A cognitive study of metaphor and metonymy. Plan: I. Introduction II. Main part

Rhetoric
 he says that 
metaphors make learning pleasant; "To learn easily is naturally pleasant to all 
people, and words signify something, so whatever words create knowledge in 
us are the pleasantest."
[6]
 Aristotle's writings on metaphor constitute a 
"substitution view" of metaphor, wherein a metaphor is simply a decorative 
word or phrase substituted for a more ordinary one. This has been sometimes 
called the "Traditional View of Metaphor"
[7]
 and at other times the "Classical 
Theory of Metaphor".
[8]
 Later in the first century A.D., the Roman 
rhetorician Quintilian builds upon Aristotle's earlier work of metaphor by 
focusing more on the comparative function of metaphorical language. In his 
work 
Institutio Oratoria,
Quintilian states," In totum autem metaphora 
brevior est similitudo" or "on the whole, metaphor is a shorter form of 
simile".
[9]
 Other philosophers throughout history have lent their perspectives 
to the discussion of metaphor as well. Friedrich Nietzsche for example, 
claimed that language as a whole did not portray reality but instead made a 
series of bold metaphors. Nietzsche believed that each step of cognition, the 
transfer of real world information to nerve stimuli, the culmination of nerve 
stimuli into mental images, the translation of mental images to words, was 
metaphorical.
[10]
 Modern interpretations of these early theories have also been 
intensely debated. Janet Soskice, Professor of Philosophical Theology at 
the University of Cambridge, writes in summary that "it is certain that we 
shall taste the freshness of their insights only if we free them from the 
obligation to answer questions that were never theirs to ask".
[7]
 George 

---

Lakoff and Mark Johnson, although originally taking a hard-line 
interpretation of these early authors
[8][11]
 later concede that Aristotle was 
working within a different philosophical framework from what we engage 
with today and that critical interpretations should take this in to account.
[12]
 
Modern 
In his 2007 book 
The Stuff of Thought
, cognitive scientist Steven 
Pinker lays out several useful classifications for the study of conceptual 
metaphor. Pinker first contrasts two perspectives on metaphor, what he calls 
the killjoy theory and the messianic theory. The killjoy theory categorizes 
metaphors as "dead", that is it asserts that modern day speakers are not aware 
of the comparison made between source and target domains in the everyday 
metaphors they use. For example, many are not cognizant that the phrase "to 
come to a head" refers to the accumulation of pus in a pimple. In contrast, the 
messianic theory correlates more closely with Lakoff and Johnson's idea of a 
conceptual metaphor. This view states that users of metaphors are aware of 
how the metaphor maps onto the domains and use them to relate shared 
perceptual experiences to more complex thoughts.
[13]
 
Another important distinction made by Pinker is that between literary, 
or poetic metaphors, and conceptual, or generative metaphors. Poetic 
metaphors are used for a variety of reasons but ultimately highlight 
similarities or incongruencies in an expressive manner. Pinker's example of 
this being the classic Shakespearian line "Juliet is the sun". These metaphors 
can often appear convoluted or unclear without deeper context. Conceptual 
metaphors result from some inherent relation between two domains. These 
metaphors, so innate they are considered cliche are interestingly able to 
generate infinite new metaphors.
[13]
 For example, thinking back on the 
conceptual metaphor 
ARGUMENT IS WAR
, one can build many new metaphors 
such as "I shot him down" or "he blew my argument to pieces". 

---

Pinker himself settles on a moderate view that falls in between the 
messianic and killjoy theories on metaphor. Perhaps most interestingly, while 
Pinker concedes that metaphor is a useful way to combat the limited ability 
of language to express thought, he postulates that a higher level of abstract 
thought must still be present. Otherwise, Pinker points out, how could we 
engage in critique of metaphors or employ metaphors for comedic effect?
[13]
 
Major criticisms of work done on conceptual metaphor stem from the 
way many researchers conduct their research. Many study metaphors in a 
"top-down" direction, looking first at a few examples to suggest conceptual 
metaphors, then examining the structure of those metaphors. Researchers 
would look at their own lexicon, dictionaries, thesauri, and other corpus to 
study metaphors in language. Critics say this ignored the way language was 
actually used and focused too much on the hypothetical metaphors, so many 
irregularities were overlooked in favor of postulating universal conceptual 
metaphors.
[14]
 In 2007, Pragglejaz Group came up with a methodology for 
identifying metaphorical expressions as a response to these criticisms.
[15]
 
Mappings 
There are two main roles for the conceptual domains posited in 
conceptual metaphors: 
