m u c h o f w h a t L & J h a v e d i s c o v e r e d w i t h o u t

em br ac ing the i r en t ir e t heor e t i c a l appa r a tus . I f the p r o pone n t s o f t h i s v i ew wer e t o

addr e ss such spec if ic , a l te r na t ive psycho log ica l a ccoun t s o f t he i r da ta , r a the r t hant h e m o n o l i t h i c O b j e c t i v i s t v i e w , t h e y w o u l d m a k e c o n t a c t w i t h m o r e c o g n i t i v e

psycho log i s t s .

7 .2 . Cavea t

T he goa l o f t h i s a r t i c l e ha s been to eva lua t e t he concep t o f me taphor i c

r epr e sen ta tion . I t i s poss ib l e t ha t t he se a r gum ent s m igh t be t aken mo r e b r oad ly , a s

p r ov id ing a c r i t i que o f me taphor , o r o f o the r a spec t s o f t he t heor y p r e sen ted by

L akof f ( 1987) , f o r example . Howeve r , t h i s a r t i c l e i s no t i n t ended a s a c r i t i que o f

tha t en t i r e pa r ad igm. I n pa r t i cu l a r , I have no t addr e ssed many o f t he a r gument s

L a ko f f ( L akof f , 1987 , L akof f , 1990) p r ov ides f o r Cog ni t i ve L ingu i s t i c s , i n w hich

gene r a l cogn i t i ve p r inc ip l e s a r e used to exp la in a w ide r ange o f l i ngu i s t i c

phenomena . So f a r a s I know, t he r e i s no need f o r me taphor i c r epr e sen ta t ion in

or de r t o c a r r y ou t t he Co gni t i ve L ingu i s t ic s p r ogr am. O f cour se, t he a r t ic l e ha sn ' t



G.L, Murphy / Cognit ion 60 (1996) 173 -20 4 20 1

e n d o r s e d t h a t p o s i t io n e i t h er . H o w e v e r , t h e s t ru c t ur a l s i m i l a r i ty e x p l a n a t i o n s e e m s

t o h a v e m u c h i n c o m m o n w i t h s o m e o f t h e C o g n i t i v e L i n g u i s t i c s w o r k i n

s e m a n t i c s , i n w h i c h w o r d m e a n i n g s a r e r e l a t e d t o c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e s .

A cav ea t i s a l s o i n o rd e r fo r t h e s t ru c t u ra l s i m i l a r i t y v i ew . Th i s v i ew i s a c l a i m

ab o u t r e l a t i o n s am o n g co n cep t u a l s t ru c t u re s ( e . g . , t h a t t h e co n cep t o f a r g u m e n t

b ea r s c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t i e s t o t h e co n cep t o f war). T h i s v i e w i s n o t i n t e n d e d a s a

t h e o r y o f v e r b a l m e t a p h o r , s e m a n t i c c h a n g e , i d i o m c o m p r e h e n s i o n , a n d so o n . M y

c l a i m i s t h a t , t o t h e d eg ree t h a t s u ch t o p i c s h av e i m p l i ca t i o n s fo r co n cep t u a l

s t r u c t u r e , t h o s e i m p l i c a t i o n s d o n o t r e q u i r e n o n l i t e r a l c o n c e p t s o r c o n c e p t u a l

r e l a t i o n s ; s t ru c t u ra l s i m i l a r i t y w i l l s u f f i c e . H o wev e r , t h a t i s n o t t o s ay t h a t

s t ru c tu ra l s i m i l a r i t y s u f f ic e s as an acco u n t o f i d i o m c o m p reh en s i o n , e t c . - t h e re

a r e o b v i o u s l y a d d i t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e a n d p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s t h a t n e e d t o b e

i n c l u d e d i n a c o m p l e t e a c c o u n t .

7.3 . Benef i t s o f the metaph or ic representa t ion debate

A l t h o u g h t h e n o t i o n o f m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n h a s c o m e i n f o r c r i t i c i s m i n

t h i s a r t i c l e , i t s eem s f a i r t o p o i n t o u t a n u m b er o f i s s u e s t h a t au t h o r s i n t h i s a r ea

h a v e r a i s e d t h a t h a v e n o t b e e n a d d r e s s e d i n t h e m a i n s t r e a m c o n c e p t l i t e r a t u r e .

