Cognitive Mechanism of a Metaphor

D. U. Ashurova

and M. R. Galieva

†

Tashkent State University of Uzbek Language and Literature named after Alisher Navoi, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Keywords. Conceptual Metaphor, Conceptual-Mental Domain, Metaphorical Projection, Image-Schemas, Propositional

Schemas, Conceptual Integration and Blending, Inference, Emergence.

Abstract. This article analyses metaphors from a cognitive perspective, exploring their role in conceptualisation and

interpretation of world knowledge. We argue that, despite extensive research, the cognitive mechanisms

underlying metaphors remain under-studied. This study primarily focuses on the cognitive processes involved

in constructing and interpreting conceptual metaphors. It highlights critical aspects of Cognitive Linguistics,

including the theory of conceptual integration and blending, and the interpretative potential of linguistic

expressions. The central hypothesis suggests that metaphorical projection is facilitated by various cognitive

mechanisms. Furthermore, conceptual metaphors represent different types of knowledge structures, marking

them as an interpretative type of linguistic signs. Their interpretative potential is due to the interplay of

linguistic and cognitive mechanisms, instrumental in metaphor construction and the emergence of new

meanings.

1 INTRODUCTION

Metaphor is a unique phenomenon that has captured

the attention of philosophers and philologists since

ancient times. Initially, metaphor was studied within

the realm of rhetoric and was seen as a rhetorical

device based on "hidden comparison." The primary

function of metaphor was considered to be the

enhancement of speech, increasing the artistic value

of literary works. In traditional stylistics, metaphor is

regarded as a figurative stylistic device (trope) that

relies on the interplay between two types of

meanings: dictionary and contextual (Gal'perin I.R.

1977.). It involves the interaction of direct and

figurative meanings and arises from the relationship

between word meanings (Gak V.G. 1988). In other

words, metaphor was studied in terms of its structural,

semantic, and stylistic characteristics. The traditional

theory, as highlighted by A.A. Richards, viewed

metaphor "solely as a linguistic means, resulting from

word substitution or contextual shifts" (Richards I.

1990.).

A comprehensive analysis of different viewpoints

and approaches to the study of metaphor in the past

and present is provided in the collection of scientific

articles "Theory of Metaphor," edited by N.D.

Corresponding author

Arutyunova (Arutyunova N. D. (1990)), and in the

monograph by E.E. Yurkov (Yurkov Ye. 2012.).

These sources examine various aspects and

approaches to metaphor, including logical-

philosophical, psychological, linguistic,

linguocognitive, and linguoculturological

perspectives. They acknowledge characteristics of

metaphor such as anthropocentrism, subjectivity,

intuitionism, imagery, implicitness, and elements of

poetic thinking (Arutyunova N. D. (1990)).

Currently, with the development of cognitive

linguistics, interest in the problem of metaphor has

significantly increased. From the standpoint of the

cognitive theory of language, metaphor is seen as one

of the fundamental processes of human

consciousness, serving as a distinctive way and

outcome of thinking. It is a means of conceptualizing,

categorizing, and interpreting knowledge about the

world, based on the principles of analogy and

knowledge projection from one conceptual domain to

another (Ashurova D.U. (2018)).

The theory of conceptual metaphor was

developed by J. Lakoff and M. Johnson (Lakoff G.,

Johnson M. 1980. ) and further expanded upon by

researchers such as Z. Kövecses, R.W. Gibbs, E.

McCormack, V. Petrov, N.D. Arutyunova, and others

Ashurova, D. and Galieva, M.

Cognitive Mechanism of a Metaphor.

DOI: 10.5220/0012483200003792

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies (PAMIR 2023), pages 221-227

ISBN: 978-989-758-687-3

221

(3,14,16,24,27). Notably, N.F. Alefirenko has

proposed a conception of cognitive metaphor,

asserting that metaphor is a cognitive-semiotic

phenomenon that reflects human cognition. It is based

on "conceptual shift," leading to the emergence of

new (unexpected) meanings during the process of

metaphorization. An important conclusion is that

metaphor analysis requires a dual approach

encompassing both linguistic and cognitive

perspectives. Considerable attention is devoted to

metaphor interpretation, with the author outlining

various types of metaphor interpretation, suggesting

that interpretation depends on an individual's age and

cognitive-nominative experience (Alefirenko N.F.

