earticle

영어

The purpose of this paper is to discuss some claims of the earlier and later versions of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), assess two objections directed at it: (1) circularity and (2) faulty typology, and suggest, revising Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & Otal Campo’s taxonomic criterion, a new classification of metaphors. Unlike previous theories, Lakoff & Johnson (1980), who first proposed CMT, argued that metaphor is not primarily a matter of language but of cognition. Later Lakoff (1987) and Johnson (1987) argued that metaphor is not simply linguistic and conceptual but also bodily in nature. In recent years, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) have developed a more complex version of CMT with the introduction of primary metaphors which are considered as one important advance in it. It is also argued that the evidence for conceptual metaphors comes from cognitive linguistic analyses of conventional expressions, novel extensions, and polysemy. And it is shown that evidence abounds that makes objection (1) obsolete, but objection (2) is justified. Therefore, this paper proposes, revising Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & Otal Campo’s taxonomic criterion, a new classification of metaphors as shown in figure 2. The basic division is between similarity and correlation metaphors. Similarity is at work in the case of ontological, image, and situational metaphors. Orientational, image-schematic, and propositional metaphors are based upon the correlation between two experiential domains.