Text, Context and Cognitive Metaphor

Diane Ponterotto
University of LAquila, Italy
.
1.0. Introduction
When approaching the question of the relationship between metaphor and
discourse, we could say that in Cognitive Metaphor Theory (hereafter CMT), there are
there are two basic tendencies. The first works within a perspective that views basic
level metaphors as structuring mechanisms in the understanding and representation of
the world; in other words, it could be claimed that conceptual metaphors motivate
subsequent language use. The second operates from a different, apparently opposite,
perspective which views the speakers communicative intention as the trigger of the
metaphorical framework selected to interpret the world; in other words, it could be
claimed instead that language use motivates metaphorical conceptualization. At any
rate, irregardless of the theoretical perspective adopted, most of the research in CMT
has focused on the the cognitive side of this relation rather than on the language side.
Steen (2002:386) comments on this point as follows:
One paradoxical effect of the cognitive turn in metaphor studies has
been the neglect of the linguistic analysis of metaphorical langauge.
Many metaphor scholars have concentrated on fleshing out the
presumed conceptual connections between related metaphorical
expressions, but they have not really turned back to examine how
and why which conceptual metaphros are expressed in the way they
are in the which contexts of language use.
Caballero (2003:145) likewise notes:
Nevertheless, despite the vast amount of theoretical discussion on
metaphor, there are still few studies that integrate insights from
cognitive theory with discourse analytical procedures in order to
explore its role in communication. In short, the interest in
unearthing the cognitive motivations and processes at work in
metaphor has led to neglect of its linguistic realization and discourse
role. This is unfortunate, given the stress laid by metaphor scholars in
general on the crucial importance of metaphor in discourse
interaction.
Although I do not necessarily agree with these perhaps overstated affirmations, I
feel that future research in CMT could benefit from further exploration into the role of
metaphorical conceptualization in the comprehension and production of discourses as
context-bound and genre-bound communicative events.
2.0. Rationale
Thus, the rationale behind the reflections which follow in this paper is that
attention is to be paid to the dynamic quality of metaphor in discourse, i.e. to how
metaphor emerges, grows, changes, lives in a text. Once having posited this possiblity,

the development of metaphor is seen to be text-specific, in the sense that the

representation of knowledge through metaphor is dependent on discourse strategies
which are characteristic, first of all, of the particular genre to which the discourse
refers and, secondly, of the specific text in which the discourse unfolds. In other words,
different texts will yield different modalities of metaphoric display. Moreover, within
this perspective, if we hold steadfast to the role of context in informing the text as a
situated-dyanmic communciative event, we shall see that the difference in perspective
as outlined above is overcome. Metaphorization emerges as both the result and the
producer of human conceptualizations. Thus, a more holistic description of this
fascinating phenomenon in human cognition and language, that we call Cognitive
Metaphor, can be achieved.
2.1. Hypothesis
The basic assumption directing this paper could very well be summarized by the
statement found in Honeck, Voegtle, Dorfmueller & Hoffman (1980:148), Metaphors
are rarely encountered outside of text or conversation. In other words, what a human
person interprets is not a sentence or an utterance but rather, a text, i.e. piece of oral or
written discourse. Cognizing occurs essentially only by way of a textual encounter.
Therefore, conceptualization does not exist independently of the text.
Conceptualizations are the result of the contact between the mind or minds of
individuals and the discourses or texts of communities or social formations. Perhaps
we could say that coneptualizations are the result of the contact between the
discourse(s) of one or more minds with the discourse(s) of one or more other minds in
specific cultural formations and more importantly perhaps, in spatially and temporallybound communicative moments.
2.2. Aim
Thus, by suggesting that the locus of metaphor production and interpetation is not
the human mind but the text, defined as a contextually-constrained interactive event, I
would like to attempt to describe how knowledge represented through metaphor is
represented in texts and how different texts yield different modalities of metaphoric
display.

2. 3. Analytical framework
From early work by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and subsequent research in
Cognitive Linguistics, it has been claimed and adequately demonstrated that figurativity
is pervasive in language. Most of the research studies the conceptual configurations
underlying the use of figurative expressions in language, in attempt to describe a
cognitive system able to explain general human conceptualizations which could
possibly motivate language use. Even when the research is oriented to describing the
cultural specificity of figurative and metaphorical patterns, the methodolgical
procedures tend nonetheless to reflect on a single utterance or groups of utterances as
examples of human conceptualization.
We should like adopt a different analytical stance, which is that of the interface
between cognition and discourse, in order to understand the role and force of cognitive
metaphor (hereafter CM) in the contexts of its use. In other words, the analysis will,

first of all, observe the CM as an integral part of a piece of discourse and, secondly,
attempt ot define its presence as an effect of the typological specificity of texts.
2.3.1. The quantitative perspective
As a first comment, I would like to note that several pilot empirical analyses of
various small corpora were performed in an attempt to explore the extent of the
presence of cognitive metaphor in various types of text.. The results so far tend to
indicate that although figurative expressions resulting from underlying metaphorical
representations are signficantly present in texts, they are nonetheless quantitatively
minimal. As an example, I can cite three corpora upon which a quantitative analysis of
cognitive metaphors was initiated: Corpus A1: contemporary film scripts; Corpus B2:
popular songs; Corpus C3: business newspapers
Corpus A consisted of five contemporary films. For the film Rainman for
instance, only 86 expressions were identified and were distributed, moreover, among
many metaphors: USURERS ARE DANGEROUS ANIMALS, MONEY IS A
HUMAN BEING, TIME IS A VALUABLE RESOURCE, LIFE IS A JOURNEY, THE
SELF IS A CONTAINER, etc.
Corpus B consisted of 265 popular music texts, composed between 1964 and
2001. Only 184 figurative utterances were identified. An attempt to quantify more
precisely the presence of the cognitive metaphors revealed the following percentages
Love metaphors (23,94%), Life metaphors (14,67%) and Object metaphors (20,01%)
and Container metaphors (11,36%).
Corpus C consisted of a six-month collection of the articles from the business
pages of the New York Times, regarding the theme of the birth of the European
currency. 400 idiomatic utterances were extracted from the corpus. Here again many
metaphors are present: ECONOMY IS MOVEMENT, ECONOMY IS WAR, THE
MARKET IS A HUMAN BEING, MONEY IS A HUMAN BEING, KNOWING
SEEING, etc. Although a more detailed analysis was performed on this corpus, for each
CM, low percentages occurred and the most frequent business metaphor, ECONOMY
IS MOVEMENT totaled only 7% .
Thus, in all of the corpora above, the frequency values for single metaphors
were not particularly high.

2.3.2. The qualitative perspective

And yet, as cognitive linguists, I think I can safely say that we are all convinced
of the fundamental role of cognitive metaphor in language use. Thus perhaps a shift of
perspective is necessary in order to pinpoint the role of cognitive metaphor in
discourse. Looking at the data from a qualititative point of view, we can see that CM
often has a structuring role in discourse. In other words, CM often directs text
development, lends cohesive force to the formal elements of the text, focuses attention,
prioritizes message elements. It is in short an intepretation manager.
But just how does CM contribute to the text organization? How does CM
figure in language useby speakers hearers in real communicative events? Morever,
1

Corpus compiled by my students at the University of LAquila, Italy: R.P. Di Giannuario and A.
Priori.
2
Corpus compiled by my students at the University of LAquila, Italy: R. Colasante; S. Giuliani;
A. Iallonardi and M. Paolini
3
Corpus compiled by my student at the University of LAquila, Italy: M. Paolini.