(2006).). Here are several definitions of metaphor

from the cognitive theory of language:

- Metaphor is a form of conceptualization, a

cognitive process that generates and shapes new

knowledge.

- Metaphor is a way of describing one aspect of

the world through another, comprehending the

essence of one kind in terms of another (Lakoff G.,

Johnson M. 2008.).

- Metaphor involves transferring a portion of the

knowledge structure from the source domain to the

target domain (Yurkov Ye. 2012.).

- Metaphor is a fundamental tool of cognition,

resulting from a cognitive process that correlates two

(or more) referents, often incompatible, leading to a

semantic conceptual anomaly (MacCormak E.

1990.).

The aforementioned definitions, while

emphasizing the cognitive nature of metaphor, do not

fully uncover the cognitive mechanism of conceptual

metaphor. The research material encompasses

conventional metaphors associated with the

metaphorical model of "Vegetable metaphors." The

primary research method employed is conceptual

analysis, with the aim of: a) identifying

interconceptual connections between the two

conceptual structures involved in metaphorical

projection; b) defining the image and propositional

schemas that underlie conceptual metaphors; c)

establishing a network of associative links activated

by mechanisms of analogy and contrast.

2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study of linguistic literature, as well as our own

observations and reflections on this issue have led to

the conclusion that the process of metaphorical

projection is provided by such cognitive mechanisms

as: the interaction of conceptual-mental spaces

(domains), conceptual integration and blending,

image and propositional schemas, cognitive

principles of analogy and contrast, mechanisms of

focusing and defocusing, inference and emergence.

Mental-conceptual domains. A conceptual

domain is defined as a set of cognitive entities, as

conceptual complexes, knowledge structures

embedded in the semantics of linguistic units

(Langacker R.W. 1998.). Conceptual domains

structured in a certain way, form a hierarchically

organized set of conceptual layers and conceptual

features included in the nuclear and peripheral zones.

The nuclear zone makes up the base layer, which

includes a set of basic, stereotypical, standard features

fixed in the language system, transmitting the

collective, established in a certain culture, knowledge

about the object. Nuclear conceptual features are of a

prototype, sensory-visual character and in most cases

are fixed in the dictionaries and other lexicographical

sources. The peripheral zone includes additional

conceptual features, which are mostly of an abstract,

implicit, associative, evaluative and interpretive

character. In this regard, the conceptual metaphor

should be viewed as the result of the interaction of

two domains, source and target, as a projection of one

domain onto the other. The source domain usually

represents concrete entities: Human, Flora, Fauna,

Specific Objects, Foods, Natural Elements. As for the

target domain, it expresses more abstract categories:

Emotions, Thoughts, Ideas, Time, Human Relations.

It is important to emphasize that the source domain

includes well-known, objective knowledge structures

motivated by the collective experience of a certain

society. The target domain, as a result of the

projection of knowledge structures of the source

domain onto the target one, generates new, unknown

knowledge of an individual, subjective-evaluative

nature with the elements of hyperbolization and

imagination (Ricoeur P. 1990.).

Image and propositional schemas. The conceptual

basis of metaphorical projections is formed by image

schemas, which are defined as recurrent patterns of

the perception process (Maslova V. A. 2004.), as

“analogue representations deriving from experience”

(Evans V., Green M. (2006)). Image schemas are

characterized by abstractness, conceptual complexity,

analogue representations of knowledge, the ability to

structure and model information about the world

(Boldyrev N.N. (2019)).

Propositional schemas are no less significant in

terms of conceptual metaphor construction. A

proposition is defined as “a semantic invariant

PAMIR 2023 - The First Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

222

common to all members of the model and

communicative paradigms of sentences”. According

to N.N. Boldyrev propositional schemas single out

some elements, their characteristics, their

interconnections (Boldyrev N.N. (2019)). In the

process of metaphorical projection, a certain

redistribution of conceptual features is observed due

to their transference from one conceptual domain

onto the other, thus forming propositional schemas

underlying metaphor interpretation. Propositions are

mental constructs that do not have an explicit

externalization, since they are embedded in the deep

structure of metaphor based on the so-called “deep

predication”. Many researchers point out the

predicative nature of metaphor. N.D. Arutyunova

believes that metaphors “perform, as a rule, the

function of characterization and occupy the position

of a predicate in the sentence” (Arutyunova N. D.

