grammar metaphor语法隐喻

Metaphor and Symbol,27:195–197,2012Copyright©Taylor&Francis Group,LLCISSN:1092-6488print/1532-7868onlineDOI:10.1080/10926488.2012.665798BOOK REVIEWFinding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage.Gerard J.Steen.Amsterdam,The Netherlands:John Benjamins,2007.430pages,$165(hardcover),ISBN9789027238979.Reviewed by Kathryn AllanDepartment of English Language and LiteratureUniversity College London,London,UKkathryn.allan@ Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage is an ambitious volume which examines the method-ological practices and difficulties that characterise attempts to collect,analyse,and theorise metaphor within cognitive linguistics.It presents a detailed and wide-ranging survey of research into metaphor;Steen describes examples of classic and recent studies,discusses key develop-ments in thefield,and suggests possible directions for the future.The book as a whole is an appeal for much greater precision,consistency,and methodological transparency in all areas of metaphor study.The book has a number of themes.As the title suggests,Steen is particularly concerned with the distinction between grammar,in the sense of the idealised language system recorded in dictionaries and grammars,and usage,real instances of metaphor use in speech and writ-ing.He separates both of these from the conceptual structures which are often assumed to underlie linguistic metaphor.He also makes a further division between metaphor viewed from a “sign-oriented,symbolic perspective,”and metaphor viewed from a“behaviour-oriented,social-scientific perspective”(p.13).The core of the book considers the eight areas of research at the intersections between these distinctions:lookingfirst at grammar and then at usage, Steen discusses linguistic forms and conceptual structures from both the symbolic and the behaviour-oriented perspectives.The book is divided into three sections and a conclusion.In Part1,“Foundations,”Steen sets out eight questions that relate to the areas of research he has identified,and looks at the theoreti-cal tools and frameworks that are needed to address these questions.He discusses and evaluates the deductive approach,which he argues characterises most work in cognitive science,and goes on to examine different models of metaphor(and related phenomena)and the technicalities of metaphor identification.Thefinal chapter of the section considers data collection and analysis. Part2is devoted to“Finding metaphor in grammar,”considering each stage of metaphor identi-fication and analysis,from the criteria that need to be established,to methods of data collection196BOOK REVIEWand interpretation of data;Part3mirrors this section,but is concerned with“Metaphor in usage.”Throughout the book,Steen is careful to keep the various aspects of metaphor separate,and he treats each of the questions he poses at the beginning of the book with meticulous care,using exactly the same structure in each chapter and often reminding the reader of the parameters he has established.In general,this is helpful,though the stress he places on maintainingfine-grained distinctions in every part of the book can seem laborious.As well as this,the style of his prose is generally complex,and this adds to the sense that this is a demanding book which requires concentration and stamina.Much of the book is spent encouraging scholars to learn from social-scientific approaches, and specifically to be suspicious of introspection as a sole means of investigation.Steen argues that greater use of empirical techniques,and clearer descriptions of the methodological steps that have been taken in any piece of research,can offer much more convincing and theoretically sound answers to some of the questions asked in metaphor research.Moreover,more explicit reporting of methodology would allow metaphor researchers to compare work that has been done and build upon previous studies in a better-informed way.The use of the Pragglejaz procedure for metaphor identification,formulated by Steen and others,is one of several positive proposals made by the book.This procedure addresses the need for a transparent model forfinding linguistic metaphor, which can be used independently by different scholars so thatfindings can be compared.Steen reports that the set of instructions produced by the Pragglejaz group“now produces fairly reli-able results between individual analysts who display fairly high levels of agreement”(p.89). In research subsequent to this book,this procedure has been adapted and refined,and Steen et al. (2010)is a detailed presentation of MIP-VU,the method for linguistic metaphor identification which“goes a good deal further in making explicit and systematic what sorts of decisions have to be taken by analysts when they identify words as related to metaphor”(Steen et al.,2010, p.ix).One of the issues that is addressed by MIP-VU is the difficulty around the criteria for the “basic meaning”of a metaphorically polysemous lexeme,which seems inexact in the Pragglejaz procedure as presented in the present volume.Steen works hard to give the evidence for any accepted or established views he presents.He maintains a painstaking