this point is perhaps related to the question of how concepts, entrenched in long-term
memory, figure in the production of novel formulations, which may be short-lived but
which may also develop into more permanent representations and codifications. In
order to answer these questions, perhaps it would be wise to adopt a formulation of the
problem as expressed by Caballero (2003:148):
This asks for attention to the grammatical form, location and
density of metaphor in texts, and relating these to the specific
goals of the participants in the interaction under analysis.
3.0. Textual examples
The problem thus is understanding how cognitive metaphor may function in
discourse, i.e. how a CM develops out of, and, at ths same time, contributes to, the text
structure. We shall try to illustrate this with reference to four different text-types
remembering that form the CM takes, its place within the unfolding discourse, and its
semantic weight will depend on the structures and strategies that are conventionalized
(and therefore permitted and expected) in a particular textual type.
3.1. Spontaneous conversation
Let us look at the following utterance:
1)This place is geared to high volume.
If we applied the classical cognitive linguistic description, based on a two-domain
mapping model4, we would say that the utterance emerges from a mapping between a
target domain (the room formulated as this place) and a source domain (a
technological acoustics system formulated as geared to high volume). The figurative
use then seems to be motivated by the CM: ROOMS ARE ENGINEERING
(ACOUSTICS) SYSTEMS.
The two-domain mapping theory in cognitive linguisitics considers metaphor to
be a set of correspondences between two domains: one usually a concrete entity, termed
the source and the other, usually an abstract entity, termed the target. For example, the
expression he attacked every weak point in my argument is motivated by a
conceptual analogy that links discussions with wars. The word attack, belonging to the
source domain of war, is used to represent a discussion, the target domain..
Let us now, however, observe the expression closer, in context, i.e. in its realworld production, a spontaneous conversation.
Place: Kitchen located in the basement of a London Youth Hostel
Time: Dinner Time (6-7 PM)
Participants: a) Male American (probably from California); age: mid-thirties
b) Female (apparently the males wife or partner and probably of the same nationality
and age group )
c) many other people present, of various nationalities and age groups including the
author of this paper
4

A summary of this theory, originally voiced by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), and reiterated in
many subsequent works (cf. for example, Barcelona 2002, Kovecses 1986) can be found in Coulson and
Matlock (2001:296). This model has recently given birth to related, yet in a way counter theorizations,
for example, in the blending theory proposed by Fauconnier and Turner (2001) or in the combined
input hypothesis proposed by Ruiz de Mendoza (cf. this volume).

Topic : commenting on the kitchen.

After a few minutes discussion among many of the participants, the following
exchange occurs:
2.

Female: Oh Look, John, there are two fridges in here!

Male: Wow! This place is geared to high volume.

There are many things to be noted in this short segment:

-the male speaker used a metaphor related to his professional activity (engineer or
technician)
-the metaphor was understood easily by some of the particpants but not by all: the
wife showed immediate recognition; the expressions of the Japanese guests
betrayed either confusion or miscomprehension; I myself considered it
strange.
-the metaphor was understood by those who grasped it as encoding other
cognitive operations, like hyberbole and irony, something not accessed out of
context.
Therefore, a formal description of this idiomatic expression based simply on the
two-domain mapping model would not be complete. An explanation of the
communicative power of this short idiomatic expression requries an attention to
context. It can easily be seen that metaphor production and comprehension is based on
the familiarity with interactive routines common to a discourse community.
Understanding of the force of Cognitive Metaphor requires an attention to context. As
noted also by Cameron (1999:25):
Processing metaphorical language takes place in context and draws
on the discourse expectations of participants.
Moreover, we can observe that the specific IE, and the CM which it activates,
directed the topic turn strategy. Since the topic ended at this point, it would seem that
the metaphorical comment determined topic closure. Drew and Holt (1998) have
noted the role of metaphor in introducing, changing or closing topics. Metaphors seem
to cluster at specific loci marking topic boundaries. And topic closure seems to be often
accompanied by idiomatic expressions. It would seem as if the figurative turn does not
allow room for rebuttal.
Finally we can note the spontaneity of the IE, which is, on the one hand, in a way
automatized, having a partially fixed quality, but on the other hand, manifest as novel,
because of the way it is applied to the new context. Honeck, Voegtle, Dorfmueller and
Hoffman (1980:148) note in this respect that:
Metaphors, especially part-sentence metaphors, have a spontaneous
quality. They flow with and are integrated into the context.
Nonetheless, they are specific to the context, their meaning is
particularized by it. The user of metaphor, moreover, often does not
intend that it be extended beyond the specfic context. The upshot of
these considerations is that all metaphor is parasitic upon context.
inasmuch as it is idenifiable only by means of it, and understandable
primarily in relation to it. Metaphor is context-driven.