T h u s , t h i s d i s p u te m a y h a v e t h e a d v a n t a g e o f g e n e r a t i n g e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h i n

s o m e n ew a rea s . F i r s t , i t i s t r u e t h a t ab s t r ac t co n cep t s h av e n o t r e ce i v ed a s m u cha t t e n ti o n as t h e y n e e d . A l t h o u g h t h e r e ha s b e e n r e s e a r c h o n " s u p e r o r d i n a t e "

o b j e c t c o n c e p t s s u c h a s f u rn i t u re a n d a n i m a l ( e . g . , M a r k m a n , 1 9 8 5 ; M u r p h y a n d

W i s n i e w s k i , 1 9 8 9 ) , t h e r e h a s b e e n m u c h l e s s o n t h e a b s t r a c t c o n c e p t s t h a t a r e

o f t e n d i s c u s s e d i n t h e m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n l i te r a tu r e , s u c h a s love, causal i ty,

life, e v e n t s t r u c t u r e a n d t e m p o r a l c o n c e p t s . I t m a y b e t h a t t h e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r

m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l s p u r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h o n t h e s e t o p i c s . H o w e v e r , i t

s h o u l d a l s o b e n o t e d t h a t t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h o n s o m e a b s t r a c t d o m a i n s

t h a t is n o t d i s c u s s e d b y p r o p o n e n t s o f t h e m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v i e w , s u c h a s

w o r k o n e m o t i o n s ( O r t o n y e t a l . , 1 9 8 8 ; R u s s e l l a n d F e h r , 1 9 9 4 ) , g o a l - d e r i v e d

c a t e g o r i e s (B a r s a l o u , 1 9 9 1 ), t h e m i n d a n d m e n t a l c o n c e p t s ( W e l l m a n , 1 9 9 0) , a n d

s c i e n t i f i c c o n c e p t s ( G e n t n e r a n d S t e v e n s , 1 9 8 3 ) .

S e c o n d , t h e w o r k o n m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n h a s a t t h e l e a s t p r o v i d e d a n e w

s o u r c e o f d a t a a b o u t t h e s i m i l a r c o n c e p t u a l s tr u c tu r e s o f d i f f e r e n t d o m a i n s . T h a t i s,

o n b o t h t h e m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v i e w a n d o n t h e s i m i l a r i t y a c c o u n t I h a v e

s u g g es t ed , i t i s t h e ca s e t h a t co n s i s t en t p a t t e rn s o f i d i o m s an d co l l o ca t i o n s r e f l e c t

s i m i l a r it y i n u n d e r l y i n g s t ru c t u re s o f d i f f e r e n t d o m a i n s . N o t i c i n g t h a t t e r m i n o l o g y

u s ed i n s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s i s a l s o u s ed i n v e ry s i m i l a r way s i n t em p o ra l r e l a t i o n s i s

i n fo rm a t i v e ab o u t h o w t h e t wo d o m a i n s a r e s t ru c t u red ( e . g . , C l a rk , 1 9 7 3 ) . Th u s ,

e v e n i f I d i s a g r e e t h a t m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e

p h e n o m e n a d e s c r i b e d h e r e , I a g r e e th a t p a tt e r n s o f m e t a p h o r s a n d i d i o m s p r o v i d e

d e s c r i p t i v e e v i d e n c e th a t t h e t w o d o m a i n s a r e s t ru c t u re d s i m i la r l y . T h e s e p a t te r n s

p r o v i d e a s o u r c e o f d a t a t h a t h a s n o t m u c h b e e n u s e d i n c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g y .

M o r e g e n e r a l l y , t h e w o r k o n m e t a p h o r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n r a i s e s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f




c lose connec t ions be tween l i ngu i s t i c phenomena and concep tua l s t r uc tu r e , which

is a topic tha t sure ly deserves fur ther a t tent ion.

Acknowledgments

T hi s a r t i c l e was wr i t t en w i th suppor t f r om NI M H gr an t M H41704 . I am ve r y

g r a te f u l t o K a t h r y n B o c k , W i l l ia m B r e w e r, G a r y D e l l , R i c h a r d G e r ri g , R a y m o n d

Gibbs , Geor ge L akof f , Br i an Ross , t he r ev i ewer s and e spec i a l l y L awr ence

Bar sa lou f o r he lp f u l com m ent s on ea r l ie r d ra f ts . N one o f t he v i ews de sc r ibed he r e

shou ld be a t t r i bu t ed to t hem, o f cour se .

References

Ackerman, B.E (1982) . On comprehending idioms: Do chi ldren get the picture? Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 4 3 9 - 4 5 4 .

Anderson, J .R. (1978) . Arguments concerning representat ions for mental imagery. Psychological

Review, 85, 2 4 9 - 2 7 7 .

Anderson, J .R. , & Bower , G.H. (1973) . Human associative memory. Washington, DC: Winston.

Asch, S.E. , & N er love, H. (1960) . Th e develo pm ent of doub le funct ion terms in children. In B. Kaplan

& S. W apner (Eds.), Perspectives in psychological theory: Essays in honor of Heinz Werner (pp.

47 -6 0) . New York: Internat ional Univers i t ies Press .

