Metaphor: Retrospect and Prospects
The so-called "Cognitive Revolution" brought with it, among other features, Cognitive or Conceptual Metaphor (CM) (Reddy, Lakoff and Johnson), refining and expanding theories of comparison and property attribution. In the period 1970-1990 circa, CM gradually came to dominate the metaphor scene, consolidating its position in the twenty years that followed, also bolstered by relevance theory and Gricean pragmatics. Naturally, there were "offshoots" and complementary strands - developments such as blending theory − which enriched the scene. Unsurprisingly, inadequacies were also identified and "alternatives" or “integrations”, such as perceptual simulation (Gibbs, Barsalou), framing (Schoen, Reddy) offered. Indeed, framing may be combined with conceptual blending (Fauconnier and Turner), the importance of pragmatics and context (Douthwaite, Kovecses), and of narratological theory (Biebuyck and Martens). There have also been more radical criticisms of this broad line of investigation, tending to come within more traditional domains of literary criticism and rhetoric theory (part one of Fludernik). In this domain non-cognitive approaches have not failed to make their mark (e.g. a revitalisation of analogy, Coenen).
Just as the theoretical domains are extremely wide-ranging, so are the domains of application, with every area of language having been treated − literary, conversation, politics, classroom, art, medicine, law, economics to name but a few.
Papers are therefore invited from all disciplines, including literature, linguistics, psychology, sociology, criminology, anthropology, communication studies, medicine and the hard sciences, on any aspect of metaphor theory and its applications. Papers are also welcome which trace the development of metaphor theory and how developments in metaphor theory are related to more general developments in the field of science.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008) ‘Grounded cognition’, Annual Review of Psychology, 59: 617-645.
Biebuyck, B. and Martens, G. (2011) ‘Devouring the children of the revolution? Literary metaphor between cognition and narration’, in Fludernik, M. (ed.) Beyond Cognitive Metaphor Theory: Perspectives on Literary Metaphor, pp. 58-76. New York: Routledge.
Coenen, H. G. (2011) ‘Systematizing verbal imagery: on a sonnet by Du Bellay’, in Fludernik, M. (ed.) Beyond Cognitive Metaphor Theory: Perspectives on Literary Metaphor, pp. 19-35. New York: Routledge.
Douthwaite, J. (2011) ‘Conceptual metaphor and communication: an Austinian and Gricean analysis of Brian Clark’s Whose Life Is It Anyway?’, in Fludernik, M. (ed.) Beyond Cognitive Metaphor Theory: Perspectives on Literary Metaphor, pp. 137-157. New York: Routledge.
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fludernik, M. (ed.) (2011) Beyond Cognitive Metaphor Theory: Perspectives on Literary Metaphor. New York: Routledge.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006) ‘Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation’, Mind and Language, 21 (3): 434-458.
Kovecses, Z. (2015) Where Metaphors Come From. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ortony, A. (ed.) (1979) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reddy, M. J. (1979) ‘The conduit metaphor – a case of frame conflict in our language about language’, in Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, pp. 284-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schoen, D. A. (1979) ‘Generative metaphor: a perspective on problem-setting in social policy’, in Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, pp. 137-163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The main language for the conference is English, as will be the ensuing publication, but scholars employing French, German and Spanish will also be accepted provided a minimum number of papers is received.
When submitting an abstract for either French, German or Spanish, authors should indicate whether they are willing to present their paper in English if insufficient proposals are submitted in their own language.
Please send abstracts of up to 400 words as Word attachments by February 10th, 2016. Please include your full name, gender, academic title, affiliation, postal address, email address, mobile number, the title of your presentation and five keywords. Notifications of acceptance will be sent within two weeks of receipt of a proposal.
Abstracts should be sent to the following organisers:
John Douthwaite (email@example.com), Ilaria Rizzato (firstname.lastname@example.org), Elisabetta Zurru (email@example.com)
Micaela Rossi (firstname.lastname@example.org), John Douthwaite (email@example.com), Ilaria Rizzato (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Serena Spazzarini (Serena.Spazzarini@unige.it), John Douthwaite (email@example.com), Ilaria Rizzato (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Ana Lourdes de Heriz (email@example.com), John Douthwaite (firstname.lastname@example.org), Ilaria Rizzato (email@example.com)
Please note that all the rooms in the Department of Educational Sciences are equipped with computer, DVD player and overhead projector so you can project all supported documents, spreadsheets, presentations and films. Should you require any special equipment beyond these standard applications, please specify in the abstract.
Detailed information on the conference, travel, accommodation etc. may be found at the conference website at http://www.lingue.unige.it/eventi/metaphor2016/.