The Conceptual Classification and Typology of Cognitive Metaphors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51699/literature.v5i4.506Keywords:
Cognitive Metaphor, Typology, Linguistic Phenomenon, Human Thinking, Conceptual System, Concept, Cognitive ScienceAbstract
Metaphor, long regarded as a rhetorical or literary device, has increasingly been acknowledged as a central component of human cognition and language. With the rise of cognitive science, metaphor is now understood not merely as ornamentation but as a mechanism by which people conceptualize and make sense of the world around them. Despite its ubiquity in thought and language, the conceptual classification and typology of metaphors—especially within cross-cultural and cognitive frameworks—remain insufficiently explored in terms of their linguistic and psychological dimensions. This article aims to examine metaphor as a linguistic phenomenon and cognitive tool, analyzing its conceptual typology based on the foundational theory developed by Lakoff and Johnson. The study identifies and elaborates on three primary types of conceptual metaphors—orientational, ontological, and structural—demonstrating how abstract ideas are grounded in physical and cultural experiences. Examples from English and Uzbek languages show the universality and variability of metaphorical thinking. The research underscores metaphor not just as a linguistic expression but as a cognitive structure integral to human thought, revealing that metaphors shape conceptual systems and reflect culturally embedded patterns of understanding. By deepening the understanding of metaphor's role in cognition, this study contributes to the broader discourse on how language, thought, and culture interact. It provides valuable insights for linguists, educators, and cognitive scientists into the fundamental ways humans interpret reality through metaphorical mapping.
References
[1] M. T. Cicero, “Ancient Theories of Language and Style,” in O. M. Freidenberg (Ed.), Leningrad, 1936, p. 216.
[2] M. F. Quintilian, “Ancient Theories of Language and Style,” in O. M. Freidenberg (Ed.), Leningrad, 1936, pp. 218–219.
[3] Yu. S. Stepanov, Constants: Dictionary of Russian Culture. An Attempt at Study, Moscow: School “Languages of Russian Culture”, 1997.
[4] L. Cameron, Metaphor in Educational Discourse, Contin. Stud. Linguist., 2003.
[5] Z. Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2010.
[6] G. Szymansk, Metaphor: The Royal Way of Communication, Paris: Inter Éditions, 2014.
[7] G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[8] M. Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy, Cornell University Press, 1962.
[9] Aristotle, Poetics, Leningrad: ACADEMIA, 1927.
[10] A. A. Fayziyeva, “Specific Features of Orientational Conceptual Metaphors,” in International Scientific Conference “Innovative Trends in Science, Practice and Education”, Munich, 2022, pp. 26–29.
[11] R. W. Gibbs, The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
[12] A. V. Drujinin, “The English Perfect: To Understand and Explain,” Foreign Lang. Sch., no. 2, pp. 49–53, 2016.
[13] A. Goatly, The Language of Metaphors, Routledge, 1997.
[14] I. A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Moscow, 1990.
[15] P. Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, University of Toronto Press, 1977.
[16] J. Ortega y Gasset, “Two Great Metaphors,” in Theory and Metaphor, Moscow: Progress, 1990, p. 71.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jurakobilova Хamida

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.