I 34
Metaphor/Gärdenfors: by distinguishing between dimensional and meronomic (part-whole-) relations, we can explain the difference between metaphors and metonymies.
---
I 39
Metaphor/domains/terminology domain/Gärdenfors: it is natural to assume that a metaphor expresses an identity of the structure between two domains. Here, a word representing a particular pattern in one domain is used in another domain to represent the same pattern. See
Invariance Principle/Lakoff: (Lakoff 1993, p. 215).
(1)
---
I 40
What is transmitted is rather the pattern than the domain-specific information.
N.B.: thus the metaphor can be used to identify a structure in a domain that would otherwise not have been discovered. Thus, metaphors convey new knowledge.
---
I 247
Metaphors/Gärdenfors: a metaphor does not come alone: it compares not only two terms, but also the structure of two complete (conceptual) spaces. Once the connection is established, it can serve as the source of new metaphors. (See also Lakoff & Johnson (1980)
(2), Tourangeau & Sternberg (1982)
(3), Gärdenfors (2000, sec. 5.4)).
(4) Metaphorical illustrations involve complete conceptual spaces.
Properties/Metaphor/Fernandez: Thesis: the interpretation of metaphors emphasizes some properties and suppresses less important properties. (Fernández, 2007, p. 334).
(5)
1. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11, 203–244.
4. Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Fernández, P. R. (2007). Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics, 24, 345–371.