level of detail in every chapter;the discussions of research in different traditions summarise and critique an enormous number of studies and theoretical perspectives. This is hugely valuable for any reader,and makes the book a thorough and fairly comprehensive resource.At times,though,the balance between clear explanation and necessary brevity doesn’t seem quite right;readers not familiar with cited studies mayfind descriptions are not quite infor-mative enough to give a clear picture.For example,several references are made to experiments done by Lera Boroditsky(2000)on conceptual metaphors relating to time,including early in the book in an explanation of deductive reasoning(pp.28–31)and later in a discussion about psy-cholinguistic testing for conceptual models of metaphor(pp.258–259).Although the rationales and goals of these experiments are explained very clearly,the experiments themselves are not detailed,and it seems a shame to miss out such an interesting part of the picture.On the other hand,the book provides an excellent starting point for readers to follow up references.Steen’s determination to question every aspect of conventional metaphor and metaphor in real usage is highly commendable,and leads to some important insights.For example,one dis-cussion concerns the differences between the way individuals and groups of speakers use and perceive metaphor(pp.94–97):Steen points out that what is metaphorical to some speakers might not be experienced as metaphorical by everyone,a point which he has gone on to discussBOOK REVIEW197 further in subsequent work(e.g.,Steen et al.,2010,pp.766–767),but one which has not always been acknowledged sufficiently in the literature.He discusses several examples that appear to show differences across groups of speakers,for example across different periods or different discourse communities.However,there are problems with the examples he uses to illustrate his-torical variation.He gives ardent and fervent as examples of lexemes which are monosemous for (most)contemporary speakers of English,but which were metaphorically polysemous in earlier periods.As proof of their monosemy,he cites the entries in two contemporary synchronic dic-tionaries which are corpus-based,the MacMillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners and the Collins Cobuild.He then goes on to suggest that the historically literal,temperature-related senses of each only became obsolete very recently,and consequently older speakers might still experience these lexemes as metaphorical:“words like fervent and ardent were fully metaphor-ical in British English in1974,if the Concise Oxford Dictionary(McIntosh,1974)is a good source to go by”(p.6).However,this edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary does not seem to be a“good source”for this particular purpose.It is not corpus-based,and the entry is likely to be based on what is found in earlier editions,themselves heavily influenced by the historical Oxford English Dictionary.In fact,the temperature-related meanings of ardent and fervent seem to have been obsolete in English for more than a century,for most if not all speakers(see Allan, forthcoming,for a longer discussion).The assertion that fervent and ardent were polysemous in English in a(much)earlier period is not problematic,therefore,but using this dictionary as proof of currency in1974is naive,and it is a shame that such an important point about historical variation is undercut byflawed evidence.In general,historical perspectives on metaphor are not explored in great detail in the book,although in Part2Steen does devote one subsection in each chapter to the diachronic dimension.Given its very thorough nature in other areas,this is perhaps one of the weaker aspects of the book.Having said this,Steen is careful to make it clear that he does not(and cannot)present a comprehensive picture of every aspect of metaphor study,and the book reflects the bias towards synchronic study which characterizes current work.Steen begins by saying he will“put[his]methodological cards on the table”(p.4),and the book as a whole presents a cogent picture of the issues he has grappled with as a metaphor scholar.Overall,Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage is an impressive and thought-provoking study which raises important questions and presents a methodological challenge to metaphor scholars in all areas of thefield.It is challenging in both senses of the word,and even those who disagree with aspects of Steen’s thesis willfind valuable and interesting ideas here.REFERENCESAllan,K.(in press).An inquest into metaphor death:Exploring the loss of literal senses of conceptual metaphors.In R.Fusaroli&S.Morgagni(Eds.),Conceptual metaphor theory:Thirty years after[Special issue].Cognitive Semiotics. Boroditsky,L.(2000).Metaphoric structuring:Understanding time through spatial metaphors.Cognition,75(1),1–28. Steen,G.,Dorst,A.G.,Herrmann,J.B.,Kaal,A.A.,Krennmayr,T.,&Pasma,T.(2010).A method for linguistic metaphor identification:From MIP to MIPVU.Amsterdam,The Netherlands:John Benjamins.Copyright of Metaphor & Symbol is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.。