3.2 Personal letters

The next example of a written text is even more evident of the role of genre in
shaping cognitive metaphor. In that analysis of a small corpus of personal letters
(Ponterotto, 2001 many idiomatic expressions emerged which seemed to be motivated
by the CM: LOVE IS IN THE HEART supported by the conduit metaphor LOVE IS
SENT FROM ONE HEART TO ANOTHER
3a) I will always keep you in my heart
3b) From my heart I am thanking you
3c) I send you and everyone my love
Yet, what we note in this text-type due to the conventions of personal letter
writing in American culture is a peculiar from of graphic marking. The letters are
characterized by marginalia in which are found repeated drawings of little hearts, of xs
(the conventional symbol for kiss in personal letter writing), of multiple words and/or
letters of the alphabet to indicate intense affectivity, like the following:
3d)I miss you, I miss you, I miiiiss you

(where the dot under the exclamation point is substituted by the drawing of a little
heart), or the following, where the word heart is double marked by the drawing of a
little red heart after it :
3e) From my heart I am thanking you for everything you have done for
me.
Commenting on the role of CM in lexical cohesion networks throughout a text,
Caballero (2003:147) notes:
.the main assumption in genre research is that the textual
patterning of generic exemplars is constrained by and reflects
ideational (topic) and interpersonal factors (audience and genres
goals).. (Caballero 2003: 147.
So cognitive metaphor contributes to the focusing of topic and the direction of its
message production and interpetation towards genre specific and text specific goals. As
Caballero (2003:148) notes, metaphor cannot be seen only as reflecting the subjective
conceptualization of individual participants unpredictable and textually
unconstrained. Metaphor is also shaped by the conventions of genre and the interactive
moves of participants,-- not only within the genre-specific structure, but also within the
text-specific moment of that genre.

3.3. Film dialogue

What follows now are examples from film dialogue which again demonstrate that
description of metaphor is dependent on the context of its appearance.

3.3.1. Film dialogue: example 1

The first dialogic segment comes from the film, When Harry meets Sally.5 It will
also attempt to understand what Caballero signals out as the density of CM. I take it
to mean that, viewed in text and context, the metaphor can assume semantic depth and
meaning extension. And perhaps the formal description from a cognitive linguistic
point of view will assume a more complex representation. Let us look at the utterance:
4) a fleeting thought
Again, following the two-domain model, we could safely surmise that the IE
involves a metaphorical leap which maps thoughts and movements. The word fleeting
belongs to the semantic field of MOVEMENT which becomes the source domain for
the target domain THOUGHTS. Thus the CM of reference is: THOUGHT IS
MOVEMENT. By observing the expression in context as follows, however, we can see
that there is much more information and meaning involved. In the film, the male
protagonist of this film addresses his female partner thus:
5) -Dont you ever think about death? Sure you do. A fleeting
thought that jumps in and out of your mind.
In context, the source domain of the metaphor, MOVEMENT, is further
qualified since the target domain, THOUGHT also jumps. Since thoughts are given
spatial residence, in and out of your mind, a corollary metaphor is activated THE
MIND IS A CONTAINER.
However, there is still more to the story than that. The dialogic segment seems to
be thematically cued by the word/concept death. So, types of thought are commented
upon as having positive or negative value. Thus the speakers conceptualization is best
represented by a series of metaphorically triggered entailments:
THE MIND IS A CONTAINER
THOUGHTS ARE IN THE MIND
THOUGHTS ARE INDEPENDENT MOVING OBJECTS
THOUGHTS ENTER AND EXIT FROM THE CONAINTER
A FAST MOVING THOUGHT IS A LIGHT THOUGHT
A LIGHT THOUGHT IS AN UNIMPORTANT THOUGHT
A THOUGHT WHICH REMAINS IN THE CONTAIENR IS A
HEAVY THOUGHT
A HEAVY THOUGHT IS A SERIOUS THOUGHT.
Moreover, if one were to identify the speech act of the segment, one could say
that it is criticizing or belittling. Thus, in a male-female dyad, the sub-text of the
dialogue suggests:
A FEMALE THOUGHT IS AN UNIMPORTANT THOUGHT
A MALE THOUGHT IS A SERIOUS THOUGHT,