(1990)). V.G. Gak notes that the structure of

metaphor consists of the semantic subject and

semantic predicate (Gak V.G. 1998). E.E. Yurkov

proposes to consider metaphor as a thematic-rhematic

unit (Yurkov Ye. 2012.), thereby emphasizing the

predicative nature of metaphor, which, on the one

hand, nominates an object (theme), on the other,

assigns (predicates) certain features to it, thus

performing evaluative and characterization functions.

P. Ricoeur, considering the metaphorical process as

an act of cognition, as a creative process, introduces

the notion of “predicative assimilation”, which means

making the terms that metaphorical expressions bring

together similar or semantically close (Ricoeur P.

1990.). Thus, the propositional schemas based on the

act of predication, on the one hand, contribute to

metaphorical meaning construction, on the other –

serve as the main strategies for understanding and

interpreting conceptual metaphor.

Conceptual metaphor theory is closely related to

the theory of conceptual integration developed by J.

Fauconnier and M. Turner (Fauconnier G., Turner M.

(1998).). Conceptual integration is a cognitive

process that involves the interaction of two or more

conceptual structures (domains), resulting in the

emergence of new conceptual meanings. In other

words, conceptual integration is not simply a

combination of conceptual features from each

domain, but rather a complex cognitive structure that

generates novel meanings and senses. The

mechanism of conceptual integration involves the

blending of at least four conceptual mental domains:

1. Input I: the mental space projected onto the

focal mental space.

2. Input II: the focal mental space (the target

domain) interpreted in terms of input I (the source

domain).

3. The generic space: containing abstract

information common to both inputs and providing the

basis for integrating the two spaces based on their

similarities.

4. The blend: the outcome of the metaphorical

projection, characterized by the emergence of new

structures.

Emergence, as known, refers to the appearance of

new meanings and senses in a complex system that

are not inherent in its constituent components. This

phenomenon is observed in various complex systems

across different domains such as philosophy, physics,

biology, economics, politics, and certainly in

linguistics. According to N.N. Albekov, emergence

manifests itself at all levels of language and is directly

related to processes of meaning construction,

transformation, and modification (Al'bekov N.N.

(2015),). T.V. Zherebilo, considering emergence at

the level of the text, argues that it should be regarded

as one of the text's categories, alongside cohesion,

informativity, modality, etc. (Zherebilo T.V. 2010).

In our view, emergence is most evident at the

level of a literary text, particularly within the category

of imagery, which is predominantly represented by

metaphors. In metaphor, emergence occurs through

metaphorical mapping, wherein two mental spaces

interact to generate conceptual meanings

characterized by novelty, unexpectedness, and non-

triviality.

It is worth noting that there are two ways in which

meaning is constructed in metaphor: a) the emergence

of new meanings that are not inherent in the mental

structures of the interacting spaces; b) the

construction of new meaning through the processes of

focusing and defocusing. For instance, in idiomatic

expressions such as "book worm," "big mouth," and

"hot potato," emergent properties manifest

themselves through conceptual features that are

distinct from the constituent components. The study

of lexicographic sources has allowed us to identify

the following emergent elements in these idiomatic

expressions:

- book worm: addicted, enthusiastic, fond of

(about a person)

- big mouth: indiscreet, tactless, boastful,

talkative, obnoxious (person)

- hot potato: difficult, challenging, awkward

(situation)

Cognitive Mechanism of a Metaphor

223

However, in most cases, the emergence of "new"

features arises from the opposing processes of

defocusing and focusing. The phenomena of

defocusing and focusing are extensively explored in

O.K. Iriskhanova's monograph "Games of Focus in

Language" (2014), which posits that "the semantics

of linguistic expressions is described as a process of

focusing on certain aspects of the referent" and that

"focusing is always accompanied by defocusing" (15,

p. 64-66), implying the removal of certain object

properties from the semantic focus. Of particular

significance to our research is the author's claim that

the processes of focusing and defocusing, as well as

the distribution and redistribution of primary and

secondary focus, are crucial for metaphorical and

metonymic projections.

In conceptual metaphor, the process of "focus

shift," accompanied by the defocusing of the primary

focus in the source domain and the focusing on

properties and features within the defocused zone,

creates a cognitive salience effect that "renews" these

features. In our view, these renewed features can be

considered as emergent elements.

