Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Translation validity in metaphor theories CMT, DMT and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model

Zlatev, Jordan LU and Moskaluk, Kalina LU (2022) In Figurative Thought and Language 17. p.123-148
Abstract

Evaluating competing metaphor theories against each other implies the need for theory-independent criteria of comparison. We propose translation validity, the closeness in which theoretical constructs and operationalizations match one another, to be such a criterion. Applying this to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT) we note that the translation validity of CMT is low, given that its main constructs (“domain”, “cross-domain mappings”) lack clear operationalizations. DMT fares better with a procedure for distinguishing between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphor, but we argue that it needs improvements in clarifying and justifying its operationalizations. After summarizing the Motivation &... (More)

Evaluating competing metaphor theories against each other implies the need for theory-independent criteria of comparison. We propose translation validity, the closeness in which theoretical constructs and operationalizations match one another, to be such a criterion. Applying this to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT) we note that the translation validity of CMT is low, given that its main constructs (“domain”, “cross-domain mappings”) lack clear operationalizations. DMT fares better with a procedure for distinguishing between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphor, but we argue that it needs improvements in clarifying and justifying its operationalizations. After summarizing the Motivation & Sedimentation Model (MSM) of metaphor, we discuss its translation validity in relation to two different studies, one on metaphors for anxiety and stress in psychotherapy discourse, and the other on pictorial and verbo-pictorial metaphors. We argue that while the operationalizations in these studies differ, they both show considerable correspondence to the constructs, and thus a high degree of translation validity. Some weaknesses nevertheless show up under scrutiny, suggesting ways to improve both the level of translation validity and the higher of level construct validity (mapping from phenomena to constructs) of the model. In this process we anticipate a degree of convergence between the DMT and MSM approaches.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
and
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
keywords
(verbo)-pictorial metaphors, anxiety, CMT, DMT, Motivation & Sedimentation Model (MSM), psychotherapy, translation validity
host publication
Figurativity and Human Ecology
series title
Figurative Thought and Language
editor
Bagasheva, Alexandra ; Hristov, Bozhil and Tincheva, Nelly
volume
17
pages
26 pages
publisher
John Benjamins Publishing Company
external identifiers
  • scopus:85142343300
ISSN
2405-6944
ISBN
9789027257369
DOI
10.1075/ftl.17.06zla
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
324f4d2d-0ddc-47e2-9552-d0744c14bf76
date added to LUP
2022-12-28 15:11:12
date last changed
2023-12-06 00:04:55
@inbook{324f4d2d-0ddc-47e2-9552-d0744c14bf76,
  abstract     = {{<p>Evaluating competing metaphor theories against each other implies the need for theory-independent criteria of comparison. We propose translation validity, the closeness in which theoretical constructs and operationalizations match one another, to be such a criterion. Applying this to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT) we note that the translation validity of CMT is low, given that its main constructs (“domain”, “cross-domain mappings”) lack clear operationalizations. DMT fares better with a procedure for distinguishing between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphor, but we argue that it needs improvements in clarifying and justifying its operationalizations. After summarizing the Motivation &amp; Sedimentation Model (MSM) of metaphor, we discuss its translation validity in relation to two different studies, one on metaphors for anxiety and stress in psychotherapy discourse, and the other on pictorial and verbo-pictorial metaphors. We argue that while the operationalizations in these studies differ, they both show considerable correspondence to the constructs, and thus a high degree of translation validity. Some weaknesses nevertheless show up under scrutiny, suggesting ways to improve both the level of translation validity and the higher of level construct validity (mapping from phenomena to constructs) of the model. In this process we anticipate a degree of convergence between the DMT and MSM approaches.</p>}},
  author       = {{Zlatev, Jordan and Moskaluk, Kalina}},
  booktitle    = {{Figurativity and Human Ecology}},
  editor       = {{Bagasheva, Alexandra and Hristov, Bozhil and Tincheva, Nelly}},
  isbn         = {{9789027257369}},
  issn         = {{2405-6944}},
  keywords     = {{(verbo)-pictorial metaphors; anxiety; CMT; DMT; Motivation & Sedimentation Model (MSM); psychotherapy; translation validity}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  pages        = {{123--148}},
  publisher    = {{John Benjamins Publishing Company}},
  series       = {{Figurative Thought and Language}},
  title        = {{Translation validity in metaphor theories CMT, DMT and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.06zla}},
  doi          = {{10.1075/ftl.17.06zla}},
  volume       = {{17}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}