Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/33.3700

AUTHOR: Zoltán Kövecses
TITLE: Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2022

REVIEWER: Maria Tsitoura

SUMMARY

Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), as proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) in their seminal work Metaphors We Live By, has been greatly influential within the Cognitive Linguistics framework and beyond. Notwithstanding its popularity, Conceptual Metaphor Theory (henceforth CMT) has received a lot of criticism regarding some of its major propositions. In his monograph under discussion, Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Zoltán Kӧvecses has developed and proposed an updated version of CMT, by shedding light on many aspects of the standard CMT which have been criticized over the years.
In Chapter 1, the author provides a comprehensive account of what is regarded as the standard view of Conceptual Metaphor Theory. More specifically, he introduces the key tenets of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (as proposed by Lakoff and Johnson 1980, and elaborated by other scholars in the field), and also addresses some of the major controversial issues raised against the standard view of CMT. Within Conceptual Metaphor Theory, a conceptual metaphor is defined as “a systematic set of mappings between two domains of experience” (p.2). In conceptual metaphors, we construe or conceive an abstract domain (the target) through a more concrete, physical or tangible domain (the source). The pairing between a source and a target may be motivated by similarity between the two domains (either real, or perceived), by correlation in experience, or even by image schemas (container schema, verticality etc.). However, these mappings are constrained by various factors such as the principle of unidirectionality (Kӧvecses 2010). Another constraint of metaphorical mappings is that only certain elements can be carried over from the source to the target. This can be explained in terms of the invariance hypothesis (Lakoff 1990). Metaphors are not only linguistic, but they are also conceptual in nature. An important implication of this idea is that using different source domains to conceptualize the same target reflects different views of how this target is perceived, thus creating very different realities. This process of reality construction has applications to many areas such as advertising. The chapter ends with a brief overview of the key criticisms raised against CMT, which are addressed in the subsequent chapters.
Chapter 2 deals with issues regarding the existence of literal language. In the present chapter, two of the major claims of CMT, namely that language which denotes concrete concepts is literal, and it is used for the conceptualization of abstract concepts, as well as the unidirectionality of metaphorical mappings, seem to be challenged. It is not stated that literal language does not exist at all. Rather, the chapter attempts to explore the actual extent of literal meaning based on three pieces of substantial evidence. First of all, it is claimed that abstract concepts (i.e ANGER, TIME) can only be conceptualized metaphorically (i.e ANGER IS FIRE, TIME IS MOTION), and thus the linguistic expressions used for their linguistic manifestation can only be metaphorical. A great number of expressions which are regarded as literal, or the ones which are deeply entrenched metaphors, known as dead metaphors, also have a figurative basis. In addition to being metaphorically comprehended, certain concepts etymologically derive from figurative processes. Therefore, the main idea underlying the present chapter is that both concrete and abstract concepts consist of an ontological part (embodied content ontology) and a cognitive part (figurative construal), but in different amounts. In the case of literal meaning for concrete concepts, it is the ontological part that is profiled, whereas in abstract concepts, it is the cognitive part that predominates. In conceptual metaphors, the former serve as source domains, while the latter function as target domains.
Chapter 3 explores issues regarding the emergence of primary metaphors. The question that arises is whether primary metaphors emerge directly or through a metonymic process. In this chapter, the author suggests that correlation-based metaphors derive from “frame-like conceptual structures” (p.46) through metonymic processes, and more specifically through the application of the cognitive processes of generalization (schematization) and specialization (elaboration). A frame element is generalized to a concept that lies outside the initial frame in a different part of the conceptual system, and becomes either the source or the target concept of a conceptual metaphor. Elaborations can also emerge when either a source or a target is generalized. For example, in ANGER IS HEAT metaphor, HEAT as the source of ANGER can be elaborated as fire, boiling water, or volcano.
In Chapter 4, the author proposes the multilevel view of conceptual metaphor, according to which each conceptual metaphor exists not only on a single level (e.g that of domain, or frame), but simultaneously exists on four hierarchical levels of schematicity: the levels of image schema, domain, frame and mental space. The lower levels elaborate the higher, more schematic ones. Image schemas, domains and frames belong to long-term memory, while mental spaces function online in the working memory, allowing the activation of higher level conceptual structures. The chapter concludes with the implications of the multilevel view of conceptual metaphors on various aspects of metaphorical language, including the distinctions between deep and superficial metaphors, and deliberate and nondeliberate metaphors, as well as on metaphorical idioms and visual metaphors.
Another major criticism that was raised against the standard view of CMT concerned its inability to account for metaphor use in real discourse (Deignan 2005, Semino 2008). Within the Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory that he proposes, Kӧvecses views metaphor not only as a cognitive phenomenon, but also as contextual. The main argument that he puts forward in Chapter 5 is that context also plays a major role in metaphorical conceptualization, and therefore in the linguistic realizations of metaphors in discourse. He suggests that speakers/conceptualizers unconsciously choose the metaphors they use on the basis of context. In particular, they draw their metaphors from situational, discourse, conceptual-cognitive and bodily context. This contextual view of metaphor provides evidence for the variation of metaphors across or even within cultures, and across individuals. The main implication of this approach to metaphor is that conceptual metaphors and their linguistic realizations do not exclusively derive from human bodily experience, but also from contextual factors.
Conceptual Metaphor Theory has been criticized for its inefficiency in accounting for meaning of metaphorical language in naturally occurring discourse (Cameron 2003, Deignan 2005). The standard CMT is based on conceptual structures, namely image schemas, domains, and frames, which are decontextualized. In order to account for the meaning of metaphors in real discourse, in Chapter 6, the author employs the multilevel view of metaphor (outlined in Chapter 4). Within this framework, metaphor exists on all four levels of schematicity including mental spaces which license online metaphorical activity, thus accounting for both metaphorical production and comprehension in discourse. It is therefore, assumed that conceptual metaphor is both an online and an offline phenomenon. When employing metaphors, speakers are based on offline conceptual structures (image schemas, domains, frames) found in the long-term memory, while at the same time they are engaged in online processes that take place at the mental space level in working memory. Taking this into account, Kӧvecses illustrates this dual nature of metaphors using two online metaphorical processes, namely mixing metaphors and conceptual integration. Although both of them take place online at the mental space level, the offline conceptual structures are activated to account for their meaning.
The last two chapters (Chapters 7 and 8) summarize the key features of Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory draws primarily on the multilevel nature and the contextual component of conceptual metaphors. With respect to the multilevel nature of metaphor, it is suggested that conceptual metaphors consist of various components, including various types of metaphorical meaning (meaningfulness at the image schema level, decontextualized meaning at the levels of domain and frame, contextualized meaning at the mental space level). At the same time, the Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory takes into consideration the contextual factors which prime metaphors in real discourse, thus suggesting that metaphors are used in the context of the speaker’s available experiences at the time of metaphor use. Finally, the author proposes a metaphor processing model which attempts to account for the process that is going on in the speaker’s mind when he/she produces a metaphorical expression in actual discourse. In the final chapter, the author provides an evaluation of the key components of the extended version of CMT that he proposed and elaborated throughout the book. In this chapter, he also draws comparisons between the Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory and the Dynamic Systems view which was developed by Gibbs (2013). As a final note, Kӧvecses proposes an interactional shift in the study of metaphor, which will facilitate and enrich the work of researchers in every field of metaphor study.