I would like to thank my student at the University of LAquila, Italy, Chiara De Zuane, for
bringing this segment to my attention and for contributing insightfully to the seminar discussions
on this topic

which is a residue of a traditional patriarchal view of the woman as a non-rational

being.
Therefore, this example is illustrative of the necessity to observe the cultural
contexts in which conceptual metaphors arise and support particular uses of language
(Gibbs 1999:51). It seems to capture what perhaps Caballero (2003) means by the term
density in referring to CM, a power to create semantic depth and meaning extension.
3.3.2. Film dialogue: example 2
The previous example leads us also into the realm of ideology6. It is interesting
therefore to relate the question of genre specificity to that of the role of cognitive
metaphor in creating or sustaining ideological values, given the interest in this issue
recently demonstrated by scholars like Hawkins (2000) and Geeraerts (2003). To
understand this aspect, an analysis was made of various contemporary films belonging
to a genre we can label American romantic comedy (cf Ponterotto 2003). When
attempting to identify the CMs operative behind the film dialogues, it was noted that
one of the most common metaphors was WOMEN ARE COMMODITIES which
motivated numerous figurative utterances like the following examples:
6a) Tight little package.
6b) Well, youve heard of mail-order brides.
6c) There are two kinds of women, high maintenance and low maintenance.
6d) Having jerks like you drooling over her
6e) Im not some little toy.
One could say that there is an entire set of cinematographic texts belonging to the
romantic comedy genre which is (at least partially) thematically and dialogically built
on a sexist ideology. By constantly using figurative expressions which evoke a
cognitive representation of women as objects to be enjoyed by men, these filmscripts
ultimately contribute to the perpetuation of gender discrimination.
The question then arose as to the possibililty of mapping a conceptual network
which could be said to be not merely present but essentially charactersistic of a
filmscript. Or, to state the case in stronger terms, could it be that the texts thematic
development itself is triggered and sustained by a. systematically organized set of
cognitive metaphors? As an example, an anlaysis of the popular 1997 film Pretty
Woman suggested that the entire story, plot and thematic devolopment of the film
hinged on a macrometaphor, identified as WOMEN ARE COMMODITIES, which
seemed to provoke and organize a series of submetaphors WOMEN ARE SEX
MACHINES, WOMEN ARE SALES PRODUCTS, WOMEN ARE FOOD. An idea of
the relationships among these metaphors was traced with the help of the type of
metphorical map first used in Ponterotto (2000):

By the term ideology, for the purposes of this argumentation, we intend the perspective of Hodge and Kress
(1993), a system of ideas conventionalized by a particular community (Hawkins 2001:28).

WOMEN ARE COMMODITIES

(to be consumed by men)
WOMEN ARE
SALES
PRODUCTS
Shes in sales
I would have paid
four thousand

WOMEN ARE
TOYS
Im not some little
toy
How about a
freebie?

