Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research no. 6)
Reviewed by: Enrico Monti, University of Bologna, Italy
Deignan's Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics is a detailed
account of the contribution that corpus linguistics can make to the
study of metaphor. The aim of the book is to determine how a theory of
metaphor as thought (i.e. Conceptual Metaphor Theory, CMT from here
on) can account for the patterns found in natural language.
The book is structured in three parts, each divided into three
chapters: Part I is devoted to CMT, Part II to current research in
metaphor, while Part III offers a direct examination of corpus data.
Part I
Part I (pp. 11-71) opens with a brief explanation of CMT, as developed
since 1980 by Lakoff and colleagues, with a particular focus on the
key elements to be tested further on, namely the ideological aspect of
metaphors (implicit in the choice of source domains) and the
systematicity of conceptual metaphorical mappings. For her analysis,
Deignan proposes a corpus-based classification of
"metaphorically-motivated linguistic expressions", with tighter
categories than those suggested by CMT (p. 39). The relationship
between metaphor and metonymy is also extensively explored, the author
insisting on the potential of the latter to shape our thought, as well as on
the interrelation between the two. Deignan embraces Goossens’
interaction theory of metaphor and metonymy (Goossens 1995), and adds
the further category of "metonymy-based metaphors" (p. 67) to
the existing classification, while proposing a "cline" view that
discards sharp distinctions between metaphor and metonymy in order to
account for their mutual overlap.
Part II
Part II (pp. 73-142) is devoted to current research into metaphor and
focuses on three main approaches: Corpus-based (Ch. 4), Cognitive and
Psycholinguistic (Ch. 5), and Discourse approaches (Ch. 6). Corpus
methodology and its most recent results are described in detail,
including some ongoing applied research. Deignan presents her own
corpus (a cross-section of the Bank of English, amounting to 56
million words) and stresses the importance of naturally-occurring
data, pointing out how many linguistic theories prove inadequate once
related to factual evidence. Chapter 5 offers an overview of the
cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches to metaphor, describing
their research methodology, their limitations and how they can be
broadened and supplemented by the use of naturally occurring data. The
final chapter deals with discourse approaches to metaphor
research. Deignan views such approaches as complementary to cognitive
approaches, although noting that the two
have different aims. Discourse approaches, she points out, use CMT as
a starting point rather than as a testing ground for
theory. Furthermore, discourse approaches typically concentrate on
corpora of spontaneously produced language, unlike most cognitive
metaphor-theoretical approaches. Deignan
evaluates positively the contribution of discourse approaches in generating
"insights unavailable to intuition-based studies" (p. 141),
as in the proposed case-study on the ideological power of
metaphors. At the same time, she remarks that the small size of the
texts analyzed precludes the possibility of drawing generalizations;
which is why, Deignan argues, this approach is ideally supplemented by
corpus linguistics.
Part III
Part III (pp. 143-213) is devoted to a closer examination of corpus
data. Deignan confirms, through corpus analysis, that figurative uses
of language (as opposed to literal uses) display a more restricted
degree of grammatical, semantic and syntactic variation. On the basis
of corpus evidence, she questions the proposed systematicity of
metaphorical mappings (Lakoff's Invariance Hypothesis, Lakoff
1979). She argues for positing a more important role for target domain
structures in motivating linguistic metaphors (p. 164) and opposes the
idea of fully productive mappings between source and target domains
(which proves inappropriate, especially for metaphors that are
partially grounded in metonymy). A study of collocates (comparing
figurative and literal use of chosen linguistic expressions) shows the
existence of "opposing tendencies" to a strictly systematic
mapping, tendencies mostly connected to the reutilization of
conventionalized chunks of language. She evaluates Blending Theory
positively (Fauconnier and Turner 2002) for its greater flexibility as
opposed to a classical version of CMT, although Blending Theory's focus on
"unusual or invented language" is considered a severe limitation
(p. 166). Not dissimilarly from her suggested combination of
corpus-based and corpus-driven approaches (Tognini-Bonelli 2001) in
Part II (pp. 88-90), here Deignan calls for a dynamic combination of
CMT and Blending Theory. This, she argues, allows the
complexity of the observed data to be encompassed; these data indicate
a recurrent oscillation between linguistic ambiguity and clarity,
creativity and communicative efficiency.
Conclusion; Assessment
Deignan's conclusion is optimistic regarding the contribution of
corpus analysis to the study of metaphor. While "corpus-data are
rarely, if ever, inconsistent with CMT" (p. 223), she argues, they
can indeed rectify flawed intuitions. In this sense, her study is a
good introduction to the benefits that cognitive approaches to
metaphor literature can derive from corpus analysis, as well as from a
stronger consideration of naturally occurring language. She
purposefully combines theoretical discussions with empirical research
and effectively shows how they can mutually benefit from their
interaction. Deignan's approach is clear and simple. The book
introduces basic concepts of both the metaphor literature and corpus
linguistics, thus addressing scholars familiar with only one of the
two main areas of study involved, as well as non-specialist readers,
since most concepts are explicitly introduced. This same intent is
also clear in the didactic organization of the contents, with
introductory and summarizing paragraphs at the beginning and end of
each chapter and section, guiding the reader step by step through the
book. While the first two parts are fairly introductory, and possibly
less interesting for an initiated readership, the third part engages
in a more in-depth testing of the assumptions of CMT, and it proves an
interesting contribution to the existing literature on metaphor, as
well as a guidance for future research.
References
Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual
Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Goossens, L. 1995. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and
metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action, in
L. Goossens et al. (eds.), By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and
Linguistic Action in a Cognitive
Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. The contemporary theory of metaphor, in A. Ortony (ed.),
Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.