Editing Conceptual metaphor (section)

=== Modern ===
In his 2007 book ''The Stuff of Thought'', cognitive scientist [[Steven Pinker]] lays out several useful classifications for the study of conceptual metaphor. Pinker first contrasts two perspectives on metaphor, what he calls the killjoy theory and the messianic theory. The killjoy theory categorizes metaphors as "dead", that is it asserts that modern day speakers are not aware of the comparison made between source and target domains in the everyday metaphors they use. For example, many are not cognizant that the phrase "to come to a head" refers to the accumulation of pus in a pimple. In contrast, the messianic theory correlates more closely with Lakoff and Johnson's idea of a conceptual metaphor. This view states that users of metaphors are aware of how the metaphor maps onto the domains and use them to relate shared perceptual experiences to more complex thoughts.<ref name=":22">{{Cite book|title=The Stuff of Thought|last=Pinker|first=Stephen|publisher=Penguin Group|year=2005|pages=238–249}}</ref>

Another important distinction made by Pinker is that between literary, or poetic metaphors, and conceptual, or generative metaphors. Poetic metaphors are used for a variety of reasons but ultimately highlight similarities or incongruencies in an expressive manner. Pinker's example of this being the classic Shakespearian line "Juliet is the sun". These metaphors can often appear convoluted or unclear without deeper context. Conceptual metaphors result from some inherent relation between two domains. These metaphors, so innate they are considered cliche, are interestingly able to generate infinite new metaphors.<ref name=":22" /> For example, thinking back on the conceptual metaphor {{Smallcaps all|argument is war}}, one can build many new metaphors such as "I shot him down" or "he blew my argument to pieces".

Pinker himself settles on a moderate view that falls in between the messianic and killjoy theories on metaphor. Perhaps most interestingly, while Pinker concedes that metaphor is a useful way to combat the limited ability of language to express thought, he postulates that a higher level of abstract thought must still be present. Otherwise, Pinker points out, how could we engage in critique of metaphors or employ metaphors for comedic effect?<ref name=":22" />

Major criticisms of work done on conceptual metaphor stem from the way many researchers conduct their research. Many study metaphors in a "top-down" direction, looking first at a few examples to suggest conceptual metaphors, then examining the structure of those metaphors. Researchers would look at their own lexicon, dictionaries, thesauri, and other corpora to study metaphors in language. Critics say this ignored the way language was actually used and focused too much on the hypothetical metaphors, so many irregularities were overlooked in favor of postulating universal conceptual metaphors.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kövecses|first=Zoltán|date=2008|title=Conceptual metaphor theory: Some criticisms and alternative proposals|journal=Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics|language=en|volume=6|pages=168–184|doi=10.1075/arcl.6.08kov|issn=1572-0268}}</ref> In 2007, Pragglejaz Group came up with a methodology for identifying metaphorical expressions as a response to these criticisms.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Group|first=Pragglejaz|date=January 2007|title=MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse|journal=Metaphor and Symbol|language=en|volume=22|issue=1|pages=1–39|doi=10.1080/10926480709336752|s2cid=220377117 |issn=1092-6488}}</ref>