WOMEN ARE
FOOD
Yeah, honey
Hey sugar
So youre the flavor
of the month

WOMEN ARE SEX

MACHINES
When Im with a
guy, Im like a robot.

This diagram confirms suggestions in the literature (Barcelona 1995, 2002;

Kovecses 1986; Lakoff 1987,1993, Lakoff and Johnson 1980) that human cognition
may be organized around basic metaphorical concpets with related metaphorical and/or
metonymical entailments. Thus we could say that the metaphors are conceptually (and
consequently textually) organized as sets. The point I am arguing however is that the
set is itself (at least, partially) genre-specific. Genre conventions will determine
expectations in readers. Writers will meet those expectations by activating common
CMs associated with that particular genre, and for specific texts, they will select from
the potentialities of the metaphorical set one or more CMs to prioritize. This selection
will vary from text to text. These shifts of cognitive perspective, i.e. in the
hierarchization of chosen CMs, are easily achieved precisely because of the genrespecific intertextual competence of readers. In this respect, we can refer to the comment
made by Devitt (1993:580):
Genre is patterns and relationships, essentially semiotic ones, that are
constructed when writers and groups of writers identify different
writing tasks as being similar. Genre constructs and responds to
recurring situations, becoming visible through perceived patterns in
the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of particular texts.
Genre is truly, therefore, a maker of meaning.
4.0. Advertisement
The next textual example which I would like to present is that of the advertizing
text for British pub restaurants. Let us reflect on the following ad, noting that the
headline is constructed around the figurative expression :
7. Fork out less for more.

Now, as defined by De Knop (1985:251) when speaking of newspapers, the

headline is a condensed expression of the text. In this headline, the figurative
expression, Fork out less for more appears in very large print along with a visual
image of a concrete object, a fork represented in a non conventional way. It is an
oversize fork, more similar to a garden tool. Although the text contains what in the
advertising business is called copy (longer verbal inserts in various parts of the
advertising page), it obviously gives prominence to the visual image of the fork and
the headline.
The reader can easily decode the headlines phrasal verb, To fork out, which
means to spend a lot of money on something, not because you want to but because
you have to.7 The visual however is ambiguous. At first, it seems to orient the
reader to select among the various senses of fork the following meaning: A garden
tool used for digging with a handle and three or four more points 8. So the idiomatic
expression to fork out could be motivated by the CM:SPENDING MONEY IS
GARDENING. And obviously, related semantic associations are activated, as for
example: To fork (+ adverb or preposition): to put manure into soil or to move soil
around using a large garden fork.9 So the metaphorical entailment could
be:SQUANDERING MONEY IS GARDENING.
But the visual also seems to represent a table fork, thereby orienting the
interpretation as: A tool you use for picking up and eating food with a handle and
three or four points.10 Moreover, the handle of the fork resembles the stem of a wine
glass, which reinforces the association of eating rather than gardening. Thus, the text
also orients the reader to reconstruct the ambiguous image to allign it more towards
the figurative representation of an eating fork rather than a garden fork. We could
apply to the advertizing text the same explanation given by Caballero (2003:164) for
the text-type termed building review in architectural discourse:
Metaphors contribute to creating textual cohesion through a number
of patterns and frames created as the texts unfold (e.g. repetition,
diversification, or extension), and also weave intra-textual
relationships between the main text and the captions of the visuals
provided with it.
The interpretation in this advertizing text is also constrained by the form of the
entire utterance, fork out less for more, which is a reversal of an idiomatic expression
in English to get more for less . So a further entailment could be: SQUANDERING
MONEY FOR FOOD IS SPREADING SOIL
Thus, from a cognitive point of view, the idiomatic expression, sustained by
CM, with the visual image of a big fork at the centre (reiterated graphically): Fork
out less for more) has two interrelated aspects: an imagistic aspect and a verbal
aspect. The imagistic aspect has a fulcral and synthetic function, providing immediate
summary of the main discourse message. The verbal function has a propositional and
analytical function, clarifying and directing the interpretative operations in a quasi

