• Vladimir Figar


metaphor cluster, contextual aptness, metaphoricity, familiarity, WordSmith


The paper aims to explore the dynamics of a metaphor cluster by assessing the levels of metaphoricity, familiarity, contextual aptness, and importance for text comprehension for each of the individual metaphorical expressions from the cluster. The cluster was comprised of 3 conflict, 3 journey, and 4 containment metaphors. The research was conducted in two stages which
involved (i) a quantitative analysis of a small specialized corpus, and (ii) a questionnaire-based study in which participants rated each of the target items along the four relevant dimensions on 6-point Likert scales. Quantitative corpus analysis showed the highest frequency for journey, containment, and conflict metaphors, and this tendency was preserved in clusters. One-way repeated measures ANOVA showed significant effects for all four dimensions (p<.0005), while subsequent pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences between all items (p<.05), the only exception being ratings of contextual aptness between
journey and conflict metaphors (p=.381). A multiple linear regression model (metaphoricity, familiarity, importance for comprehension) was used to predict the variance in ratings of contextual aptness. The model was significant for all three groups of metaphors (p<.0005), accounting for 39.5% of variance in contextual aptness for conflict metaphors, 33.7% for journey etaphors, and 25% for containment metaphors. The obtained results reveal a high degree of dynamics in the analyzed cluster.


ALLBRITTON 1995: Allbritton, David. When Metaphors Function as Schemas: Some Cognitive Effects of Conceptual Metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(1), 1995: 33-46.

BLASKO & CONNINE 1993: Blasko, Dawn & Connine, Cynthia. Effects of Familiarity and Aptness on Metaphor Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 1993: 295-308.

BOEYNAEMS et al. 2017: Boeynaems, Amber, Burgers, Christian, Konijn, Elly, and Steen, Gerard. The Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature Overview. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(2), 2017: 118-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623

CAMERON 2007: Cameron, Lynne. The Affective Discourse Dynamics of Metaphor Clustering. Ilha do Destero Florianopolis, 53, 2007: 41-61.

CAMERON & STELMA 2004: Cameron, Lynne & Stelma, Juurd. Metaphor Clusters in Discourse. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1/2, 2004: 107-136.

CHARTERIS-BLACK 2004: Charteris-Black, Jonathan. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

FERRARI 2007: Ferrari, Federica. Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: investigating a ‘preventive war’ persuasion strategy. Discourse & Society, 18(5), 2007: 603-625.

FIGAR & ANTOVIĆ 2015: Figar, Vladimir & Antović, Mihailo. Metaphor Clusters in the New York Times Press Reports of the 2012 Presidential Elections in the U.S. In Jezik, književnost, diskurs: jezička istraživanja, Mišić-Ilić, B., and Lopičić, V. (eds.), 2015: 233-258. Niš: Faculty of Philosophy.

HOLYOAK & STAMENKOVIĆ 2018: Holyoak, Keith & Stamenković, Dušan. Metaphor Comprehension: A Critical Review of Theories and Evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 2018: 641-671.

INHOFF et al. 1984: Inhoff, Albrecht, Lima, Susan & Carroll, Patrick. Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 1984: 558-567.

JONES & ESTES 2006: Jones, Lara & Estes, Zachari. Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 2006: 18-32.

KATZ et al. 1988: Katz, Albert, Paivio, Allan, Marschark, Marc & Clark, James. Norms for 204 Literary and 260 Nonliterary Metaphors on 10 Psychological Dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3:4, 1988: 191-214.

KOESTER 2010: Koester, Almut. Building small specialized corpora. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy, eds.,2010: 66-79. London and New York: Routledge.

KOLLER 2003: Koller, Veronika. Metaphor Clusters, Metaphor Chains: Analyzing the Multifunctionality of Metaphor in Text. Metaphorik.de, 05, 2003: 115-130.

KÖVECSES 2010: Kövecses, Zoltan. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

LAKOFF & JOHNSON 1980: Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.

LANDAU & KEEFER 2014: Landau, Mark & Keefer, Lucas. This Is Like That: Metaphors in Public Discourse Shape Attitudes. Social and Personal Psychology Compass, 8(8), 2014: 463-473.

MIO 1997: Mio, Jeffery. Metaphor and Politics. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(2), 1997: 113-133.

PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP 2007: Pragglejaz Group. MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22/1, 2007: 1-39.

SCOTT 2014: Scott, Mike. WordSmith Tools Manual, Version 6.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd., 2014.

THIBODEAU & DURGIN 2011: Thibodeau, Paul & Durgin, Frank. Metaphor Aptness and Conventionality: A Processing Fluency Account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 2011: 206-226.

TOURENGAU & STERNBERG 1981: Tourangeau, Roger & Sternberg, Robert. Aptness in Metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 1981: 27-55.

TOURENGAU & RIPS 1991: Tourangeau, Roger & Rips, Lance. Interpreting and Evaluating Metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 1991: 452-472.