Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching (JLLT)

Journal of Linguistic and Language Teaching
Volume 6 (2015) Issue 1

Addressing CMT Problems:

Toward a Cognitive Stylistic Model of CM Analysis

Hasan Said Ghazala (Makkah Al-Mukarramah, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

The term metaphor was traditionally defined in aesthetic and rhetorical terms as the fundamental figure of speech and major form of figurative language. Now this approach no longer holds in the light of the latest monolithic developments of conceptual approaches to metaphor. Yet, dispute is going on about some issues that have not been covered yet by Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) regarding aesthetic and other basic functions of metaphor. The present paper is an attempt to investigate and pay tribute to the latest developments and contributions made by CMT to the conceptual studies of metaphor and its functions and scope, viewing it basically as a matter of cognitive, social, cultural and ideological conceptualization of topics, objects and people. All metaphors are, in principle, reflections and constructions of concepts, attitudes, mentalities, and ideologies on the part of the speaker. Hence, any metaphor is conceptualized in terms of target domain and source domain in different discourses and contexts, literary and non-literary. This means that the aesthetic-rhetorical line of argument - though essential - is left out in favour of a recently developed cognitive conceptualization of metaphor. And this is regarded by some as a major loophole in the CMT. The ultimate objective of this paper is to find out about the CMT partial failure to address some basic functions of metaphor, aesthetic or other. To handle these problems, a cognitive stylistic model of analysis of conceptual metaphor is put forward. It is based on recent cognitive arguments, models and theories. This would open new avenues of analysis, comprehension, interpretation and appreciation of metaphor in language in general.

Key words: Metaphor, CMT, conceptual metaphor, cognitive stylistics, conceptualization

1   Introduction

Metaphor is the process of 'transporting' qualities from one object to another, a person to another or a thing to a person or animal. Metaphor was originally a Greek word meaning ‘transfer’ (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993: 1756). Understanding a metaphor as a sort of transport implies that it transports a concept from its normal location to somewhere else where it is not usually used. Conventionally, the term metaphor was defined in aesthetic and rhetorical terms as the fundamental figure of speech and major form of figurative language, or trope. It was analysed and approached in terms of its rhetorical constituent components (i.e. vehicle, image, object or sense) and types (such as dead, recent, extended or compound metaphors). Now this approach no longer holds in the light of the latest developments in the conceptual and cognitive studies of metaphor. Accordingly, metaphor has received greater attention from an entirely different cognitive perspective of conceptualization and ideologization.

The present paper represents an attempt to investigate metaphor from a mainly conceptual perspective, viewing it basically as a matter of conceptualization of topics, objects, and people in cognitive social, cultural, metal, and ideological terms. All metaphors are, in principle, reflections and constructions of concepts, attitudes, mentalities and ideologies on the part of the speaker. Hence, any metaphor is conceptualized in terms of target domain and source domain in different types of context and discourse, both literary and non-literary. This means that the aesthetic-rhetorical line of argument - though traditionally essential - is attended to only cursorily in favour of shifting focus onto its cognitive conceptualization. This shift of focus has exposed the Concept Metaphor Theory (CMT) to criticism for not attending satisfactorily to essential functions of metaphor such as aesthetic, rhetorical and other functions.

The ultimate objective of the present paper is to find out about the CMT failure to address some basic functions of metaphor, aesthetic, or other. To handle these problems, a cognitive stylistic model of analysis of conceptual metaphor is put forward. It is based on recent cognitive arguments, models, and theories. This approach would open new opportunities of analysis, comprehension, interpretation and appreciation of metaphor in language in general.

To begin with, definitions and comparisons between approaches to metaphor, past and present are introduced.

2   Definitions: Conventional vs. Conceptual Metaphor

In the past few years, an enlightening trend in the approaches to the study of metaphor has been established. A surge of tremendous work has yielded numerous explorations about the conceptual metaphor. There has been what Gibbs (2008: 4) describes as an "explosion of research" on metaphor lately, due to “enthusiasm for uncovering the messy reality of metaphor use and the implications of such findings, rather than retreat back to made-up, isolated examples" [in reference to conventional approaches to metaphor] (Gibbs 2008: 4). Hence, in the past twenty years, much has changed in the world of metaphor, which is no longer seen as "an ornamental aspect of language, but a fundamental scheme by which people conceptualize the world and their own activities" (Gibbs 2008: 3). Thus, Semino (2008: 1) defines it as "... the phenomenon whereby we talk and, potentially, think about something in terms of something else". Richie (2013: 8) provides an initial definition of metaphor as "seeing, experiencing, or talking about something in terms of something else". He also points out that metaphor can be defined in terms of what it is not (Richie 2013: 10). On the other hand, Geary (2011) declares that metaphor "shapes the way we see the world". Cameron (2008) points out that metaphors are used by people in talk to think with, explain themselves to others and organize their talk (also Goatly 1997 / 2011, Glucksberg 2001, and others for detailed definitions of metaphor).

Hence, the conventional approaches to metaphor that viewed it in the first place as an aesthetic and rhetorical formal structure of language are no longer in the spotlight of contemporary CMT. Traditional studies on metaphor were conducted within traditional disciplinary frameworks of rhetoric with the aim to locate it more as a part of language and culture than mind, and "a mere decorative device, simply involving the substitution of a literal term for a concept with a nonliteral one (Semino 2008: 9). As Turner rightly remarks, rhetoric degenerated by conceding thought for style and, by declining to attend to mind underlying surface forms of language, it reduced itself to a mere cataloguing of "... kinds of surface word play as if they had no analogues in cognition" Turner (2000: 9). These approaches were unproductive "for traditional scholars defended their 'turf' and methods of analysis as being the best way to understand metaphor", as rightly pointed out by Gibbs (2008: 5). They failed to go through metaphor in depth and consider its conceptual implications and mental representations, and how it reconstructs our thoughts, attitudes and ideologies in a new, insightful way. According to what Turner terms as 'basic conceptual metaphors', it is true that metaphorical ideas are linguistic expressions expressed in words, yet they are themselves conceptual matters, "matters of thoughts that underlie the particular words that express them" (Turner 2000: 17-18). The following section of the present article provides a general account of the types of conceptual metaphor suggested by CMT practitioners.

3 Types of Conceptual Metaphor

As Lakoff & Turner (1989) state, cognitive (or conceptual) metaphor theorists do not owe any intellectual debt to their conventional counterparts, as the latter's work is described by them "as entirely misconceived, and present their approach as a radical corrective to the errors of the past" (Semino 2008: 9). This is true despite Semino's objection to it, describing it as 'unfortunate' due to sketchy bits and pieces here and there in the history of metaphor study (Semino 2008: 9). To Gibbs (1994), metaphor is not a distorted literal thought, but a basic scheme by which human experience and the outside world are conceptualized. Newmark, on the other hand, argues that metaphor is a mental process or state that has primarily a cognitive purpose, and an aesthetic purpose in the second place (Newmark 1988: 104). However, he does not apply this idea to practice. Furthermore, his notion of metaphor as an illusion, deception and a kind of lie “where you are pretending to be someone you are not” (Newmark 1988: 104) is dismissed in cognitive stylistics as irrelevant and untrue. It is primitive and misleading for, according to it, metaphor should be seen only in terms of literal vs. non-literal, fictitious vs. factual, and true vs. false language (for further objections, Kövecses 2002 and Davidson 1990 in Nogales 1999: 45). We do not lie when we use metaphors; we make concepts and realities clearer and sharper.

In the light of recent approaches to metaphor, classifying metaphors traditionally into 'dead', 'fossilized', 'cliché', 'mixed or 'standard' is distortive, partial, loose, prescriptive, and therefore of little use. In contrast, the newly defined types of conceptual metaphor are comprehensive and insightful. Studies on conceptual metaphors pay due respect to all types of conceptual metaphor which are set in terms of a conceptualization of the world (as suggested later in the list of the scope of contexts of the metaphor prices are on fire.