Before delving into the processes of focusing and

defocusing with specific examples of metaphorical

projections, it is important to bear in mind that the

conceptual space, as previously noted, consists of the

cognitive structure of nuclear and peripheral

conceptual layers and features. During metaphorical

projection, there is a redistribution and reconstruction

of the nuclear and peripheral components, resulting in

the defocusing of nuclear features, which move

towards the periphery, while peripheral features are

brought to the forefront in the nucleus area. In other

words, nuclear features are defocused, and peripheral

features are focused. A similar notion is expressed in

the work of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson, who describe

these processes as "highlighting" and "darkening,"

suggesting that metaphor highlights certain properties

while simultaneously concealing others (Lakoff G.,

Johnson M. 2008.). The focal elements of the blend,

in our opinion, can be seen as new or "renewed"

conceptual meanings.

3 DISCUSSION

Let us consider the metaphor expressed by the

compound word "cabbage-head" from the perspective

of cognitive mechanisms. This example belongs to

the linguistic embodiment of the anthropocentric

metaphorical model "Vegetable metaphors," which

includes various expressions such as "two peas in a

pod," "carrot and stick," "couch potato," "to be full of

beans," "to dangle a carrot," "to be as cool as a

cucumber," "small potatoes," "turn into a vegetable,"

"big potatoes," "to spill the beans," and others. Firstly,

it is important to note that this lexeme represents the

conceptual fusion of metaphor and metonymy, known

as metaphtonymy in linguistics. It involves

expressing two images created through metonymic

projection: "Head" represents the Human, where the

component "Head" signifies not only knowledge

motivated by associations of contiguity (part-whole)

but also peripheral properties associated with positive

evaluative stereotypes. In this case, we observe a

defocusing on the features related to a person as a

biological being and a focusing on the features of an

intelligent person, their mental abilities, and intellect

(CCELD, 1998).

Furthermore, the compound word represents the

metaphorical projection: "Head is Cabbage," where

the source conceptual space contains core features

that convey collective knowledge about cabbage.

Additional peripheral features are associated with

concepts of inactivity, indifference, and passivity.

These features have an implicit associative character

and are expressed in statements such as: "If you say

that someone is a cabbage, you mean that they are not

interested in anything," "Cabbages, whose heads

tightly folded see and hear nothing," and "Instead of

going to class, Jason 'cabbaged' all day" (Sinclair

John.).

The generic space, which serves as the basis for

conceptual integration through analogy, contains one

conceptual feature derived from physical collective

experience – the shape of the head and that of a

cabbage. Through metaphorical projection,

conceptual features associated with mental abilities

are attributed to a person, but in a negative sense. The

processes of focusing and foregrounding highlight the

features of "mental retardation" while defocusing the

features associated with both "man as homo sapiens"

and "cabbage as a vegetable." As a result of these

cognitive processes, new conceptual meanings

emerge in the blend, aiming at a negative evaluation

of a person as someone stupid, limited, and mentally

retarded.

The cognitive nature of metaphor lies in its ability

to evoke a network of associations in a person's

consciousness, motivated by the principles of

analogy, which find similarities between seemingly

incompatible entities, as well as by the principles of

contrast, which highlight the opposition of these

entities. It should be emphasized that the principle of

contrast, embedded in the cognitive structure of

metaphor, plays an equally significant role alongside

the principle of analogy. This view is supported by

PAMIR 2023 - The First Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

224

many researchers who highlight the incompatibility

and opposition of the compared concepts. For

instance, N.D. Arutyunova, when considering

metaphor in terms of "categorical shift," argues that

metaphor encompasses both "compressed

comparison" and "compressed opposition"

(Arutyunova N. D. (1990).). This perspective is also

supported by researchers who discuss semantic

inconsistency, "deep" negation (Wierzbicka A.

1990.), violation of categorical boundaries (Miller

G.A. 1990., semantic deviations, and anomalies

(Levin S. 1990.), as well as categorical errors

(Ricoeur P. 1990.).