see lemma Fork in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2003 [1973] (p. 632).
see lemma Fork in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2003 [1973] (p. 632).
9
see lemma Fork in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2003 [1973] (p. 632).
10
see lemma Fork in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2003 [1973] (p. 632).
8

syllogistic fashion11. The discursive effect of this use of the conceptual analogy could
be said to be:
-forks are for gardening
-forks are for eating
-you can spread money like you can spread soil
-spending money is like spreading soil
-spending money is squandering
Here we can see that the discourse message is based on a series of intepretative
operations that involve multiple levels of meaning: the literal meaninga (fork),
including the polysemic sense (eating tool, garden tool) and the figurative meanings
(the phrasal verb itself, to fork out, the ironic turn in the reversal of its co-text (less
for more in the place of the fixed phrase more for less). Borrowing an idea from
Ritchie (2003:144), we could say that
we may find several recursive, continually reconstructed fields of
figurative and literal concepts, in which the metaphorical mappings
link cognitive responses and expectations to an overlapping continuum
of prototypcial experiences.
In fact, the possible interpretation is not only the result of the metaphoricity generated
by the figurative expression of the headline but also by the functional role assumed by
that expression within the text viewed comprehensively as a unitary whole. De Knof
(1985.252) explains the role of the headline in the readers work of prospection, the
process by which the reader builds up an image of the content of the text just by
reading the headline. By so doing, it also creates the readers expectations and
guides the additional intepretative processes by means of three other textual
functions:
-the exophoric function (referring to real world knowledge (eating,
gardens and tools for both))
-the anaphoric function (referring back to known discourse intertextual knowledge of advertising conventions; familiarity with
word meanings from encounter with previous oral and written
discourse; decoding of idiomatic expressions, for example fork out
and more for less))
-the cataphoric function (referring to the additional information to be
accessed from the other parts of the text (what is called copy in
advertizing, that is the verbal inserts which accompany the visual
image) in a search for confirmation of the message and, in this case,
clarification of the product offered).

11

Now in a previous note (Ponterotto 1992), I suggested that insight into this issue could perhaps be found in
the theory of Alan Paivio whose dual coding theory claims that the image strucutre and the propositional
structure of the mind integrate in comprehension processes. When treating complex information, the image
which is conjured up in a holistic synthetic and complex way would receive the aid of the linear-like processs
of propositional knowledge which keeps the information on track. In other studies I have suggested that the
metaphor has a cohesive role in that by displaying a tight relation between the image and the more abstract
entity it directs interpretation which could be otherwise centrifugal. In other words, it guides the intepretation
by directing attention to some aspects of the entity or message conveying salience, vividness and focus to one
or more selected aspects of a situation.

The advertising message which results from this apparently simplistic but actually very
complex text is :
- you can eat more and spend less if you go to pub restaurants
Thus, in this text, it is through these discourse functions that the metaphoric quality of
the headline succeeds in activating and guiding the cognitive strategies of
interpretation and message reception.
4.0. Conclusions
In sum, the analyses given above would seem to capture first of all what
Caballero (2003.148) suggests as an attention to grammatical form, location and
density of metaphor. Morevoer it emphasizes that a comprehension of CM is
dependent on its observation in context, as related to the set of variables which
determine the specific interactive moment. As argued in this paper, viewed from its
relationship to discourse, the CM seems to conduct communication by foregrounding
images, by focusing perspectives, by prioritzing concepts, or, to suggest a role which
subsumes all the rest, by showing. In a sense, CM can be said to exhibit
knowledge, to display a way of knowing. However, this way of knowing is a textbased activity, determined by the interaction of all those components which constitute
communicative events: the cultural contexts and ideological constructs of the
discourse communities, the intertextual experience and goal-directed moves of
individuals, the genre norms and textual patterns of the language medium. It is
undoubtedly true that conceptualization informs language use, but it is equally
important to emphasize that conceptualization emerges from textuality.

