Metaphor theories have traditionally focused on the level of language, or on the level of thought. However, more recently it is commonly argued that multiple interacting constraints shape metaphorical meaning\u00a0<\/span>(Gibbs Jr & Santa Cruz, 2012; Ruiz de Mendoza Ib\u00e1\u00f1ez & P\u00e9rez H\u00e9rnandez, 2011)<\/span>. Accordingly, my psychological and corpus linguistic surveys suggest that linguistic metaphors are neither merely lexical, nor merely a reflection of more schematic metaphorical mappings between cognitive domains, but conceptual mappings that involve speakers\u2019 embodied experiences of the specific concepts represented by the lexical items that they use. They are \u201clexico-encyclopedic conceptual (LEC) metaphors\u201d\u00a0<\/span>(Johansson Falck, 2018, 2022)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0from which we may gain insights into\u00a0<\/span>how speakers\u2019 embodied understandings of the world around them, through affordances\u00a0<\/span>(Gibson, 2015)<\/span>, help them structure, re-experience, and metaphorical mappings at more schematic levels of abstraction\u00a0<\/span>(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980\/2008, 1999)<\/span>. In this presentation, I introduce the notion of LEC metaphors along with a method for identifying metaphors at this level of abstraction\u00a0<\/span>(Johansson Falck & Okonski, 2022, accepted)<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n References<\/p>\n Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Santa Cruz, M. J. (2012). Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and symbol<\/i>,\u00a027<\/i>(4), 299-311.<\/span><\/p>\n Gibson, J. J. (2015).\u00a0The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition<\/i>. Psychology Press.<\/span><\/p>\n Johansson Falck, M. (2018). From ecological cognition to language: When and why do speakers use words metaphorically?\u00a0Metaphor and Symbol<\/i>,\u00a033<\/i>(2), 61-84.<\/span><\/p>\n Johansson Falck, M. (2022). Lexico-encyclopedic conceptual (LEC) metaphors. In T. L. Fuyin (Ed.),\u00a0Handbook of Cognitive Semantics<\/i>. Brill.<\/span><\/p>\n Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L. (2022).\u00a0<\/span>Procedure for Identifying Metaphorical Scenes (PIMS): A Cognitive\u00a0 Linguistics Approach to Bridge Theory and Practice.\u00a0Cognitive Semantics<\/i>,\u00a08<\/i>, 294-322.\u00a0 https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1163\/23526416-bja10031<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L. (accepted). Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): The case of spatial and abstract relations.\u00a0Metaphor & Symbol<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980\/2008).\u00a0Metaphors We Live By<\/i>. Univeristy of Chicago Press.<\/span><\/p>\n Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999).\u00a0Philosophy in the flesh: The\u00a0embodied mind and its challenge to western thought<\/i>. Basic books.<\/span><\/p>\n Ruiz de Mendoza Ib\u00e1\u00f1ez, F. J., & P\u00e9rez H\u00e9rnandez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges.\u00a0Metaphor and Symbol<\/i>,\u00a026<\/i>(3), 161-185.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Marlene Johansson Falk Metaphor theories have traditionally focused on the level of language, or on the level of thought. However, more recently it is commonly argued that multiple interacting constraints shape metaphorical meaning\u00a0(Gibbs Jr & Santa Cruz, 2012; Ruiz de Mendoza Ib\u00e1\u00f1ez & P\u00e9rez H\u00e9rnandez, 2011). Accordingly, my psychological and corpus linguistic surveys suggest that … <\/p>\n