Classification of Regional Metaphors from the Standpoint of

Invariant Semantics

Svetlana Pesina

, Svetlana Pitina

, Anna Taskaeva

3 c

, Elena Kharchenko

4 d

and Yuliana Vtorushina

Magnitogorsk State Technical University Named After G.I. Nosov, Magnitogorsk, Russia

Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia

South Ural State Institute of Arts Named After P.I. Tchaikovsky, Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia

South Ural State University (National Research University), Chelyabinsk, Russia

Keywords: Classification of Metaphors, Polysemous Word, Semantic Structure of the Word, Semantics, Meaning.

Abstract: A new approach to the phenomena of polysemous words integrity called the invariant-component method is

developed in the article. The presented study attempts to determine the nature of meanings in the semantic

space of the lexicon by revealing the content of metaphors. A three-level classification of metaphors is

presented within the scope of the article. Its main criterion is the degree of difficulties in their comprehension.

The metaphors are arranged according to the principles of fluent and crystalized intelligence. A semantic

structure of a word is viewed as a multi-level configuration of meanings. It is fixed by a dominant invariant

meaning. The analysis of the English substantive “a leg” is presented. As a result, the obtained semantic

metaphorical clusters have lead to the lexical invariant definition. The latter is viewed as a set of basic

dominant components that form the semantic core of a polysemous word. The results of the study led to the

conclusion that lexical invariants make it possible to successfully decode metaphors of the first basic level

according to our classification.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the process of mental and speech-thinking activity,

individual consciousness is equally prone to both

generalizations and personal interpretation of

incoming information that refracts the objective

perception of the surrounding world. A person is

driven by the desire to streamline the received

symbolic connections and relations between them

under the influence of historical, socio-economic,

cultural and other factors, which give rise to the need

for new nominations.

Technical and general progress continuously

leads to the development of languages whose

vocabulary can be changed dynamically, reaching up

to 30% per century. The use of the means available in

the language is of great importance, since it makes it

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1109-1978

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4983-6872

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3968-8060

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0071-595X

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2241-0513

possible to use them to designate something for which

there has not yet been a special nomination.

Languages in which word formation is poorly

developed fill gaps by adding new meanings to

already existing polysemous words. At the same time,

there is a process of renewal within the structures of

polysemous words: the meanings perceived as the

main ones cease to be direct meanings over time,

moving into the category of figurative ones (for

example, English a coach - first a carriage, then a

bus).

The most frequent figurative meanings in the

composition of polysemous words are metaphors and

phraseological units. In modern cognitive linguistics,

a metaphor is interpreted not only as a means of

giving the text a special emotional and evaluative

expressiveness, but also as a mechanism for

Pesina, S., Pitina, S., Taskaeva, A., Kharchenko, E. and Vtorushina, Y.

Classiﬁcation of Regional Metaphors from the Standpoint of Invariant Semantics.

DOI: 10.5220/0011637000003577

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Actual Issues of Linguistics, Linguodidactics and Intercultural Communication (TLLIC 2022), pages 201-206

ISBN: 978-989-758-655-2

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

201

generating new cognitive scenarios. Among the

reasons for word structures expanding there are extra

linguistic factors (for example, the new metaphors

appearance in Russian of 1980s: стенка – a wall (as

modular sectional furniture), двойка – deuce (TV and

a video recorder), приставка – console (a tape

recorder), etc.

A metaphor is an applicable tool for nominating

new artifacts in any area of human life. It is also

almost the only way to meaningfully define objects of

a high degree of abstraction. The change of paradigms

towards the virtual construction of entities is

characterized by a change in the vector of

metaphorization towards the objectification of the

world. For example, only a user with a deep

understanding of the computer system can be called a

root, as if being a part of a plant deeply buried in the

ground.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The conscious use of lexical invariants allows us to

see not only the “raw material” from which a certain

figurative meaning is formed, but also to understand

the logic of the formation of the entire structure of the

word. The lexical invariant has a dynamic nature and

is formed as a result of frequent use of the metaphor

in question. Lexical invariants unite metaphors into a

single structure

As an illustration of the lexical invariant

functioning, we propose an empirical invariant-

component analysis of the word “a leg”. With the

help of introspection, linguistic observation,

empirical invariant-cluster method, description and

comparison, the dominant elements of this

polysemous word will be defined. Thus, the

algorithms of the secondary meanings decoding will

be revealed. We also apply semantic reduction as a

basic analysis. It presupposes the gradual removing

of the trivial semantic components of each figurative

meaning.