Considering the problem of contrast in conceptual

metaphor, we start from the assumption put forward

by McCormack that metaphor should be seen as a

semantic, syntactic, and cognitive process

(MacCormak E. 1990.). Accepting this view, we

believe that the stylistic aspect should also be added,

which plays a significant role in metaphor, especially

in poetic metaphor. Each of these aspects or levels has

its own peculiarities, particularly evident in the

diversity of contrast at each level. For example, at the

semantic level, contrast is represented by binary

oppositions such as concrete - abstract, animate -

inanimate, person - non-person; at the syntactic level,

by propositions of affirmation and negation; and at

the stylistic level, by oppositions such as neutral -

stylistically marked meanings, direct - indirect

meanings, objective - subjective evaluations. At the

cognitive level, contrast is expressed through

oppositions such as the principle of analogy - the

principle of contrast, old information - new

information, and collective knowledge - individual

knowledge. In the example of "cabbage head," the

principle of contrast is likely realized based on the

mental experience of a person, in whose

consciousness the combination of incompatible

entities in the process of metaphorization is

represented by opposing schemas: Man - Plant,

animate - inanimate, person - non-person, smart -

stupid, with the latter being the result of inferred new

knowledge obtained based on what is already known.

Considering the above, we can infer a complex,

multi-aspect, and multi-level structure of metaphor

that combines linguistic and mental processes, as well

as linguistic and cognitive approaches to its study. It

is important to emphasize that the distinction between

these aspects of metaphor is somewhat relative, as all

these levels, closely interacting, are part of a unified

cognitive process of metaphorization, serving as a

fundamental mechanism for cognition and

interpretation of knowledge about the world

(Boldyrev, 2019).

Regarding the interpretative function of

conceptual metaphor, within the framework of the

theory of interpretation and the interpretative function

of language developed by V.Z. Demyankov and N.N.

Boldyrev, linguistic interpretation is considered a

cognitive activity of humans, a process and result of

understanding and interpreting knowledge about the

world (Boldyrev N.N. (2019)). The main postulates

of interpretationism include the idea that language

performs not only communicative and cognitive

functions but also an interpretative function (6,8), that

linguistic cognition and human perception of reality

involve interpretation (Dem'yankov V.Z. (1994)), and

that linguistic interpretation is based on the

interaction of collective and individual knowledge

and experience (Boldyrev N.N. (2019)).

Researchers distinguish between different types

of interpretation, including structural and discursive

interpretation (Belyayevskaya Ye.G. (2017)), as well

as primary and secondary interpretation (Boldyrev

N.N. (2019)). In the context of our work, the

distinction between primary and secondary

interpretation is relevant. Primary interpretation

represents collective knowledge about the world,

which is generally known and objective. Secondary

interpretation, on the other hand, is subjective and

evaluative, reinterpreting existing collective

knowledge. In this sense, conceptual metaphor is the

result of secondary interpretation based on the

interaction of collective and subjective-evaluative

knowledge. Metaphorical interpretation has its own

peculiarities. Firstly, it involves the integration of two

domains and the projection of one conceptual

structure onto the other, leading to the emergence of

a new integrated conceptual structure and providing

new insights into existing knowledge. Secondly,

metaphorical interpretation encompasses opinions,

assessments, attitudes, emotions, and values. Thirdly,

it aims to achieve figurative and evaluative

comprehension of complex concepts in the

surrounding world (5, p. 136), such as abstract

entities, notions of the spiritual world, emotions, and

cultural values. Therefore, metaphorical

interpretation, as a particular type of secondary

interpretation, incorporates the cognitive mechanism

of inference. Inference is defined as the process of

obtaining new data and knowledge through reasoning

and drawing conclusions. Many researchers consider

the process of obtaining inferred knowledge, by

decoding implicit information, as "the most important

cognitive operation of human thinking" (Kratkiy

slovar' kognitivnykh terminov1996.). The problem of

inference has been addressed in numerous studies,

including works by T.A. van Dijk, G.P. Grice, J.

Cognitive Mechanism of a Metaphor

225

Leach, N.D. Arutyunova, E.S. Kubryakova, and M.I.

Kiossé. However, linguists primarily focus on

analyzing this problem in various text types, as E.S.

Kubryakova suggests that understanding these texts

is impossible without the processes of inference

(Kubryakova E.S. 2001). While fully supporting this

viewpoint, we argue that inference processes

encompass a wide range of linguistic phenomena,

with conceptual metaphor playing a dominant role.

