Emergentist Metaphorical Creativity: Towards a Model of Analysing Metaphorical Creativity in Interactive Talk

Authors: Afef Badri

Abstract:

Metaphorical creativity does not constitute a static property of discourse. It is an interactive dynamic process created online. There has been a lack of research concerning online produced metaphorical creativity. This paper intends to account for metaphorical creativity in online talk-in-interaction as a dynamic process that emerges as discourse unfolds. It brings together insights from the emergentist approach to the study of metaphor in verbal interactions and insights from conceptual blending approach as a model for analysing online metaphorical constructions to propose a model for studying metaphorical creativity in interactive talk. The model is based on three focal points. First, metaphorical creativity is a dynamic emergent and open-to-change process that evolves in real time as interlocutors constantly blend and re-blend previous metaphorical contributions. Second, it is not a product of isolated individual minds but a joint achievement that is co-constructed and co-elaborated by interlocutors. The third and most important point is that the emergent process of metaphorical creativity is tightly shaped by contextual variables surrounding talk-in-interaction. It is grounded in the framework of interpretation of interlocutors. It is constrained by preceding contributions in a way that creates textual cohesion of the verbal exchange and it is also a goal-oriented process predefined by the communicative intention of each participant in a way that reveals the ideological coherence/incoherence of the entire conversation.

Keywords: Communicative intention, conceptual blending, contextual variables, the emergentist approach, ideological coherence, metaphorical creativity, textual cohesion

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1128847

References:

[1] G. Lakoff, and M. Turner, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
[2] Z. Kövecses, Where Metaphors Come from Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
[3] Z. Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2econd ed. Oxford University Press, 2010.
[4] G. Lakoff, “The contemporary theory of metaphor,” in Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
[5] G. Lakoff, and M. Johnson, Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
[6] G. Lakoff, and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. New edition with Afterword, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.
[7] G. Lakoff, “The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas”? Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 1-1 1990.
[8] L. Cameron, Metaphor in educational discourse. Continuum, 2003.
[9] L. Cameron, “Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk,” Discourse Society, vol 18 2end ed. 2007.
[10] L. Cameron, R. Maslen, T. Zazie, J. Maule, P. Stratton, and N. Stanley, “The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis,” Metaphor and Symbol, vol. 24 2end ed. 2009.
[11] L. Cameron, and A. Deignan, “The emergence of metaphor in discourse,” Applied Linguistics, vol. 27 4th ed. Oxford University Press, 2006.
[12] J. Grady, T. Oakley, and S. Coulson, “Metaphor and blending,” in Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, G. Steen, & R. Gibbs, Ed. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999.
[13] G. Fauconnier, and M. Turner, “Conceptual integration networks,” in Cognitive Science vol. 22, 2end ed. 1998.
[14] S. Coulson, Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[15] S. Coulson, “Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology,” Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006.
[16] G. Fauconnier, and M. Turner, The Way we Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books, 2002.
[17] G. Fauconnier, and M. Turner, “Conceptual projection and middle spaces,” 1994.
[18] V. Stadelmann, “Language, cognition, interaction. conceptual blending as discursive practice,” Unpublished PhD thesis, 2012.
[19] E. Semino, Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
[20] J. Charteris-Black, Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
[21] M. Stone, “Communicative intentions and conversational processes in human-human and human-computer dialogue,” in World Situated Language Use: Psycholinguistic, Linguistic and Computational Perspectives on Bridging the Product and Action Traditions, J. Trueswell, and M. Tanenhaus, Ed. MIT Press, 2002.
[22] L. Brandt, and P. Brandt, “Making sense of a blend: a cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor,” Annual review of cognitive linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005.
[23] A. Rocci, “Are manipulative texts ‘coherent’? manipulation, presuppositions and (in-)congruity,” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, language, mind, L.de Saussure, and P. Schulz, Ed. 2005.
[24] S. Coulson, “Extemporaneous blending: conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio,” Style, vol. 39, 2end ed. 2005.
[25] B. Nerlich, and N. Koteyko, “MRSA–portrait of a superbug: a media drama in three acts,” In Metaphor and Discourse, A. Mussolf, and J. Zinken, Ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
[26] R. Gibbs, and L. Cameron, “The social cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance,” in Cognitive Systems Research, vol. 9, 2008.
[27] P. Werth, “Extended metaphor-a text-world account,” in Language and literature, 2end ed. vol. 3, Longman Group Limited, 1994.
[28] M. Kimmel, “From metaphor to the “mental sketchpad”: literary macrostructure and compound image schemas in heart of darkness,” in Metaphor and symbol, 3d ed. vol. 20, Lawrence Erlbaum Assocaite, Inc. 2005.
[29] A. Musolff, Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
[30] T. Van Dijk, Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 1980.
[31] T. Sanders, and W. Spooren, “Communicative intentions and coherence relations,” in coherence in spoken and written discourse: how to create it and how to describe it, W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, and E. Ventola, Ed. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, vol. 63, 1997.
[32] H. Clark, Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
[33] T. Van Dijk, “Discourse semantics and ideology,” in Discourse & Society, 2end ed. vol. 6, SAGE (London, Thousands, Oaks, CA and New Delhi), 1995.