The contemporary scholarship of conceptual metaphor has revolutionized the whole traditional legacy of metaphor in language and style. Therefore, new types of metaphor are put forward in terms of cognitive conceptualization. Here are a number of them (for a fuller account of other types, e.g, Gibbs 2008, Semino 2008, Richie 2013, Radden 2000, Barcelona 2000,  Silaški 2012):

• Primary conceptual metaphors (i.e. Universal metaphors: e.g. purposes are destinatinations) (Steen 2007: 40, Kövecses 2008, and Yu 2008);
• Complex conceptual metaphors (cultural metaphors: e.g. a purposeful life is a journey, actions are motions) (Gibbs 1999, 2003, Kövecses 2005, Ning Yu 2008, and Kintsch 2008);
• Complex (vs. simple) metaphor (e.g. the world is a small village; the universe is a computer) (Kintsch 2008: 130);
• Simple analogy based metaphor (e.g. She shot down all my arguments) (Kinsch 2008: 130);
• Ideology-loaded conceptual metaphors (Semino, 2008: 33, and Deignan, 2008: 290);
• Ideology-neutral conceptual metaphors (e.g. 'emotion metaphors') (Kövecses, 2008, also Semino, 2008: 33);
• Emotion metaphor (of love, anger, etc. e.g. Love is insanity) (Kövecses 2008: 380-382);
• Subordinate / hyponymic metaphor (like the metaphors of basic, or primary emotions including fear, sadness, and lust, compared with master metaphors of love and anger above) (Kövecses, 2008: 380-381);
• Security, cold war, depression, path / journey, war, container, health / illness, religion, sex, etc. conceptual metaphors (Semino 2008: 81-112), Chilton 1996, Mio 1997, Musolff 2004 and Charteris-Black 2004, in Semino 2008: 10);
• Reconciliation metaphors (e.g. building a bridge. (Cameron, 2008 198);
• Deliberate metaphors (e.g. big political picture. (Cameron, 2008: 202);
• Synaesthetic metaphor (a sensory modality described in terms of another: e.g. ' sweet silence, 'guilty feelings') (Shen 2008: 302);
• Monomodal metaphor: either verbal, or nonverbal metaphor (see pictorial metaphor below. (Forceville, 2008: 464-482);
• Multimodal/complex concept metaphor (e.g. emote control pad is swiss army knife) (Forceville, 2008: 464-482);
• Contextual metaphor: an object metaphorized in its visual context (e.g. hair-silk is icecream) (Ster, 2008: 269-274, Forceville, 2008: 464-465);
• Pictorial / visual / non-verbal metaphor: two objects represented in such a way that they look similar (e.g. nokia mobile phone is a matchstick) (Forceville, 2008: 464);
• Hybrid metaphor (subtype of pictorial metaphor): two physical objects merged into a single 'gestalt' (e.g. clogs are running shoes) (Forceville, 2008: 464);
• Integrated metaphor (subtype of pictorial metaphor): a unified object represented in its entirety as to resemble another object even without contextual cues (e.g. A coffee machine's curved shape and a plateau on which the cups are placed represents a servant courteously serving coffee) (Forceville, 2008: 468);
• Verbalized metaphor (contrasted with non-verbalized metaphor) (e.g. exchanging business cards is a knife duel) (Forceville, 2008: 477-478);
• Meta-metaphor / key metaphor: a key metaphorical notion that functions as a backbone of  a whole text e.g. 'a battle of metaphors' (as a title of an article indicating a series of related 'war metaphors') (Semino, 2008: 32);
• Literary, etc. conceptual metaphors (e.g. we are the eyelids of defeated caves) (Kintsch 2008).

Obviously, these types need further elaboration. However, they are intended here to stand for a sketchy representation of the complex reticulum of the new corpus of conceptual metaphor today rather than an exhaustive account of its new types. Compared to traditional types, these are primarily deeply conceptual-based types (i.e. master, dominant, culturally sensitive, ideology-loaded, ideology-free, neutral, primary, universal metaphors). More specifically, conceptual metaphors are sets of 'mappings', across conceptual domains, whereby a 'target' domain "is partly structured in terms of a different 'source' domain" (Lakoff and Johnson (1980b) (in ibid.: 5). The Target Domain (TD) is defined as the concept to be described by the metaphor; whereas the Source Domain (SD) is identified as the concept drawn upon, or used to create the metaphorical construction. Thus, in the metaphor Time is money, the target domain (TD) is TIME, and the source domain (SD) is MONEY.

Conceptual mappings of metaphor have recently resulted in great insights especially at the level of language. Conceptual mapping has proved to be a rich method for discovery. This is declared by Fauconnier & Turner to be a

a blooming field of research [that] has as one consequence the rethinking of metaphor. We have a richer and deeper understanding of the processes underlying metaphor than we did previously (Fauconnier & Turner 2008).

Further, according to CMT, metaphor enables us to talk and think about abstract, complex and/or poorly defined areas of experience in terms of concrete, simpler, physical and/or better defined areas of experience. This means that metaphor is a crucial linguistic and cognitive phenomenon (Fauconnier & Turner 2008 : 30, also Simpson, 2004). Hence the next point.

4 Cognitive Stylistics

A hugely influential, and updated development in contemporary stylistics is cognitive stylistics (or 'mind stylistics'). It has profoundly affected the direction of the whole discipline in the twenty-first century. Cognitive stylistics is a new approach that regards the mind as the basis for any model of stylistic analysis. Generally, ‘cognitive’ means having to do with knowledge and the mind. Recent cognitive stylistics explores the concept of style as mind. The notion of mind as a mediator between the world and the text has always been important for stylistics. The term, 'mind style' is introduced by Fowler (1977: 76, 103). Mind style has been seen by him as “any distinctive linguistic representation of an individual mental self” (Fowler 1977: 103). More precisely, he defines the term as “cumulatively consistent structural options, agreeing in cutting the presented world to one pattern or another, give rise to an impression of a world-view, what I shall call a ‘mind style’” (Fowler 1977: 76). Boase-Beier has not gone too far from this notion of mind style by distinguishing it “as a textual feature from the corresponding cognitive state which can be attributed to it …” (Boase-Beier 2006: 76).

The orientation towards social, mental and psychological backgrounds and surroundings of discourse takes it into a new area. Boase-Beier (2006: 10) points out that cognitive stylistics regards the concept of context as cognitive entity and “involves a concern with social and cultural factors”. Hence, cognitive stylistics views context as a cognitive entity that encompasses knowledge about “text-types, institutions, sociological roles and settings”. It relies on the “interplay of the individual, the cultural and the universal” (Semino 1997 in Boase-Beier 2006 : 73). Phillips (2005, in Boase-Beier 2006: 73) states  that “environment shapes the brain”, which is perhaps true of all experiences .

On the other hand, individuals vary in the scope of their knowledge, ideologies, political attitudes, social commitments, cultural and historical backgrounds. That is why they have variations in their readings, analyses, understanding and interpretations of texts. Further, individuals vary in their disposition to accept change and new developments, and this is another reason for their cognitive, mental differences¹

5 Cognitive Stylistic Approaches to Conceptual Metaphor

"Metaphor is not merely a matter of words but is rather a fundamental mode of cognition affecting human thought and action..." (the author's emphasis) (Turner, 2000: 9). The relationship between cognitive stylistics and conceptual metaphor (which is also termed as cognitive metaphor) is that of overlap and interdependence. Both meet at the point of conceptualization of reality about the world which is made up of cultural, social, ideological and cognitive / mental representations. Black (2006: 103) suggests a pragmatic and cognitive approach to metaphor. She agrees with Cooper (1986) that metaphor is a creative use of language and has a social function in the first place. To her, the principal power of metaphor is to open up new lines of thought, of original thinking. Further, she culturalizes metaphor that readers may understand if they share the same cultural experiences, the ability to reason analogically, and familiarity with the tradition of metaphorical expressions. By appreciating the metaphor, readers demonstrate their belonging to a certain sub-set of the human race. By this, she narrows down the possible universality of metaphor. Black extends her discussion of metaphor to side with Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1987), and Lakoff and Turner (1989), who view metaphor as a part of the human cognitive system. So she perceives metaphors as mainly conceptual, based on concepts (e.g. time is money, death is departure). The conceptual/mental notion of metaphor brings us to the heart of the cognitive stylistic view of metaphor.

In cognitive stylistics, metaphor has been reconsidered from a conceptual point of view. A cognitive view of metaphor does not take it as a rhetorical by-product of objective thinking, but as the basis of the human conceptual system. Metaphors may be expressed in language accurately, for human thought processes are fundamentally metaphorical. There are a number of common expressions which demonstrate how metaphors structure our everyday concepts. This is a kind of metaphorical structuring, or conceptualization, of our thinking which is culturally and ideologically determined. Metaphors as such explain how we project our experiences with physical objects in the world on to non-physical experiences such as activities, ideas, emotions or feelings, so as to be able to refer, quantify and identify them; in short, ‘to reason them out’ (see Weber, 1995: 33). Indeed, many examples of dead, or ossified, metaphors structure the conceptualization of everyday reality both culturally and ideationally.

Further evidence for this strong interrelation are the functions of conceptual metaphors which interface with those of cognitive stylistics.

6 Relevance of CMT to Recent Cognitive Theories

Relevant to cognitive stylistic research is the ambitious theory, the ‘Reader-Response Theory’ ( especially Iser, 1971f, 1974; Boase-Beier 2006). This theory is derived from the Reception Theory, and Reader Response Criticism which focus on the text-reader relationship, and the reader’s activities in the interpretation of texts. The reader has accordingly been granted an imperial position in the interpretation of texts. His responses to the language of the text determine to a great extent its interpretation and meanings

The relevance theory, to start with, is developed by Sperber and Wilson (1986 / 1995), a review of which is done by Blakemore (1992) and Fawcett (1997). Relevance to Sperber and Wilson is a general cognitive principle, for relevance theory is a cognitive theory in the first place. It is concerned with how utterances can be relevant in a cognitive environment of communication. Communication is viewed as the joint responsibility of speaker and hearer. It is a psychological construct, a subset of the hearer’s assumptions about the world. (Black, 2006: 80-101 for more discussion).

As to Text World Theory, it is introduced by Paul Werth in reaction to the limited context of reader-response theory. It is an ambitious approach concerned with human discourse processing and context parameters (1994, 1995a, 1995b and 1999) (see also Gavins, 2000 and 2005). Werth argues that a proper engagement with the problems of context is a pivotal foundation for a full understanding of the complexities of texts, real texts in particular, not artificially constructed texts. The reasons for singling out real texts are various, among which is – which is relevant to our discussion of conceptual metaphor frames – that real text requires the reader to be able to draw on stored information from the preceding text and general knowledge. Werth suggests three levels for his text world theory:

• Discourse World
• Text Worlds and
• Sub-worlds

The discourse world contains the personal and cultural background knowledge. This baggage of background knowledge is vital to the discourse world, for it has the potential to effect the choice of language used as much as how each participant receives and interprets discourse. The solution proposed to this apparently ungainly context is what Werth terms ‘text-drivenness’ based on Fillmore’s frames, stored as coherent schematizations of experience, based on Schema Theory (1982 and 1985).

The second level of text world theory, Text Worlds, is mental representations that bear resemblance to Fauconnier’s mental spaces (1994). ‘Mental Space Theory’, and the ‘Possible World Theories’ which preceded it, are different from Text World Theory. That is, although the text world and all its contents are mental constructs, they are realistic and rich in details as the discourse world from which they spring. Once the boundaries of text world are defined and discourse is processed, further conceptual layers may be distinguished. These are termed Sub-worlds, the third level of Text World Theory. These sub-worlds are three main types: (i) ‘deictic sub-worlds’; (ii) ‘attitudinal sub-worlds’; and (iii) ‘epistemic sub-worlds’ (Werth, 1999; Gavins, 2000 and 2005; Black, 2006; Simpson, 2004 for further argument, objections, applications and details).

All the theories and models proposed by their practitioners fall within the cognitive stylistic approaches to understanding and interpreting language and texts, including metaphor. They represent various brave attempts to establish well-grounded criteria, models and strategies to base and develop their arguments. The common features shared by these theories and models are:

• Background knowledge
• Bringing together conventional and current approaches
• Cognitive stylistic background
• Conceptualization
• Mental activities
• Social, cultural and ideological factors
• Centrality of readers' responses and responsiveness
• Integrity of models, theories and arguments
• Inevitability of individual differences and how to deal with them
• Indispensability of individual experience
• Comprehensiveness
• Persuasiveness
• Impressiveness
• Courageous tendency to creativity and novelty
• Potential contributions
• Covering a wide range of cases, or examples in the field concerned
• Creating effect on readers
• Establishing for future developments, modifications and changes
• Establishing evidence for any theoretical claims
• Insistence on practice more than theorization

 Hence, the model of analysis of metaphor suggested below for incorporating aestheticity and other shortcomings of the CMT outlined earlier is based on a number of these common concepts.

7 Cognitive Scopes of Conceptual Metaphors: Nano-Metaphoricity

The recent explosion of research on conceptual metaphor has widened its cognitive scope vastly and with variation, ideologically, pragmatically, linguistically, socially, culturally, politically, idiolectally, religiously and situationally. They have opened the door for a wide range of possibilities of conceptualization of metaphor. What has triggered this in me is Semino's provocatively productive example for illustrating her definition of metaphor on the very first page of her book (2008): "The war against drugs", i.e. her suggestion that one implication of this metaphor is the reduction of the number of people who take drugs. This opens the way for other implications possible in the scope of the metaphor concerned (e.g. the reduction of the number of drug traffickers). This scope is sometimes referred to as 'implications', 'context of co-text' (ibid.: ch. 1), 'interpretations' (Sperber and Wilson, 2008), 'interactions', open-ended implicational range (Lakoff, 1993, in Ortony, 1993) scope (but perhaps in a different sense) (Kovecses, 2000, in Barcelona, 2000) 'subtleties' or 'forces' of different types (Gibbs: 2008: 5). Even in talk, Cameron (2008) remarks that the people's choice of metaphor reveals not only their conceptualizations, but also, and more significantly, "their attitudes and values". Gibbs (2008) also says: "Contemporary metaphor studies seek out language-mind-culture interactions. They offer the best hope for understanding the prominence of metaphor in human understanding, yet one that appreciates the subtleties of human meaning-making practices ...".

Interestingly, the multifacetedness of mental representations, the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary nature of conceptual metaphor and human cognition and mind (ibid.), its diversifications and potential revitalizations (Goatly, 1997) and, more remarkably, its ideologization within cognitive contexts of different types would make its metaphoric scope really enlightening. Hence, my introduction of 'nano-phoricity' (by analogy to nanotechnology: 'the branch of technology dealing with the manufacture of the tiniest molecules and atoms of objects', Collins, 2000) to indicate the concern of conceptual metaphor studies of today with the tiniest of details of conceptualization of the world. This in some way goes in line with O'Halloran's (2010) objection to the CMT's claim of the singleness of the meaning of metaphor in all texts and contexts (see 8 below). Geary (2011), on the other hand, is fascinated by the many ways metaphors allow us "to communicate thoughts and feelings by analogy to shared knowledge" (see also Kaal, 2012).

Therefore, and by way of extending Gibbs' claim of '...the simultaneous presence of neutral, linguistic, psychological and cultural forces" revealed by the analysis of specific metaphors, I put forward some of the potential cognitive conceptualizations of ideological and other implications of one and the same metaphor in a wide range of different texts and contexts²

Prices are on Fire

1. Prices are fire (inconceivable conceptualization of flaming the inflammable abstract (i.e. prices) by the concrete (fire))
2. Prices are set on fire (action (of fire-engine extinction) is called upon)
3. Beware of prices, they burn you (safety first)
4. Keep off prices (precaution recommended)
5. Prices are untouchable (warning against physical hurt)
6. Prices are unattainable (far-fetchedness)
7. Prices are unaffordable (levelling complaints against income)
8. Protest against high prices (political attitude)
9. Inability to purchase / buy (income problems)
10. Government is careless about us (political provocation)
11. Low-income public (economic problems)
12. Prices were lower (worse living conditions)
13. Unexpected rise in prices (frustration)
14. Prices are as burning as fire (unusual means of burning)
15. Be economical from now on (belt-tightening policy)
16. Bitter criticism of prices and those responsible for them (political fiasco)
17. Fire attacks prices (war on prices)
18. Prices are a victim of fire (vicious attack on innocent prices)
19. Prices are fire and fire is a dangerous animal (a combination of metaphors) (politico-economic)
20. Feeling of dissatisfaction on behalf of the public (negative signs to politicians)
21. People are worried (socio-political unrest)
22. Government collapse (political change urgent)
23. The government is in enormous trouble (political failure)
24. Customers are disappointed (economic fears)
25. Customers are helpless (inaction, oppression and lack of power and influence)
26. Repercussions of political crisis (political struggle)
27. Repercussions of financial crisis (financial problems)
28. Political crisis is looming (political instability)
29. Financial collapse is lurking (economic instability)
30. Symptoms of monopoly (trade and traders corruption)
31. Customers rush to buy (fears of political, economic or military crisis to come)
32. Customers are required to rush to buy (threats from the worse to come)
33. Customers have zero option (surrender; take-it-or-leave-it situation)
34. Less commodity is available (fears of selling-out crisis)
35. Sellers are greedy (public's socio-cultural dissatisfaction)
36. Call for the public to revolt against oppressive regimes (political / military conflict)
37. Injustice is prevalent (social corruption and oppression)
38. Sense of astonishment (disbelief)
39. A prohibited act of monopolization (Islamic / religious culture)
40. The Country is in a state of war (prices are no exception; they are on fire, too)
41. The fire of war burns everything in the Country (including inflammable prices)
42. Blazing prices may cause burns that require to be excised to heal (excision)

Many of these implications are metaphorical entailments and have metonymic connections between the metaphorical target and source, and the implicated proposition (especially 8-14 & 19-24). It goes without saying that the list is tentative and not exhaustive. Further, newly created cognitive contexts and scopes of conceptualization of this metaphor may be appended to those suggested in the list. They are made on the following bases:

• dramatization of events (e.g. 1-7) (also Semino, 2008: 31);
• bringing together and, at the same time, marking inconceivable conceptualization of an abstract target domain (i.e. prices) into a concrete source domain (i.e. fire);

• asserting the newly created conceptualized meaning of the metaphor; (also Semino, 2008: 19, 21-22)
• relating that to a more specific contemporary tendency to construct a sharp rise in prices in terms of blazing fire;
• a particular patterning of high prices as fire;
• cultural implications;
• social implications;
• contingent, ephemeral contexts (similar to Giora's 'temporal priority of context effects' (2008: 145) (e.g. 40 and 41 are conceptualized over an all-out war in Syria launched by the there dictator against his people for over two years, 2011-2012);
• political implications (many examples pointed out above);
• ideological implications (all of the above examples);
• commonsensical implications (especially 7, 8, 25, 26 and 31);
• simple and clear delineation of poorly and ambiguously complex experience of abstract prices (all metaphors above);
• ocal implications (e.g. 40-41);
• global / universal implications (especially those of economic, political and common-sense implications); and
• idiolectal / individual implications (e.g. 10, 14).
• Islamic culture (of prohibition and excision) (e.g. 41 and 44, respectively).

Hence, I claim that this example might serve as evidence for the high potential of the scope of the conceptualization of metaphor in contemporary CMT. This really opens new cognitive avenues in thought, meanings, implications, contexts, and ideologies, due to the simple reason that language is a goldfield that never runs out, and human life is ever renewed and developed.

The following figure is proposed to highlight a spectrum of potential conceptualizations suggested by the metaphor Prices are on fire in the widest possible scope of contexts. The arrows stand for this variety of diversification of conceptualized contexts (political, economic, cultural, commonsensical, warfare, financial, social, and other) (Goatly's (1997) notion of metaphoric diversification (in Semino, 2008: 25)) as well as different ideologically conceptualized sparks of fire flying around in all directions off the original source, i.e. the metaphor. Accordingly, the polygonal line of arrows fastening the whole set of the arrows of the spectrum suggests an irregular continuum of these potential ideological implications which can be conceptually transient, contingent, situational, circumstantial, or inconsistent

8 Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) in the Balance

The CMT has recently been under attack, accused of failing to attend to rhetorical and stylistic aspects of verbal metaphor, particularly for work within Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Koller 2004 and Musolff 2004). Critics of conceptual metaphor theory have argued that, while theoretically powerful, the framework has lacked an empirical basis (e.g. Koller, 2004, Steen 1999, Cameron & Deignan, 2003, Low 2003, Semino, 2004, Deignan 2005 (in Semino, 2008: 10)).

Indeed, and by way of paying tribute to CMT contributions, Fauconnier & Turner (2008: 53) declare that, over the past few decades, conceptual metaphoric mappings have produced great insights for the study of language and other subjects. Yet, the CMT has been criticized for shortage in answering questions about the stylistic aesthetic, rhetorical, elucidatory, cognitive and other basic values of metaphor (however, Lakoff & Turner 1989; Turner 2000 and other books, and Freeman 1995). Fauconnier & Turner (2008: 64-65), for example, called for revising metaphoric mappings, CMT, and metaphor analysis to be able to respond to permanent features of recognition. They have put forward a mode of analysis of these features at five levels: (i) integration networks; (ii) cobbling and sculpting; (iii) emergent structure; (iv) compression; (v) overarching goals other than projection of interference. They successfully applied it to the analysis of the metaphor Time is space. Musolff, on the other hand, suggested a model of analysis of 'political metaphor' and its functions in terms of 'scenarios', with a view to refining 'cognitive metaphor theory' (Musolff 2004: 9-13). He based his argument on an extensive corpus of British and German press articles concerning EU politics between 1989 and 2001. Koller (2003) also suggestes 'clusters' and 'chains' for the multifunctionality of metaphor (Koller 2003: 115-134).

Following are some of the questions raised by some of those and other writers like Turner, Musolff, Gibbs (2011) and Cienki (2005) about the shortcomings of CMT. A major question

raised by Gibbs (2011) and others concerns the CMT's full preoccupation with the conceptualization of metaphor, thus sacrificing its aesthetic values. The CMT is said to have turned the metaphor into a spiritless mental concept and activity that may deprive the metaphor of its beauty as a constituent part of language which is of special significance and attraction to language users. Although the conceptual origination of metaphor is essentially revealing and its anatomy is quite useful, the process is not merely a matter of expressing a concept in terms of another concept. So the question that demands a clear answer is: Why do we express a concept in terms of another concept? What we do through metaphor is to conceive a concept out of another, and, as a result, express it in terms of the source (see the definitions above). Metaphor, then, has other equally strong and urgent reasons that may justify its establishment in language. These reasons are based on style, aiming to achieve some stylistic functions and effects emanated by significant stylistic features directed chiefly to readers and language users to achieve the ultimate purpose of the metaphor to conceptualize things in terms of other things. In fact, some metaphor theorists like Musolff, Koller, and Turner have addressed some parts of the functionality of conceptual metaphor in depth. Here, some other stylistic functions of metaphor are addressed with the aim to incorporate them into the CMT.

As argued earlier, the most important among the stylistic functions of using a metaphor is to produce an aesthetic effect on language users. Aestheticity is supposed to be the point of departure between metaphor and literalness. For example, the metaphor A relationship is on a shaky foundation, is maps a spatial concept onto an abstract one. Its brilliance lies in its aesthetic difference from the literal way of saying it as A relationship is unstable / unsteady. Or else, why use it in the first place if it does not add an extra point of truth about the two concepts? We mean to say that the comparison between the metaphor and its literal potential need be attended to in the CMT. The CMT explains this metaphor in simple terms as follows: A relationship is a building as a metaphor of business and socio-political origins (Richie 2013: 71). In fact, this explanation distorts the beauty of the metaphor, storming its impressive aesthetic effect that is originally intended to be produced on users. It is true that taking the concepts of the metaphor into pieces may spell it out, but it would disrupt its vividness and splendour for skinning the brain would disclose an ugly picture of the brain and distort its godly beautiful creation to perfection. In a similar fashion, the secret of a gorgeous lady's make-up is in its very makeup of disintegrated chemical ingredients and colours together. The elucidatory metaphor, A relationship is a building seems hard to digest for it peels out the secret of its beauty and, hence, turns it out into a kind of 'ugly duckling'. This insinuates a setback in the dispirited conceptualization of metaphor.

Another drawback for the cons of the CMT is its failure to distinguish between conceptual metaphors that symbolize the same sense of the Source Domain concept. For example, the following two examples display two different metaphors of the same sense: One formal and sublime; another informal and insulting / humorous (see also Nash, 1980: 149-51):

Writing a book requires Job's patience.

Writing a book is a Donkey work.

Both metaphors involve two different conceptualizations of the sense of hard work of the same Target Domain concept (i.e. the hard work involved in writing a book). However they belong to two different Source Domains (i.e. job’s patience, and donkey’s work), not only stylistically, socially and culturally, but also religiously. Social culture draws a distinct line between the formal sublime and religious connotations of the first, and the informal insulting and / or humorous implications of the second. Generally, people rate the Job's patience' connotations with awe, whereas, donkey connotations are repulsive, even when humorous. Many juxtaposed pairs of formal and informal metaphors co-occur in language, especially with respect to proverbial metaphors, conventional and recent (including technological, political, medical, psychological and other metaphors) (e.g. fast as light / an arrow l an eagle / a storm vs. as quick as the Concorde; etc.). The CMT is required to attend to this problem.

A third objection to the CMT (also Semino 2008: 88) is its failure to deal with concept metaphors of the same SD in neutral, positive and negative contexts, which would put infancy acquisition of metaphor specification into question (Richie 2013: 70). Take, for example, the TD, cold:

(a) cold call(b) in cold blood(c) cold-blooded(d) cold comfort(e) cold steel(f) leave someone cold(g) (out) in the cold(h) cold war(I) cold warrior(j) cold wave(k) cold person(l) cold-hearted(m) cold feet(n) cold shoulder(o) cold turkey (blunt statements)(p) cold logic(q) cold technology, etc.

    (Oxford English Dictionary, 1984 and Collins English Dictionary, 2000).

Although cold mainly represents a negative Source Domain (e.g. f-i, l-m, and o), it is not always so. For example, ‘e’ and ‘j’ are rather neutral, whereas ‘p’ and ‘q’ are rather positive. However, ‘c, l and n’ can go either way, depending on the situational context, the speaker, the listener, the personal viewpoint and cultural implications. For example, describing a person as cold can be acceptable to some, but unacceptable to others due to the situation and the personal opinion. Hence, perhaps some criteria (social, cultural, psychological, religious, political, ideological or other) need to be put forward by the CMT to distinguish between the three judgmental categories positive, negative and neutral (or overspecified, underspecified and non-specified (Cruse 1977, 1982 & 1986) (also Semino 2008: 33), for criteria that may reinforce the bias of the implications of metaphor). Metaphorical families like these may lead to think about conceptual metaphor sets by analogy to lexical sets (see Carter, 1987: 118-121).

A similar objection is also raised by O'Halloran (2010) against Lakoff & Johnson (1980) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), represented by Lee (1992), who assume that a metaphor has the same meaning in all texts and contexts. O'Halloran argues that the metaphor's meaning "can be different in different contexts" (O'Halloran 2010, in O’Keeffe et al: 563-676). In a corpus-based case study of the frequency of the metaphorical verb erupted across 260 million newspaper words between 1999 and 2003, O’Halloran adds that metaphor-specification into negative, or positive differs from one register to another (see also Sinclair's 'semantic prosody' (2003), O’Halloran's 'register prosody', Widdowson's 'pretextual metaphorical lexicalization' (2004) (in: O'Halloran, 2010, ibid: 563-676), Barcelona, 1995; Lakoff, 1987; and Turner, 1996).

Relevant to the third objection is a fourth question that begs an answer by the CMT concerning the distinction between the ironical and serious sense of the same conceptual metaphors. Here, we do not mean the metaphors that are meant to be so (e.g. double entendres, commercial metaphors, jokes, parodies and humorous puns (e.g. Where do fish learn to swim? In school. (Nash, 1989 & 1985: 141)), but, rather, those metaphors that can be taken either seriously or ironically like (Richie, 2013 71):

A big problem

A big boss

A big shot

A big fuss

In normal circumstances, these metaphors are taken seriously. However, they can all be used ironically by implication to mean quite the opposite and, hence, produce a greater effect on readers / addressees, as follows:

A little snag / no problem at all!

A poor boss / no boss at all!

A very-low rank official / a man working for a big shot!

A little fuss / no fuss over anything!

On what basis can we draw a thin line between the serious metaphors of the first group, and their ironical counterparts of the second? How can the CMT account for such potentially ironical uses, functions and implications in language in general, and on what bases? These are among the questions that the CMT is probably urged to attend to.

A further significant stylistic function of metaphor to be taken care of by the CMT is to achieve greater hyperbolic expressivity of the SD in terms of other concepts perhaps to impress and interest the audience. Here are pairs of metaphorical and literal examples juxtaposed for sharper illustrations:

Money talks ↔ money is the most important thing in life.

Time is money ↔ time is precious in material terms.

Money is the sinews of love / war ↔ no money, no love / war.

The metaphors conceptualize the literal TDs concepts in a brilliant, hyperbolic and expressive way that may impress readers more influentially. Animating money in 1 & 3 is much more impressive and effective to them than the literal, inanimate statements (on the left), though they are highly exaggerative. As to 2, its expressivity and impressiveness lies in its laconic but expressive and hyperbolic linguistic conceptualization. The power of impressiveness, expressiveness and exaggeration of conceptual metaphor and its reader-oriented functions and implications might require further development the CMT as a vital trigger of suggesting it. This might be carried out with special reference to the distortion of the animate-inanimate semantic restriction rules and how vital, vivid, impressive and expressive they can be in creative new conceptual metaphors.

Perhaps the core reason behind using metaphor is elucidation of the TD in more intense terms and concepts. The most recurrent conceptual metaphors that may achieve this purpose are those of exemplification: e.g.

I can only go one way. I've not got a reverse gear (Tony Blair, in Semino 2008: 84).

Some jobs are (like) jails (Kintsch 2008: 134)My lawyer is (like) a shark (Kitsch 2008: 134)He eats (like) a pig (Kitsch 2008: 135)

The Sun Newspaper went like a shot (in Ghazala 1994: 55)

Someone is like a bull in a china shop (in Ghazala 2008: 143)

These metaphors suggest a more intense conceptualization and, hence, clarification of the original TD concepts. Their SDs are profound sharp elucidations of their literal counterparts which usually narrow down the implications and dimensions of sense down to one direct concept. Moreover, they develop the latter into sharply negative and repugnant connotations and implications which cannot be achieved otherwise (especially 1-3). This casts doubt about the claim of the CMT that sensory experiences of infancy provide the basis for conceptual metaphors, expressing more abstract concepts (like desire, love or caring), and for those related to direct physical experience (e.g. hunger, temperature or pain) Richie, 2013: 69). For example, to infants, cold in cold weather may connote a negative thing, yet later when he / she becomes an adult, social, psychological, ideological and other factors reshape and develop his / her experience of life and personal attitudes. These attitudes may be the essence of our reception of the implications of many conceptual metaphors.

Now,  the question that bids an urgent answer is how the CMT can overcome these shortcomings. The most urgent aspect - and most difficult one - is to find a way out of the most serious accusation to the CMT of sacrificing the aesthetic values of metaphor, which turns it into a dumb metaphor.

The first step is to acknowledge this problem, which is already done here and by other CM theorists. Thus, Turner (2000: 9) raises a question about the connections between thought and language and how to work these connections to achieve functions like evoking, inventing, and persuading. The question now is how to bridge the gap between the 'intellectual anatomy', as it were, of the conceptual metaphor and its stylistic (aesthetic and other) aspects and implications. One way of doing this is to set the metaphor against its literal sense in terms of readers' response-centered stylistic criteria like conventional and contemporary standards and values of aestheticity, expressivity, impressiveness, effectiveness and linguistic / rhetorical powers of persuasion that can be common to many language users. These criteria can be introduced in the form of a cognitive-stylistic model of some kind - script or frame- , whose basis is an idealized cognitive model (ICM) suggested by Schank and Abelson (1977: 43 in Simpson 2004: 40). The ICM represents a 'domain of knowledge' that includes 'roles' (e.g. participants in a football game such as players, referees, coaches) and 'props' (objects like a ball, a pitch, a whistle, a stadium, fans) associated with the said domain. ICMs account for stores of knowledge which readers bring into play when they read, and how these stores are modified as reading progresses and experiences widen and develop. Further, ICMs allow for individual differences in regard to 'roles' and 'props' (i.e. some may add to participants like the linesmen, a fourth referee, substitutes and to objects like goals, cameras, flashlights, or stretchers). According to ICM, experience is prone to refreshment, development, modification and revising with the passage of time and individual potentials. Cook (1994) argues that the main function of certain types of discourse is to effect a change in the schemata of their readers (Cook (1994: 191 in Simpson, 2004: 90). After all, the ICMs are mental, cognitive models that can be triggered even by a minimal syntactic or lexical marker.

In cognitive stylistic studies, a model of Artificial Intelligence (AI) known as schema theory represents an important landmark. This theory is a cover term for a collection of cognitive models like  schema, and its variations, frame, scenario, and script. Schank and Abelson (1977) developed a script-based model of human understanding and memory (Musolff's (2004) scenarios of political metaphors). A script describes "a predetermined, stereotyped sequence of actions that defines a well-known situation" (Schank and Abelson 1977: 41), which was later termed by Fauconneir & Turner (2002: 171) as 'long-term schematic knowledge' on which they base their model of conceptual integration theory (CIT) that contains 'conceptual blending' and' conceptual integration' (Fauconneir & Turner 2002: 166) as mental spaces of four concepts frames: two input spaces, a generic space and a blended space (also Richie, 2013: 115-117). Scripts are based on expectations and pre-existing knowledge stores, but are subject to development and modification, and fresh incoming information interacts with what we already know, urging us to modify our mental representations. This cognitive process is implicit in the football scenario pointed out above with reference to ICMs which are interconnected with scripts. Hence, scripts allow for new conceptualizations of objects within them. The very nature of these conceptualizations varies from one person to another, and there can be no upper limit to the number of conceptualizations that can be called in for every script (also Simpson, 2004: 89-90).

As to metaphor, Richie (2013: 22, 106-107), Gamson (1992), Price et al. (1997), Tracy (1997) (in Richie, 2013: 22, 106-107) and others use an alternative term in the study of conceptual metaphor, i.e. 'metaphor framing'. To Tracy, a framing metaphor can be applied to the way people understand their social interactions, conventions, and social relationships (Tracy 1997: 107). Price et al. (1997: 107), on the other hand, suggest using 'accessible cognitive schemata' in the media to be employed in processing and generating responses. These schemata originate in personal experience, but they are often influenced by other factors like content, cultural and other conventional and recent implications of a metaphor to help interpret it. Schön (1993, in Richie, 2013: 108) has gone all that far and defines metaphor in terms of framing, and suggests the term, generative metaphor for the process by which frames are transferred from one domain of experience (i.e. the vehicle) to another (i.e. the topic). Following Schön's metaphorical framing, Reddy (1993, in Richie, 2013: 108) argued that language for discussing communication is biased toward what he terms conduit metaphor which frames communication in a way that favours a particular set of solutions for communication difficulties. He puts forward a framework for the conduit metaphor that includes at least four propositions:

• thoughts are objects: language consists of containers transferred in words by language among individuals;
• thoughts and feelings, which must be inserted into words;
• words contain thoughts and feelings, which they transfer to others; and
• the readers, who would take the thoughts and feelings out of words (for further discussion, Richie 2013: 109-110).

9 Relevance of CMT to Recent Cognitive Theories

Relevant to cognitive stylistic research is the reader-response theory (especially Iser, 1971f, 1974, Boase-Beier 2006). This theory is derived from the reception theory, and reader response criticism which focus on the text-reader relationship, and the reader’s activities in the interpretation of texts. Accordingly, the reader has been granted an imperial position in the interpretation of texts. His responses to the language of the text determines its interpretation to a great extent.

The relevance theory, to start with, was developed by Sperber & Wilson (1986,1995), reviews of which were done by Blakemore (1992) and Fawcett (1997). To Sperber & Wilson, relevance is a general cognitive principle, as relevance theory is a cognitive theory in the first place. It is concerned with the question of how utterances can be relevant in a cognitive environment of communication. Communication is viewed as the joint responsibility of speaker and hearer. It is a presupposed optimal relevance in the sense that an utterance is relevant enough to the hearer / reader to be worth processing, and that what is said is the most relevant way of saying it. Context is one area where the relevance theory differs sharply from other theories. It is a psychological construct, a subset of the hearer’s assumptions about the world. (Black, 2006: 84, for further reference and discussion).

The text world theory was introduced by Paul Werth in reaction to the limited context of the reader-response theory. It is an ambitious approach concerned with human discourse processing and context parameters (Werth 1994, 1995a, 1995b and 1999) (also Gavins 2000 and 2005). Werth argues that a proper engagement with the problems of context is a pivotal foundation for a full understanding of the complexities of texts, real texts in particular. The reasons for singling out real texts are various, among which are reasons that are relevant to our discussion of conceptual metaphor frames. Furthermore, real text requires the reader to be able to draw on stored information from the preceding text and their general knowledge. He suggests three levels for his text world theory: the discourse world, the text worlds, and the sub-worlds.

The first level contains personal and cultural background knowledge. This baggage of background knowledge is vital to the discourse world, for it has the potential to effect the choice of language used as much as how each participant receives and interprets discourse. The solution proposed to this apparently ungainly context is what Werth terms text-drivenness based on Fillmore’s frames, stored as coherent schematizations of experience, based on the schema theory (Werth 1982 and 1985).

The second level, text worlds, comprises mental representations that bear resemblance to Fauconnier’s mental spaces (Fauconnier 1994). The mental space theory is different from the text world theory in that all of its levels are constitutionally equivalent. Although the text world and its contents are mental constructs, they are as realistic and rich in details as their origin, discourse world, the higher-order conceptual sphere that is inhabited by an author and a reader (Werth, 1999: 17). Once the boundaries of the text world are defined and discourse is processed, further conceptual layers may be distinguished. These are termed sub-worlds, the third level of the text world theory. These sub-worlds are three main types: deictic sub-worlds, attitudinal sub-worlds, and epistemic sub-worlds (Werth 1999, Gavins 2000 and 2005, Black 2006 and Simpson 2004 for further argument, objections, applications and details).

All the theories and models proposed by those and other writers fall within the cognitive stylistic approaches to understanding and interpreting language and texts, including metaphor. They represent various brave attempts to establish well-grounded criteria, models and strategies to base and develop their arguments. The common features shared by these theories and models are:

• background knowledge.
• bringing together conventional and current approaches.
• a cognitive stylistic background.
• conceptualization.
• mental activities.
• social, cultural and ideological factors.
• centrality of readers' responses and responsiveness.
• integrity of models, theories and arguments.
• inevitability of individual differences and how to deal with them.
• indispensability of individual experience.
• comprehensiveness.
• persuasiveness.
• impressiveness.
• courageous tendency to creativity and novelty.
• potential contributions.
• covering a wide range of cases or examples in the field concerned.
• creating effect on readers.
• preparing future developments, modifications and changes.
• establishing evidence for any theoretical claims.
• insistence on practice more than theorization.

Hence, the model of analysis of metaphor suggested below for incorporating aestheticity and other shortcomings of the CMT outlined earlier is based on a number of these common concepts.

10 A Cognitive Stylistics-Based Model of Analysis of Conceptual

Metaphor

It is high time now to introduce a proposed model of the analysis of conceptual metaphor that is based on cognitive stylistics. The aim is to incorporate the components of metaphor that are left out of the scope of the CMT into a comprehensive integrative framework that might allow for accounting for these hitherto missing components and would leave the door open for future developments, modifications, changes or individual differences. This model of analysis of metaphor is based on six integrating modules (in boxes) that represent the following planes (from top to bottom):

Figure 2: Incorporative cognitive stylistic-based model of conceptual metaphor

The model is read from top to bottom only. Here are the clues for the shapes, symbols and figures used to guide us through:

( ) module

( ) correlation (through animation)

( ) one-way influence

( ) open-endedness (to accommodate new developments and modifications)

( ) leading into

( ) incorporating everything comprehensively

(..........) flooding into

Here are the planes represented by the six integrating modules illustrated in the figure:

• Stylistic functions of metaphor not attended to satisfactorily by CMT.
• The bases and implications of the stylistic functions of (1).
• The mental activities and conceptualizations triggered by these functions and implications of metaphor and directed to readers.
• The different forms of mental activities and conceptualizations of metaphor.
• The previous module is loaded with cognitive stylistic implications, functions and effects.
• All the former planes and modules are viewed as a gestalt spectrum representing a comprehensive, integrated cognitive perceptual pattern that is more than the sum of its constituent parts.

The Target Domain (TD) is the literal/physical sense, whereas the Source Domain (SD) leans heavily on the animation of the inanimate TD. Hence, the capitalization of ANIMATION.

All the conceptual planes of this model of analysis derive from, centre around and aim at the readers' responses to metaphor.

11 Conclusion

This paper has attempted to pay tribute to the huge developments and contributions made by CMT. On the other hand, it has pinpointed some deficiencies concerning major stylistic functions of metaphor that cannot be denied, but the CMT has not attended to them yet. The huge corpus on contemporary conceptual metaphor has indeed been enlightening. Metaphor is a mental process and a significant feature of cognitive stylistics and cognitive theory which concerns itself in the way mental constructs are transferred, especially with the way one mental representation is mapped onto another when reading texts, i.e. the target domain and the source domain. Many types of conceptual metaphor in all fields of knowledge have been analysed cognitively and successfully in an unprecedented way. This has paved the way for new perspectives, avenues, scopes, roles, functions, and implications for metaphor, which can be deservedly described today as a metaphor world.

Yet, CMT has failed to address established stylistic functions of metaphor like aestheticity, irony, bias, expressivity, impressiveness, and effectiveness. Therefore, the second part of the present paper has dealt in some detail with how to bridge the gap and compensate for the shortcomings of the CMT in this respect. An incorporative cognitive stylistics-based model of analysis that is reader-response-centred is put forward. Its aim is to integrate an overlapped reticulum of ramified frames and modules for the analysis of the metaphor's cognitive stylistic functions not attended to satisfactorily by the CMT. We declare this model to be tentative and stress that it will need to be refined and developed by other analysts and specialists in the field.

References

Barcelona, Antony (ed.) (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. New York: Mouton de Guyter.

Barcelona, Antony (1995). Metaphorical models of romantic love in Romeo and Juliet. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 667-88.

Black, Elizabeth (2006). Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh University Press.

Blakemore, Diane (1992) Understanding Utterances, (Oxford: Blackwell).

Boase-Beier, Jean (2006). Stylistic Approaches to Translation. St. Jerome Publishing. Manchester, UK & Kinderhook, USA.

Cameron, Lynne (2008). Metaphor comprehension and the brain. In: R. Gibbs (2008) (ed.),The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 197-211.

Cameron, Lynne and Deignan, Alice (2003). Using large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. In: Metaphor and Symbol, 18 (2003) 3, 149-160.

Carter, Ronald (1987). Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives, (London: Allen & Unwin).

Chilton, Paul (1996). Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang.

Cienki, Alan (2005) Image schemas and gesture. In Beate Hampe, ed. From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 421-442.

Collins, Harper (2000). Collins York English Dictionary (Millennium edn.). Harper Collins Publishers.

Cook, Guy (1994). Discourse and Literature. Oxford University Press.

Cooper, David (1986). Metaphor. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cruse, D. Alan (1977). The pragmatics of lexical specificity. In: Journal of Linguistics 13 (1977), 153-64.

Cruse, D. Alan (1982). On lexical ambiguity. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 11, 2, 65-80).

Cruse, D. Alan (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deignan, Alice (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Fauconnier, Gilles (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In: R. Gibbs (2008)(ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd  edition 2010). Cambridge University

Press, 53-66.

Fawcett, Peter (1997) Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained, (Manchester: St. Jerome).

Foreceville, Charles (2008). Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In: R. Gibbs (2008) (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 462-482.

Fowler, Roger (1977). Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen.

Freeman, Donald, C. (1993). ‘According to my bond’: King Lear and re-cognition’. In:  Language and Literature, 2 (1993) 1, 1-18.

Freeman, Margaret, H. (1995). ‘Metaphor making  meaning: Emily Dickinson’s conceptual universe. In:  Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 6, 643-66.

Gamson, William, A. (1992). Talking Politics. Cambridge University Press.

Gavins, Joanna (2000). 'Absurd tricks with Bicycle Frames in the text world of The Third Policeman. In: Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 15 (2000), 17-33.

Gavins, Joanna (2005). Text world theory in literary practice. In: B. Petterson, M. Polvinen, and H. Veivo (eds). Cognition and Literary Interpretation in Practice. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 89-104.

Gavins, Joanna (2007). Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).

Gavins, Joanna & Steen, Gerard (2003). Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London & New York: Routledge.

Geary, J. (2011). I is an Other: The Secret Life of Metaphor and How it Shapes the Way We See the World. Harper Collins.

Ghazala, Hasan (1994). Varieties of English Simplified: A Textbook for Advanced University Students (2nd edition 1999), (Malta: Elga).

Ghazala, Hasan (2011). Cognitive Stylistics and the Translator. London: Sayyab Books.

Ghazala, Hasan (2008). Translation as Problems and Solutions: A Textbook for University Students and Trainee Translators. Beirut: Dar El-Ilm Lil-Malayin.

Gibbs, Raymond (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, Raymond (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (eds.) (1999). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 145-166.

Gibbs, Raymond (2003). Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. In Brain and Language, 84 (2003), 1-15.

Gibbs, Raymond (2008) (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, Raymond (2008). Metaphor and thought: The state of the art. In: R. Gibbs (2008) (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 3-13.

Gibbs, Raymond (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Metaphor and Symbol, 48, 8, pp. 529-562.

Giora, Rachel (2008). Is metaphor unique? In: R. Gibbs (2008)(ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 143-160

Goatly, Andrew (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.

O'Halloran, Kieran (2010). Investigating metaphor and ideology in hard news stories. In: Hunston, Susan and Oakey, David (2010) (eds). Introducing Applied Linguistics: Concepts and Skills (pp.97-107). London and New York: Routledge.

Iser, Wolfgang (1971). Indeterminacy and the reader's response in prose fiction. In: M.J. Hillis   (ed). Aspects of Narrative. New York: Colombia University Press, 1-45.

Iser, Wolfgang (1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Iser, Wolfgang (1979). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Jeffries, Lesley and McIntyre, Daniel (2010). Stylistics. Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, Mark (2008). The neutral theory of metaphor. In: R. Gibbs (2008)(ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 39-52.

Kaal, Anna (2012). Metaphor in Conversation. Proefschriftmaken.nl.

Geary, James (2011). I is an Other: The Secret Life of Metaphor and How it Shapes the Way We See the World. Harper Collins. Book Review: In: Metaphor and Symbol 27 (2011), 312-314.

Kintsch, Walter (2008). How the mind computes the meaning of metaphor: A simulation based on LSA. In: R. Gibbs (2008)(ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 129-142).

Koller, Veronica (2003). Metaphor, clusters, metaphor chains: analysing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. In: Metaphorik.de, 5 (2003), 115-34.

Koller, Veronica (2004). Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A critical cognitive Study. Basingstoke, Hants: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kövecses, Zoltẚn (2000). The scope of metaphor. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and Metonym at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. New York: Mouton de Guyter, 79-92.

Kövecses, Zoltẚn (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kövecses, Zoltẚn (2008). Metaphor and emotion. In: R. Gibbs (2008)(ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 380-396.

Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, George and Turner, Mark (1989). More Than Cool Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, George (1993). ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202-251.

Lakoff, George (2008). The neutral theory of metaphor. In: R. Gibbs (2008)(ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 17-38.

Leech, Geoffrey (1969). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman.

Low, Graham (2003). Validating metaphoric models in applied linguistics. Metaphor and Symbol, 18 (4), 239-54)

Musolff, Andreas (2004). Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nash, Walter (1980). Designs in Prose. Longman.

Nash, Walter (1985). The Language of Humour: Style and Technique in Comic Discourse. London and New York: Longman.

Nash, Walter (1989). Rhetoric: The Wit of Persuasion. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

Newmark, Peter (1988/1995). A Textbook of Translation. London :Prentice Hall.

Nogales, Patti (1999). Metaphorically Speaking. CSLI Publication. Stanford: California.

O’Halloran, Kieran (2010). How to use corpus linguistics in the study of media discourse. In:

O'Keeffe, Anne and McCarthy, Michael eds. The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.

563–576.

Ortony, Andrew (1993). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford (1993). The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary. (2 vols.). OUP.

Philips,  Helen (2005). ‘How life shapes the brainscape’. In: New Scientist 2005, 12-13.

Price, Vincent, Tewksbury, David, and Powers, Elizabeth (1997). ‘Switching trains of thought: the impact of news frames on reader’s cognitive responses. In: Communication Research, 24, 481.

Radden, Gϋnter (2000). ‘How metonymic are metaphors?’ In A. Barcelona (ed.) (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. New York: Mouton de Guyter, 39-105.

Richie, L. David (2013). Metaphor. Cambridge University Press.

Schank, Roger, and Abelson, Roger (1995). ‘Knowledge and memory: the real story’. In R. S. Wyer. (ed.), Advances in social cognition. vol. VIII: Knowledge and memory: the real story. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1-86.

Semino, Elena. (1997). Language and World Creation in Poems and Other Texts. London: Longman.

Semino, Elena (2008). Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge University Press.

Shen, Joseph (2008). Metaphor and poetic figures. In: R. Gibbs (2008)(ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 295-307.

Silaški, Nadeżda (2012). ‘Metaphoric and metonymic conceptualizations of the head – a dictionary - based contrastive analysis of English and Serbian’. In: Linguistics and Literature, 10 (2012) 1, 29 – 39.

Simpson, Paul (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.

Simpson, Paul (2004). Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London & New York: Routledge.

Simpson, Paul and Hall, Geoff (2002). Discourse analysis and stylistics. In: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22 (2002), 136-49.

Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre (1986/1995). Relevance Theory, Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In: R. Gibbs (2008) (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd  edn. 2010). Cambridge University Press, 84-105.

Steen, Gerard (2007). Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage: A Methodological Analysis of Theory and Research. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Stockwell, Peter (2002a). Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London & New York: Routledge.

Stockwell, Peter (2002b). Miltonic texture and the feeling of reading. In: E. Semino, & J. Culpeper (eds.). Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 73-94.

Stockwell, Peter (2006). Language and literature: stylistics. In: B. Aarts and A. Mcmahon (eds.). The Handbook of English Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 742-758.

Tracy, Guilford, K. (1997). ‘International trouble in emergency service  requests: a problem of frames. In: Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (1997), 315-343.

Turner, M. (l1987/2000). Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Christchurch. New Zealand: Cybereditions Corporation

Turner, Mark (1996). The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

Verdonk, Peter (1999). The liberation of the icon: A brief survey from classical rhetoric to cognitive stylistics. Journal of Literary Studies, 15 (3/4), 291-304.

Verdonk, Peter (2002). Stylistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Verdonk, Peter and Weber, Jean Jacques (eds.) (1995). Twentieth-Century Fiction: From Text to Context. Routledge: London and New York.

Weber, Jean Jacques (1992). Critical Analysis of Fiction: Essays in Discourse Stylistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Weber, Jean Jacques (1996). The Stylistics Reader. London: Arnold.

Weber, Jean Jacques (2005). From "Bad" to "Worse": Pragmatic scales and (de)construction of cultural models. In: Language and Literature 14 (2005) 1, 45-63.

Werth, Paul (1994) Extended metaphor: A text world account'. In Language and Literature 3 (1994) 2, 79-103.

Werth, Paul (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.

Yu, Ning (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In: R. Gibbs (2008) (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (2nd  edition 2010). Cambridge University Press, 247-261.

Author:

Hasan Said Ghazala 

Full Professor of Stylistics and Translation

Department of English

College of Social Sciences

Umm Al-Qura University

Makkah Al-Mukarramah

Saudi Arabia

E-mail: Ghazala@uqu.edu.sa

1Also Simpson, 2004. For extensive details about a cognitive approach to style, language and translation and other relevant theories, Simpson, 1993, 2004; Simpson et al.  2002; Stockwell, 2002a, 2002b, 2006; Verdonk, 1999, 2002; Verdonk et al (1995); Weber, 1992, 1996, 2005; Gavins, 2005, 2007; Gavins & Steen, 2003; Black, 2006; Jeffries et al, 2010; and Ghazala, 2011.

2 For a variety of conceptual metaphor mappings, cf. Semino's mapping of the metaphorical uses of the adjective rich (2008: 191), Fauconnier and Turner's mapping of time is space (2008: 54); Kövecses' mapping of the two emotion metaphors anger and love (2008: 380), and Yu's mapping of the metaphors of body parts like face (2008: 247).