EVALUATION
The book presents an updated version of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, and provides new insights into the field of metaphor study. Viewing metaphor as a complex cognitive phenomenon, Kӧvecses addresses and also provides responses to some of the major criticisms that were raised against the standard view of CMT. More specifically, the author extends Conceptual Metaphor Theory, by introducing three main innovative ideas. First of all, it is argued that both concrete and abstract concepts include an ontological part (embodied content ontology) and a cognitive part (figurative construal), yet in different amounts. The other two innovations introduced in the book are reflected in the introduction of the multilevel and the contextual view of metaphor. The main proposition of the multilevel view is that each metaphor exists on four hierarchical levels of schematicity. Kӧvecses innovatively introduces an additional schematic level, that of mental space. The importance of the multilevel nature of metaphor, as well as of the addition of a fourth, less schematic level lies in the fact that mental spaces serve as an invaluable tool for the elucidation and interpretation of metaphorical meaning in discourse.
Over the years, Conceptual Metaphor Theory was criticized for lacking a component that could explain the actual usages of metaphors in natural discourse. A key feature of the Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, which differentiates it from the standard CMT is that this new perspective brings forward the role of context in metaphorical conceptualization, and in the linguistic realizations of conceptual metaphors in actual use. It is suggests that a variety of contextual factors interact and contribute to the priming of particular metaphors in real discourse. This contextual view can account for the variation in metaphor use across speakers. In addition, within the Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, metaphor is perceived as both an online and an offline phenomenon. Bringing together the assumptions of both the multilevel and the contextual view, it is claimed that metaphor comprehension and production are online processes which are based on offline conceptual structures found in the long-term memory.
The book under discussion is aimed at metaphor researchers, since it provides them with a detailed and solid theoretical background for their own research work. The book is exceptionally well-written and clearly structured, and therefore it may also constitute a valuable resource for postgraduate students and young researchers. Each chapter abounds in illustrative examples which help readers to fully comprehend the theoretical framework, so that they can apply it to their own research studies. However, it should be stressed that all the examples used throughout the book derive from the English language. Therefore, it is considered necessary to make use of crosslinguistic data, in order to be able to see how the Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory works with other languages as well.
The major contribution of Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory is that it brings together the cognitive, linguistic and contextual-communicative dimensions of metaphor. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory puts emphasis on the interface between cognition and context in metaphor processing, comprehension and production. It is through this interface between cognitive and contextual factors that speakers/conceptualizers can account for metaphorical meaning in actual use. These enriching insights will constitute an indispensable tool for researchers and scholars working on various areas of metaphor study, including Cognitive Linguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, cognitive science, psychology and even literary studies, and language teaching.
Overall, the book makes a major contribution to the field of cognitive linguistics, in general, and to the field of metaphor study in particular, proposing a unified, coherent and comprehensive theoretical account of metaphor which opens new, exciting and promising avenues to metaphor research in use.

REFERENCES
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R. (2013). Metaphoric cognition as social activity: Dissolving the divide between metaphor in thought and communication. Metaphor and the Social World, 3, 54-76.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39-74.

Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Maria Tsitoura holds a BA in English Language and Literature, a BA in Education and an MA in Linguistics from Aristotle University (Thessaloniki, Greece). Currently, she works as an English Language teacher in secondary education in Greece. She also teaches foreign languages (English and French) for specific purposes at various university departments in Greece. Her main academic interests lie in the field of Cognitive Linguistics, and in particular, in figurative language, as well as in the applications of Cognitive Linguistics in language teaching and learning.