The process of inference in conceptual metaphor

aims to understand and interpret its conceptual

content and involves the following:

a) Restoring interconceptual connections between

interacting domains in the structure of metaphor.

b) Identifying image and propositional schemas

that form the conceptual basis of metaphor.

c) Establishing the focal elements of metaphorical

projection.

d) Considering the correlation of different types

and formats of knowledge during the process of

metaphorization.

e) Activating the system of associative links,

which includes linguistic associations (syntagmatic,

paradigmatic, and semantic) as well as extra-

linguistic associations (situational, evaluative-

pragmatic, sociocultural, literary, etc.).

4 CONCLUSIONS

• The cognitive mechanism of conceptual

metaphor, regardless of the conditions and spheres of

its usage, consists of:

a) the projection of one conceptual domain onto

the other;

b) the conceptual integration of two interacting

domains based on the principles of analogy and

contrast;

c) modelling conceptual content based on image

and propositional schemas;

d) generating new conceptual meanings as a result

of focusing/defocusing processes;

e) activating the system of associative links and

mechanisms of inference and emergence.

• Conceptual metaphor, as the most important

means and outcome of cognition, encompasses

various types and formats of knowledge: linguistic

and extralinguistic (encyclopedic), collective and

individual (subjective-evaluative), known - unknown

(new, emergent), explicit - implicit (inferred).

• Conceptual metaphor belongs to the

interpretative type of linguistic signs, and its

interpretive potential is determined by:

a) the interaction of cognitive and linguistic

mechanisms in metaphor construction;

b) structuring one conceptual domain in terms of

the other and establishing interconceptual links;

c) activating the associative potential of

metaphor;

d) the cognitive mechanisms of emergence and

inference.

REFERENCES

Alefirenko N.F. (2006).Jazyk, poznaniye i kul'tura.

Kognitivno-semiologicheskaya sinergetika slova

(Language, Сognition and Сulture. Cognitive and

semiological Synergetics of the Word). – Volgograd:

Peremena, – 228 p. (in Russian)

Al'bekov N.N. (2015), Emerdzhentnost' kak ob"yekt

sovremennoy nauki (Emergence as an Object of

Modern Science)//Sovremennyye problemy nauki i

obrazovaniya, №2. P.1. https://science-

education.ru/ru/article/view?id=21089 (in Russian)

Arutyunova N. D. (1990). Metafora i diskurs (Metaphor

and Discourse) // Metaphor theory: Collection / Ed. N.

D. Arutyunova and M. A. Zhurinskaya. – M.: Progress,

– P. 5-32 (in Russian)

Ashurova D.U. (2018), Conceptual Metaphor in the

Literary Text//Filologiya masalalari. Scientific-

methodological journal. Tashkent, №1. – P.32-36

Belyayevskaya Ye.G. (2017) Interpretatsiya znaniy o mire

v jazyke: metody izucheniya (Interpretation of

Knowledge about the World in Language: Methods of

Study)//Interpretatsiya mira v yazyke: collective

monograph. – Tambov: TSU named after G.R.

Derzhavin,. – P. 82-157 (in Russian)

Boldyrev N.N. (2019) Jazyk i sistema znaniy. Kognitivnaya

teoriya yazyka (Language and Knowledge System.

Cognitive Theory of Language). – Moscow, YASK. –

480 p. (in Russian)

Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. Ed.by

Sinclair John. –London; Glasgow, HarperCollins

Publishers. – 1728 p.

Dem'yankov V.Z. (1994). Kognitivnaya lingvistika kak

raznovidnost' interpretiruyushchego podkhoda

(Cognitive Linguistics as an Interpretative

Approach)//Voprosy yazykoznaniya, – №4. – P. 17-33

(in Russian)

Evans V., Green M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics. An

Introduction. – Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press,– 830 р.

Fauconnier G., Turner M. (1998). Principles of Conceptual

Integration//Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the

Gap. – Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, – P.269-283

Gak V.G. 1998. Jazykovyye preobrazovaniya (Language

Transformations). – Moscow,– 768 p. (in Russian)

Gak V.G. 1988 Metafora: universal'noye i spetsifichnoye

(Metaphor: Universal and Specific Features)// Metafora

PAMIR 2023 - The First Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

226

v jazyke i rechi. - Moscow: Nauka,. – 176 p. (in

Russian)

Gal'perin I.R. 1977. Stylistics. – Moscow, Higher School, –

332 p.

Gibbs R.W. 1(994)The Poetics of Mind. – Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press,. – 509 p.

Iriskhanova O.K. 2014. Igry fokusa v jazyke. Semantika,

sintaksis i pragmatika defokusirovaniya (Focus Games

in Language. Semantics, Syntax and Pragmatics of

Defocusing). – Moscow, YASK,– 320 p. (in Russian)

Kövecses Z. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. –

Oxford: Oxford University Press,– 400 p.

Kratkiy slovar' kognitivnykh terminov1996. (A Short

Dictionary of Cognitive Terms)//Ye. S. Kubryakova, V.

Z. Dem'yankov, Yu. G. Pankrats, L. G. Luzina. Ed. by

Ye. S. Kubryakova, – Moscow, Faculty of Philology,

Moscow State University named after M.V.

Lomonosov, – 245 p. (in Russian)

Kubryakova E.S. 2001. O tekste I kriteriyakh yego

opredeleniya//Tekst. Struktura isemantika) (Text and

criteria of its definition). –T1. – Moscow,–P. 72-81 (in

Russian)

Lakoff G., Johnson M. 2008. Metafory, kotorymi my

zhivem (Metaphors We Live By). –Moscow: LKI,– 256

p. (in Russian)

Lakoff G., Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. –

Chicago: University of Chicago Press,– 242 р.

Langacker R.W. 1998. An Overview of Cognitive

Grammar//Topics in Cognitive Linguistics//Ed. by

Rudzka-Ostin B. – Amsterdam: Philadelphia, – P.3-48

Levin S. 1990. Pragmatic Deviance// Theory of Metaphor.

Collection of scientific articles/ Ed. N. D. Arutyunova

and M. A. Zhurinskaya. – Moscow, Progress,– P. 342-

387

Lingvisticheskiy1990. Entsiklopedicheskiy Slovar'

(Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary). Ed. by V. N.

Yartseva. –2-nd ed.. – Moscow, Sovetskaya

entsiklopediya, – 685 p.

MacCormak E. 1990. A Cognitive theory of metaphor//

Theory of Metaphor. Collection of scientific articles/

Ed. N. D. Arutyunova and M. A. Zhurinskaya. –

Moscow: Progress,– P. 358-386

Maslova V. A. 2004. Vvedeniye v kognitivnuyu lingvistiku

(Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics). – M.: Flinta,

Nauka,– 293 c. (in Russian)

Miller G.A. 1990. Images and Models, Similes and

Metaphors// Theory of Metaphor. Collection of

scientific articles/ Ed. N. D. Arutyunova and M. A.

Zhurinskaya. – Moscow, Progress, – P. 236-283

Petrov V.V. 1990. Metafora: ot semanticheskikh

predstavleniy k kognitivnomu analizu (Metaphor: from

Semantic Representations to Cognitive

Analysis)//Voprosy yazykoznaniya,– №3. – P. 135-146

(in Russian)

Richards I. 1990.The Philosophy of Rhetoric//Theory of

Metaphor. Collection of scientific articles/ Ed. N. D.

Arutyunova and M. A. Zhurinskaya – Moscow,

Progress, – P.44-67

Ricoeur P. 1990. The Metaphorical Process as Cognition,

Imagination and Feeling// Theory of Metaphor.

Collection of scientific articles/ Ed. N. D. Arutyunova

and M. A. Zhurinskaya. – Moscow, Progress,– P. 416-

434

Teoriya metafory,1990. (The Theory of Metaphor):

Collection of scientific articles/ Ed. N. D. Arutyunova

and M. A. Zhurinskaya. – Moscow, Progress, – 512 p.

(in Russian)

Wierzbicka A. 1990. Comparison – Gradation -

Metaphor)//Theory of Metaphor/Ed. by N.D.

Arutyunova and M. A. Zhurinskaya. – Moscow:

Progress,– P. 133-152

Yurkov Ye. 2012. Ye. Metafora v aspekte

lingvokul'turologii (Metaphor in the Aspect of Cultural

Linguistics): Abstract of DSc in Philology. Sankt-

Peterburg.– 348 p. (in Russian)

Zherebilo T.V. 2010.Slovar' lingvisticheskikh terminov

(Dictionary of Linguistic Terms). – Nazran': Piligrim,–

486 p. (in Russian)

Cognitive Mechanism of a Metaphor

227