Au, T.K. (1983 ) . Chinese and En gl ish eounterfactuals: The S ap ir -W ho rf hypo thes is revis ited.

Cognition, 15, 155-187 .

Au, T.K. (1988) . Language and cogni t ion. In R.L. Schiefelbusch & L.L. Lloyd (Eds .) , Language

perspectives: Acquisition, retardation, and intervention (2nd ed.) (pp. 125-146) . Aust in, TX:

Pro-Ed.

Barsalou, L.W . (1985) . Ideals, central tendenc y, and f requ ency of instantiation as determinants of

graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 11, 6 2 9 - 6 5 4 .

Barsalou, L.W . (1991) . D er iving categor ies to achiev e goals . In G.H. B ow er (Ed.), The psychology of

learning and motivation (Vol . 27, pp. 1-64) . New York: Academic Press .Barsalou, L.W., Yeh, W., Luka, B.J . , Olseth, K.L. , Mix, K.S., & W u, L. (19 93) . C oncep ts and meaning.

In K. Beals, G. Cooke, D. Kathman, S. Kita, K. McCuilough, & D. Testen (Eds.) , Proceedings of

the Chicago Linguistic Society 29. Vol. 2: The parassession (pp. 23-59) . Chicago: Chicago

Linguistic Society.

Black, M. (1979) . More about metaphor . In A. Ortony (Ed.) , Metaphor and thought (pp. 19-43) .

Cam br idge , UK: Cam br idge U niver si ty P ress .

Cam ac, M.K. , & Gluck sberg, S. (1984) . M etaphors do not use associat ions betwee n concepts , they are

used to create them. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, I3, 4 4 3 - 4 5 5 .

Clark, H.H. (1973). Space, t ime, semantics, and the child. In T.E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development

and the acquisition of language (pp. 27-63) . New York: Academic Press .Clark, H .H. (1991) . Words, th e w orld, and their poss ibi li ties. In G.R. L ockh ead & J .R. Po me rantz (Ed.) ,

The perception of structure: Essays in honor of Wendell R. Garner (pp. 26 3-2 77 ) . Washington, D C:

American Psychological Associat ion.

Coleman, L. , & Kay, P . (1981) . Prototype semant ics : The Engl ish word lie. Language, 57, 2 6 - 4 4 .

Col lins, A. , & Quill ian, M.R. (1969) . Retr ieval t ime f rom semantic me mo ry. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 2 4 1 - 2 4 8 .

Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Camb ridge, UK : Camb ridge Univ ersity Press.



G.L. Murphy I Cogni t ion 60 (1996) 173-204 203

Cruse, D.A. (1992). An ton ym y revisited: So me thoughts on the relationship betw een words and

concepts. In A . Leh rer & E.F. K ittay (Eds.) , Frames, f ields, and contrasts: N ew essays in semantic

and lexical organization. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbau m.

Fahlman, S.E. (1979). NETL : A system fo r representing and using real-world knowledge. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press .Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D., & Ge ntne r, D. (1989). T he structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and

examples, Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63 .

Ge ntne r, D. (198 3), Structure-mapping: A theoretical fra m ew ork for analogy. Cognitive Science, Z

1 5 5 - 1 7 0 .

Ge nm er, D., & Clem ent, C. (1988). E vide nce for relational selectiv ity in the interpretation of analogy

and metaphor. In G.H. B ow er (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22). New

York: Academic Press .

Gentner , D. , & Jeziorski , M. (1993) . The shif t f rom metaphor to analogy in Western science. In A.

Ortony (Ed.) , Metaphor and thought, 2nd ed. (pp. 447-480) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Gentner, D., & Stevens, A.L. (Eds.) . (1983). Mental models. Hilrsdale, NJ: Ertbaum.

Gibbs , R.W., J r . (1984) . Li teral meaning and p sychological theory, Cognitive Science, 8, 2 7 5 - 3 0 4 .

Gibbs, R,W., J r . (1992) . W hat do idioms real ly mean ? Journal o f Memory, and Langu age, 31, 4 8 5 - 5 0 6 .

Gib bs, R.W ., Jr . (1993). Wh y idioms are no t dead metaphors. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.),

Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 57-77). Hiilsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Gibbs, R.W ., Jr . (1994 ). The poetics of mind: Figurative thou ght, language, and understanding.

Cambridge, UK: Cam bridge Univers i ty Press .

Gibbs, R.W., Jr ., & O'B rien , J .E. (1990), Idiom s and m ental imagery: The metaphorical mo tivation tbr

idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 36, 3 5 - 6 8 ,

Glucksberg, S. (1993). Idiom meanings and allusionai content. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.) ,

Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 3-26). Hiilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Glucksberg, S., Bro wn , M., & McGIone, M.S. (1993). Conceptual metaphors are not autom atically

accessed dur ing idiom comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 21, 7 1 1 - 7 1 9 .