In our analysis, we adhered to the following

methodology for determining the lexical invariant of

a polysemous word:

1. On the basis of the most frequent components

of several explanatory dictionary definitions,

the first nominative-non-derivative meaning is

formulated.

2. The invariant-component analysis of each

figurative meaning by comparing it with the

obtained averaged nominative-non-derivative

meaning. As the analysis proceeds, there is a

consistent disposal of components of a trivial

nature.

3. Further reduction of the word meaning. We

single out the most relevant dominant nuclear

semantic components in the obtained

interpretations of each metaphorical meaning.

At the same time, we carry out a consistent

reduction of each interpretation to the minimum

necessary bundle of nuclear features, necessary

and sufficient for recognizing the specific

meaning of the word.

4. Based on the identity of the core dominant

semantic components included in the semantics

of each metaphor, we group the latter into

clusters. These clusters greatly simplify the

decoding of metaphors that are perceived in

them as a whole.

5. Based on the dominant semantic components

identified in each metaphorical cluster, a lexical

invariant is formulated. It includes core basic

semantic components, which in any of the

configurations underlie all the metaphorical

meanings of this polysemous word.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The presented classification is based on the degree of

difficulty of metaphors comprehension and decoding.

The typology is also based on the principle of using

the type of intelligence: flexible (mobile) and

crystallized (Cattell, 1971). The classification

includes simple basic intuitive metaphors, expanded

associative non-trivial metaphors and nested multi-

stage metaphors.

The first class of metaphors includes basic

intuitive metaphors, which are usually perceived

instinctively and automatically. They are used

without much cognitive effort and are so common

that they seem to be natural and self-evident

descriptions of everyday life. Here is an example of

English basic intuitive metaphors: coat/ knee/ sleeve

of a pipe, nose of a ship, head of a mountain/ river/

bay, branch of a company, chain of events/

circumstances, etc.

Compared to English, metaphorization is not that

extensive in Russian: thus, for the Russian word

голова – a head there are many lacunas: coat of a pipe

and head of a mountain / river / bay, etc. Thus, about

103 metaphorical meanings are found in the structure

of the English polysemous word “a head”. The

Russian analogue, even including the derivatives of

“a head”, contains only 15-20 metaphors. Even in

Russian, where word-formation models and direct

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"

202

nomination prevail, there are quite a lot of intuitive

metaphorical transfers.

From the typology proposed by G.Lakoff and M.

Johnson (Lakoﬀ, 1980), the orientational metaphors,

such as to feel up/down, were includes to our

classification of metaphors as the simplest and most

obvious. By the way, orientational metaphors can be

supplemented with the following mechanism: “being

important is always good, being unimportant is bad”.

For example, all metaphors with a component head

can illustrate this mechanism.Thus, if we refer to a

part of an object as head, be it the top or the

beginning, it will always be the important part of it.

For example, in metaphor the head of a table “head”

is any place at the table that the owner considers the

most important: it can be either the end of the table or

its center.

The first group of basic intuitive metaphors also

includes synesthetic metaphors, such as a green old

age (happy age), yellow silence, green envy, humid

green, pale sound, bitter tone, low sound, bright

sound, sweet sounds, cold / warm light, light

creaking, heavy hum, etc. Synesthetic metaphors

based on the level of tactility are quite common. It is

obvious that hugs or any physical closeness can create

a feeling of warmth or cold: a warm / cold friendship

or handshake. These metaphors, although of linguo-

cultural nature, are usually perceived without much

effort and cognitive dissonance.

