Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-42vt5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-27T18:22:47.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Concept of Domain in the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of General and Applied Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 80, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. Email: eep@cphling.dk.
Get access

Abstract

In cognitive semantics metaphors are cross-domain mappings in the conceptual system. Thus the notion of domain plays a crucial role in the theory. However, domain is never defined, but taken for granted. By means of data from language acquisition and language production and comprehension I question the cognitive status of the notion of domain. Furthermore, I demonstrate that both linguistic and nonlinguistic evidence indicate that space and time are cognitively linked in a way that makes it problematic to claim that space is mapped onto time in the development of grammatical temporal markers.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2: Special issue on COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS , December 1995 , pp. 111 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1975. Events are perceivable but time is not. In Fraser, J. T. & Lawrence, N. (eds.), The Study of Time II: Proceedings of the Second Conference of the International Society for the Study of Time, Lake Yamanaka, Japan. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. 5. Abstract motion. In Langacker, R. W., Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 149–163.Google Scholar
Nelson, K., Engel, S. & Kyratzis, A. 1985. The Evolution of Meaning in Context. Journal of Pragmatics 9, 453–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. 1979. Some problems with the notion literal meanings. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 78–90.Google Scholar