Heider, E.R. (197 2). Universals in co lor naming and m em ory. Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 93,

1 0 - 2 0 .

Ke ysar, B. (198 9). On the func tional equ ivalen ce of l iteral and metaphorical interpretations in

discourse. Journal o f Mem ory and Language, 28, 3 7 5 - 3 8 5 .

Keysar , K, & Bly, B. (1995) . Intui t ions of the t ransparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by

spill ing the beans? Journal o f Mem ory and Language, 34, 8 9 - 1 0 9 .

Ke ysar, B., & B ly, B. (in press). S wim m ing against the current: Do idioms reflect conceptual structure?

In A. Kasher & Y. Shen (Eds.) , Cognitive aspects of metaphor: Studies in linguistics, literature,philosophy and psychology. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Kovecses , Z. (1986) . Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the structure of

concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lakof f , G . (1987) . Women, f i re and dangerous things. Chicago: Univers i ty of Chicago Press .

La koff, G. (199 0). Th e invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive

Linguistics, 1, 3 9 - 7 4 .

Lako fL G. (1993) . The con temp orary theory of metaphor . In A. O rtony (Ed.) , Metaphor and thought,

2nd ed. (pp. 202-251), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lak ofL G., & Johnson , M. (1980). Metaphors we l ive by. Chicago: U nive rsity of Chicago Press.

Lakoff , G. , & Turner , M. (1989) . Mo re than cool reason: A f ield guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago:

Univers i ty of Chicago Press .

Lehrer , A. , & Lehrer , K. (1982) . Antonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 4 8 3 - 5 0 1 .

Lucy, J .A. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativit3:

hypothesis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Manfredi , D.A. , & Glucksberg, S. (1994, November) . An interactive property-attribution model of

metaphor comprehension. Pape r presented at the 35th Annual M eet ing of the Psych onom ic Society,

St. Louis, MO.



204 G.L. Murphy I Cognition 60 (1996) 173-204

Markman, A.B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of

similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517-535.

Markrnan, E.M. (1985). Why superordinate category terms can be mass nouns. Cognition, 19, 31-53 .

Medin, D.L., Goldstone, R.L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review,

I00, 254-278.

Morgan, J.L. (1979). Observations on the pragmatics of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and

thought (pp. 136-147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universi ty Press.

Murphy, G .L , & W isniewski, E.J. (1989). Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: W hat a

superordinate is good for. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,

15, 572-586 .

Murphy, M.L. (1995). In opposition to an organized lexicon: Pragmatic principles and lexical

semantic relations. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, U niversity o f Il linois.

Na yak , N., & Gibbs, R .W. (1990). Conceptual k now ledg e in the interpretation of idioms. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 315-330.

Nunberg, G. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Linguist ics Club.

Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy,3, 143-184.

Ortony, A. (1988). Are emotion metaphors conceptual or lexical? Cognition and Emotion, 2, 95-103 .

Ortony, A ., Schallert, D.L., Reyn olds, R.E., & A ntos, S.J . (1978). Interpreting metaphors an d idioms:

Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17,

465 -477 .

Ortony, A., Clore, G.L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Universi ty Press.

Pullum, G.K. (1991). The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax, and other irreverent essays on the study of

language. Chicago: Universi ty of Chicago Press.

Rey nolds , R.E., & Ortony, A. (1980). Som e issues in the measurement o f child ren 's comprehension o fmetaphorical language. Child Development, 51, 1110-1119.

Rosch, E . (1975). Universals an d cultural specifics in hum an categorization. In R .W . Brislin, S.

Bochner, & W .J. Lon ner (Eds.) , Cross-cultural perspectives on learning (pp . 177-206). New York:

Wi ley .

Ruhl, C. (1989). On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Russell , J.A., & Fehr, B. (1994). Fuzzy concepts in a fuzzy hierarchy: Varieties of anger. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 186-205.

Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R.E (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Stock, O., Slack, J. , & Ortony, A . (1993). B uilding castles in the air. Som e computational and

theoretical issues in idiom comprehension. In C. Cacciari & E Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing,structure, and interpretation (pp. 229-247). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sweetser, E.E. (1986). P olys em y vs. abstraction: M utually exclusive or complementary? In V.

Nikiforidou, M . VanC lay, M. Niepokuj, & D. Fede r (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual

Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 528-538). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist ics

Society.

Sweetser, E.E. (1990)~ From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic

structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universi ty Press.

Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.

Wellman, H.M. (1990). The child's theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Winner, E. , Rosenstiel , A.K., & Gardner, H. (1976). The development of metaphoric understanding.Developmental Psychology, 12, 289-297.

Documents

1995 Murphy - On Metaphoric Representation