[Corpora-List] Deadline reminder: chapters for edited volume on conceptual and linguistic metaphor

[Gill Philip]

Topics and Targets: Conceptual and linguistic metaphors in text and discourse
editor: Gill Philip, University of Bologna
publisher: John Benjamins

THE DEADLINE FOR EXTENDED ABSTRACTS IS NEXT MONDAY (15 NOVEMBER 2010)

Text-based metaphor research is beginning to reveal the importance of
metaphorical target domains, long ignored in favour of
cognitively-rich (and hence more interesting) source domains. Target
domains often coincide with the topical content of a text or
discourse, and although it has been long noticed that some metaphors
are typical of some discourse topics (e.g. THE ECONOMY IS A PLANT,
BUSINESS IS WAR), precisely which metaphors actually occur, how they
interrelate, and why they are used, has barely been addressed. In
fact, source-target domain mappings seem to shift from topic to topic,
discourse to discourse, language to language, and in doing so are also
realised through different linguistic metaphors. While claims are made
in the theoretical literature that there are “universal” metaphors,
e.g. UP IS BETTER; DOWN IS WORSE, analysis of both conceptual and
linguistic metaphors in texts weakens this stance. In the first place,
metaphoricity is gradable (Hanks 2006), so the extent to which these
universal mappings are shared across discourses and languages can vary
considerably. And some discourse topics undermine their validity
altogether: UP would indeed seem tom be BAD in economics discourse
(Partington 1998: 113).
The discrepancies that arise between theoretical accounts of metaphor
and attested usage are largely a product of over-generalising
source-target mappings. In treating metaphor as a conceptual system,
the fine-grained meanings conveyed by individual vehicle-topic
relationships disappear from view. Yet linguistic metaphors do more
than simply realise concepts: they have their own pragmatic functions
(Hanks 1987; Moon 1992; Cameron & Deignan 2006; Philip 2010), often
occur in “bursts” or “clusters” (Cameron & Stelma 2004), and they even
seem to have preferred positions in text, e.g. paragraph-final,
text-final (Philip in press).
This edited volume seeks to refine and refocus current models of
metaphor by uncovering the complex relationships between discourse
topics and metaphor topics, and between linguistic metaphors and the
conceptual metaphors to which they ostensibly belong. Preference will
therefore be given to papers addressing one of the following:
-- The use of metaphor in specialised language(s)
-- The relationship between linguistic metaphors and conceptual
metaphors within different discourse topics, or within one discourse
topic in different languages
-- The pragmatic function of metaphor in text/discourse
In keeping with the empirical focus of the volume, all contributions
must address linguistic and conceptual metaphor use in spoken or
written text. While the language of the volume is English, studies of
metaphors in languages other than (or in addition to) English are
particularly welcome.

Initial selection for the volume will be determined on the basis of an
extended abstract of 1500 words which must detail:
(i) Background to the study
(ii) Research hypothesis, including statement of metaphors (or
metonomy, or other figurative language) to be investigated;
(iii) Data analysed (language, sub-language, topic(s) of discourse;
data source, composition and total size [running words]);
(iv) Methodology adopted;
(v) Exposition and discussion of findings;
(vi) Conclusions (response to hypothesis).



Important dates
Submission of extended abstracts: **extended to 15 November**
Notification of acceptance: 30 November 2010
Full papers due: 28 February 2011


Abstracts should be sent to Gill Philip <g.philip.polidoro at gmail.com>.
Please remember to include name(s) of author(s), academic affiliation
and full contact information.


References
Cameron, L. & Deignan, A. 2006. The emergence of metaphor in
discourse. Applied Linguistics 27(4): 671–690.
Cameron, L. & Stelma, J. 2004. Metaphor clusters in discourse. Journal
of Applied Linguistics 1(2): 107–136.
Hanks, P. 1987. Definitions and Explanations. In Looking Up, J. M.
Sinclair (ed.), 116-136. London: Collins.
Hanks. P. 2006. Metaphoricity is gradable. In Corpus-Based Approaches
to Metaphor and Metonomy, A. Stefanowitsch & S. T Gries (eds), 17-35.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Partington, A. 1998. Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English
Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Moon, R. 1992. There is reason in the roasting of eggs: a
consideration of fixed expressions in native-speaker dictionaries. In
Euralex ’92 proceedings, H. Tommola, K. Varantola, T. Salmi-Tolonen &
J. Schopp (eds), 493-502. Tampere: University of Tampere.
Philip, G. 2010. Metaphorical Keyness in Specialised Corpora. In
Keyness in Texts, M. Bondi & M. Scott (eds), 185-203. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Philip, G. In press. Colouring Meaning: Collocation and connotation in
figurative language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics]. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.


-- 
*********************************
Dr. Gill Philip
CILTA
Università degli Studi di Bologna
Piazza San Giovanni in Monte, 4
40124 Bologna
Italy

_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora