Search

This article offers my personal assessment of the recent efforts to censor certain metaphors in higher education within the United States. Many universities have created extensive speech codes that censor various metaphorical words and phrases for their potential harm, especially for possibly being offensive to different individuals and marginalized communities. I discuss some of the problems with these efforts and offer a brief defense of the importance of metaphors, good or bad, in our public conversations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Metaphors are frequently seen in individuals' descriptions of their illness and healing experiences. These figurative phrases are not ornamental, or distracting, but often reveal the particularities of what it is like to be ill or healing. Culture plays a big role in shaping the particular metaphors employed to express one's thoughts about illness and different healing rituals. However, a significant reason why metaphor emerges in illness narratives is because people ordinarily reason via embodied simulation processes in which they imaginatively project themselves into different real-world and fantastic situations, such as imagining one's struggle with cancer as being a complex dance with the disease. These simulations can play a major role in therapeutic interventions to help those who are ill and in distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers our reply to Wolfgang Teubert. 2021. Embodiment is not the answer to meaning: A discussion of the theory underlying the article by Carina Rasse and Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. in JLS 50(1). Journey of Literary Semantics 50. 89–106. Teurbert's article examined discussion of our earlier publication in this journal on metaphorical thinking in people's literary experiences of J.D. Salinger's novel "The Catcher in the Rye." Teubert makes several points about our advocacy of an embodied perspective on literary meaning and interpretation. He argues that literary experience is best characterized in terms of people's verbalized, reflective statements about the meanings of literary texts. Data from cognitive linguistic analyses and behavioral experiments are less compelling, in his view, because these studies examine embodied metaphors from a discourse-external perspective and mostly focus on people's fast, mostly unconscious processing of verbal metaphors. Our reply highlights the importance of studying linguistic understanding, and literary experience, along varying time-dimensions, the fact that many linguistic and behavioral studies examine embodied metaphorical thinking in more reflective, social circumstances, exactly as Teubert recommends. Finally, we suggest that looking at literary experience from an embodied perspective is tightly associated with a discourse-analytic point of view. Scholars can never dismiss the reality of embodiment in literary experience because it provides a critical, but not exclusive, constraint on how we express ourselves and enable others to create specific patterns of meaning in the words they read. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines whether metaphorical experiences are better characterized in terms of contiguity or cross-domain mappings. My claim is that many facets of concrete experience are infused with metaphoricity as part of our ordinary understanding of these events. Many source domains in conceptual metaphors may also be interpreted via different metaphorical ideas. If both source and target domains in metaphorical concepts may be characterized in metaphorical terms, then the relationship between them may be related via contiguity or metonymy rather than cross-domain mappings. For this reason, metaphorical concepts and language may originate in the contiguous, and at times almost isomorphic, relationships between concrete actions and larger metaphorical ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]