It is believed that conceptual metaphor is one of the “cognitive devices” that motivate the semantic structures of idioms, the general meanings of which are established by the “conventional knowledge”, and therefore the motivation seems rather cognitive than linguistic by nature (Kövecses, 2010). Besides that, Nguyen (2016) pointed out that one conceptual metaphor can be indicated by more than one idiomatic expression in language.
Local coherence refers to structures and processes that organize elements, constituents, and referents of adjacent clause or short sequences of clauses. Global coherence is established when local chunks of information are organized and interrelated into higher order chunks. The explanation assumption. The reader attempt to explain why actions, events, and states are mentioned in the text. These explanations involve naïve theories of psychological and physical causality in an effort to achieve coherence in understanding.
e) Pictorial representations, some roadmaps use more creative pictorial representations to communicate technology integration and plans. f) Flow charts, a particular type of pictorial representation is the flow chart, which is typically used to relate objectives, actions and outcomes. g) Single layer, this form is a subset of type ‘a’, focusing on a single layer of the multiple layer roadmap. While less complex, the disadvantage of this type is that the linkages between the layers are not generally shown. h) Text, some roadmaps are entirely or mostly text-based, describing the same issues that are included in more conventional graphical roadmaps.
By virtue of these basic interactions, some embodied structures, called image-schemata, emerge in our conceptual systems. The existence of image-schemata is the enabling condition for metaphorical thought to occur. As Lakoff argues, “at least some (and perhaps all) abstract reasoning is a metaphorical version of image-based reasoning” (1990, p. 40). Undoubtedly, this point of view has interesting consequences for developmental studies and invite researchers to focus on what pre-linguistic processes precede metaphorical language. Although the importance of this claim, and while other studies have delved in the relation between metaphor learning and adult language (Gentner, 2001/2003) or proposed that mental metaphors are innate (Pinker, 1997, 2007), relatively little attention has been paid to the non-linguistic origins and the developmental trajectory of metaphorical
The concept that this paper will focus on is representation. According to renowned sociologist Stuart Hall (1997), representation refers to “the production of the meaning of the concepts in our mind through concept and language” (Hall, 1997, p. 17). This means that representation acts as a platform which connects things, concepts and signs, and by doing this, it allows people to refer to either real or fictional worlds (Hall, 1997). People use language, signs and images to understand, describe and define their environments and the things around them (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001). Thus its importance lies in the fact that it is the way in which people function, as we are constantly deciphering our surroundings through representation.
The transformative capacity of metaphors should therefore not be underestimated. Metaphors “do not merely actualize a potential connotation, but establish it ‘as a staple one’; and further, ‘some of the (the object’s) relevant properties can be given a new status as elements of verbal meaning” (ibid). The transformative power of the metaphor lies in the acceptance of its role of ‘logical absurdity’ that helps us recognize the genuinely creative character of the metaphorical meaning. “Logical absurdity creates a situation in which we have the choice of either preserving the literal meaning of the subject and the modifier and hence concluding that the entire sentence is absurd or attributing a new meaning to the modifier so that the sentence
Our apprehension of the living contextual world, however, is through our perception. It is, in fact, the world of perception. Thus we can say that living metaphor embodies, on the one hand, the flow of perception – that is to say “the world,” not yet conceptualized, the world as it simply is, ongoing & eternal, &, on the other hand, the conventional aspect of our understanding – the world of forms, concepts, thoughts etc. This is “metaphor” understood from a living phenomenological point of view. It is “language” in the broadest sense, language working in the world & including those who make language as well as that of which language is made.
First, let’s take a look at the prototype theory to find out its significance in cognitive linguistic field and its importance in teaching English prepositions. 1. Categorization It is undeniable that categorization is a very fundamental cognitive skill that allows people to make sense of the world. Categories are the basic elements of human cognition; they ‘are the glue that hold our mental world together’ (Murphy, 2004). In the cognitive linguistics approach, there are three opposing views which have attempted to answer the question how human can recognize, differentiate or understand every concept, idea and object in this world.
Highlighting and Hiding When explaining even more thoroughly the systematicity feature, Lakoff and Johnson referred to Michael Reddy’s (1979) “conduit metaphor”: it is when a part of our experience is hidden by a metaphorical concept; he believes that our language about language is organized or even designed as the following metaphor: ‘Ideas (or meanings) are perceived as objects’, ‘Linguistic expressions are perceived as containers’ and ‘communication is perceived as sending’. This means that when someone wants to say an expression (the object), he puts concepts into words (which are the container) and sends them along a conduit to the person who is hearing him and who takes the concept out of the words which means out of the containers. Examples of the ‘conduit metaphor’ are: “I gave you that idea”, “it
A complexity thinking approach to case study will therefore be distinct from, for instance, an ethnographic approach, despite some similarities in methodology. It has been argued, that because complex systems are unique in their nature (in terms of their embodied history and relationship with other systems), any knowledge about such systems must be contextual (Byrne, 2005). Thus, I could suggest that a form of case study methodology is an appropriate choice for complexity-based translation