Barcelona, Antonio. 1995. Metaphorical models of romantic love in Romeo and

Juliet. Journal of Pragmatics 24(6): 667-689.
Barcelona, Antonio. 2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and
metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update. In Dirven, Ren and Porings,
ralf (eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruter 207-277.
Caballero, Rosario. 2003. Metaphor and genre: the presence and role of metaphor in
the building review. Applied Linguistics, 24/2: 145-167.
Cameron, Lynne. 1999. Operationalising metaphor for applied linguistic research.
In Cameron, L.& Low, G. (Eds.): Researching and applying metaphor.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, Seana & Matlock, Teenie. 2001. Metaphor and the Space Structuring Model.
Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3/4): 295-317.
De Knop, Sabine. 1985. Linguistic and extralinguistic aids for reconstruction of
metaphors in headlines. In Paprott, Wolf & Dirven, Ren (Eds.). The Ubiquity
of Metaphor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 243-262.

Devitt, Amy J. 1993. Generalizing about genre: new conceptions of an old concept.
College composition and communication, 44 (4): 573-586..

Drew, Paul & Holt, Elizabeth. 1998. Figures of speech: figurative expressions and the
mangement of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27(4): 495522.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 2002. The way we think. Conceptual blending
and the minds hidden competencies. New York: Basic Books.

Geeraerts, Dirk. 2003. Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In Dirven, Ren;

Frank, Roslyn; Putz, martin (Eds.) Cognitive models in language and thought:
ideologies, metaphors and meanings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,
25-56.

Gibbs, Raymond, 1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the
cultural world. In Gibbs, R.W. & Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in cogntive
linguistics. Slected Papers from the Fifth International Cogntive Linguistics
Conference, Amsterdam (July,1997), Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins.

Hawkins, Bruce. 2001. Ideology, metaphor and iconic refer4ence. In Dirven, ren;
Frank, Roslyn and Ilie, Cornelia. 2001. Language and ideology, Vol. II:
Descriptive cognitive approaches. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 27-50.
Honeck, Richard P.; Voegtle, Katherine; Dorfmueller, Mark A. & Hoffman, Robert
R. 1980. Proverbs, meaning and group structure. In Honeck, Richard P. &
Hoffman Robert R., Cognition and Figurative Language. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,127-162..
Hodge, Robert and Kress, Gunther. 1993. language as ideology. London:Routledge.

Kovecses, Zoltan. 1986.

Benjamins.

Metaphors of anger, pride and love. Amsterdam:

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal
about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, Andrew
(ed.), 1993[1979] Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 202-251.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Ponterotto, D. 1992. On mapping. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of
Linguists, Qubec, Canada.

Ponterotto, D. 2000. The cohesive role of cognitive metaphor in discourse and

conversation. In Barcelona, A. (Ed.) Metaphor and metopnymy at the crossroads:
a cognitive perspective. New York, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 283-298.
Ponterotto, D. 2001. The cognitive-pragmatic interface of emotive communication: the
case of the personal letter. In Nemeth, Eniko T. (Ed.), Cognition in language use:
selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. 1,
Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 326-331.
Ponterotto, D. 2003. Gender and ideology in cinematic romantic comedy: a linguistic
analysis. In Slama-Cazacu, T. (Ed.) La langue et les parlants, Language and its
users, Limba si vorbitorii, Bucharest :Arvin, 140-153.
Ritchie, David. 2003. ARGUMENT IS WAR Or is it a game of chess? Multiple
meanings in the analysis of implicit metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(2):
125-146.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco Jos. (this volume) Projection spaces.
Steen, Gerard J. 2002. Identifying metaphor in language: a cognitive approach. Style,
36 (3): 386-407.