Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- Acknowledgments
- 1 A Glimpse of the Material
- 2 Motivation and Linguistic Theory
- 3 Iconicity Defined and Demonstrated
- 4 The Analogue-Building Model of Linguistic Iconicity
- 5 Survey of Iconicity in Signed and Spoken Languages
- 6 Metaphor in American Sign Language: The Double Mapping
- 7 Many Metaphors in a Single Sign
- 8 The Vertical Scale as Source Domain
- 9 Verb Agreement Paths in American Sign Language
- 10 Complex Superposition of Metaphors in an American Sign Language Poem
- 11 The Future of Signed-Language Research
- Appendix 1 Glossing Conventions
- Appendix 2 Translation of “The Treasure”
- References
- Index
6 - Metaphor in American Sign Language: The Double Mapping
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 October 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- Acknowledgments
- 1 A Glimpse of the Material
- 2 Motivation and Linguistic Theory
- 3 Iconicity Defined and Demonstrated
- 4 The Analogue-Building Model of Linguistic Iconicity
- 5 Survey of Iconicity in Signed and Spoken Languages
- 6 Metaphor in American Sign Language: The Double Mapping
- 7 Many Metaphors in a Single Sign
- 8 The Vertical Scale as Source Domain
- 9 Verb Agreement Paths in American Sign Language
- 10 Complex Superposition of Metaphors in an American Sign Language Poem
- 11 The Future of Signed-Language Research
- Appendix 1 Glossing Conventions
- Appendix 2 Translation of “The Treasure”
- References
- Index
Summary
CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORY
The crucial insight of conceptual metaphor theory (e.g., Lakoff 1992, Lakoff & Johnson 1980, Lakoff & Turner 1989) is that metaphor is not a rare, poetic device; it is not limited to formal or colorful speech or to artistic language. Rather, people use metaphors all the time in everyday speech; in fact, there are some topics that are almost impossible to discuss without metaphor.
For example, consider how English speakers talk about communication; sentences 1 through 6 are typical:
We were tossing some ideas back and forth.
I couldn't catch what you said.
That went right by me.
I couldn't get my point across.
I can't get that idea into my head.
I finally got through to him.
These completely natural and commonplace sentences all share one thing: They use the vocabulary of throwing and catching objects to talk about communicating ideas.
In fact, one can set up a single coherent system of correspondences between the conceptual domains of sending objects and communicating ideas that would explain every one of these sentences; such a system, or mapping, is presented in Table 6.1. The domain to which the language literally refers is usually called the source domain, and the metaphorically represented domain is called the target. All of the metaphorical sentences above (and many more; see, e.g., Reddy 1979, Sweetser 1987) are predictable from the mapping in Table 6.1.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language from the BodyIconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language, pp. 94 - 113Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2001