The first group of basic intuitive metaphors also

includes synesthetic metaphors, such as a green old

age (happy), yellow silence, green envy, humid green,

pale sound, bitter tone, low sound, bright sound,

sweet sounds, cold / warm light, light creaking, heavy

hum, etc. These metaphors, although they are of a

linguo-cultural nature, are usually perceived without

much difficulty and cognitive dissonance for

individuals with imagination.

From around the age of four, children display an

ability to transfer metaphorical meanings from one

modality to another (Marks, 1966). In this respect,

metaphor is classed as the earliest cognitive function

that directly affects language acquisition. As for

synesthesia, color synesthetic metaphors also come

from childhood.

The first class of metaphors also includes

numerous anthropomorphic metaphors. They are

usually not difficult for comprehension either.

Anthropomorphism serves as an umbrella term for

such phenomena as animism (personification),

animatism (personification with endowing inanimate

objects or animals with human emotions and abilities):

a devouring prairie; Notre’Dame squats in the dusk;

Mother Nature blushes before disrobing, etc.

As is demonstrated in our studies (Pesina, 2021),

the vector of anthropomorphism is bidirectional. We

distinguish centrifugal-nominative and centripetal-

nominative anthropomorphism. The first is focused

on likening the surrounding objects and phenomena

to the structure and functioning of one's own body.

The second one is focused on the reverse process: the

nomination of personal properties like character,

appearance, etc., on the analogy of the appearance

and qualitative characteristics of the surrounding

objects and phenomena.

We use basic intuitive metaphors so often that we

don't even notice that they are figurative meanings

that imply overthinking. Their decoding involves a

crystallized type of intelligence that involves

reasoning (usually verbal) based on the prior

knowledge and the ability to infer secondary

relational abstractions by applying previously

comprehended primary abstractions.

In contrast to the crystallized type of intelligence,

flexible intelligence (also mobile or fluid) includes

reasoning (often non-verbal) about new problems.

Flexible intelligence is able to “produce” knowledge

different from the existing one, solve new problems.

It is associated with the acquired critical skills as

understanding, interpretation and learning (Cattel,

1971).

In the understanding of the next type of

metaphorical rethinking, which we called “leveled

expanded associative non-trivial metaphors”, both

these forms of intelligence are involved.

So the second class of metaphorical meanings

includes extended associative non-trivial metaphors,

which, unlike intuitive ones, require the activation of

voluntary attention. They assume a significant

distance between the source and target domains.

These are expanded non-trivial metaphors. They are

fresh and often perceived as a shock of recognition,

since they contain a paradox, a search for similarities

in dissimilar objects. To decipher extended

associative non-trivial metaphors, an individual needs

several interconnected cognitive processes. It is

necessary due to the high density of embedded

information.

When creating such levelled metaphors, several or

at least two initially poorly correlated domains can be

used. From them a single domain is subsequently

constructed. If the cognitive dissonance arising from

the perception of associative non-trivial metaphors or

the delay in decoding information is critical, then

understanding does not occur.

This class of metaphors includes structural,

ontological and polymodal (multimodal) metaphors,

for the understanding of which at least two semiotic

Classiﬁcation of Regional Metaphors from the Standpoint of Invariant Semantics

203

channels of information perception are used, for

example, verbal and visual. Mixed verbal-graphic

metaphors form one idea from two or more domains.

This is, for instance, embodied in metaphorical

memes, various kinds of promotional products

containing figurative rethinking on condition that

metaphors should not be trivial.

The polymodal metaphors are often analyzed with

the help of the theory of conceptual integration

developed by J. Fauconnier and M. Turner. Instead of

the two-term scheme of Lakoff and Johnson, they rely

on a system of four basic components, in which two

concepts project their components onto each other,

and do not replace one concept with another, as in the

theory of conceptual metaphor. Moreover, the

complete replacement of one domain by another

rarely occurs as through one meaning, as a rule,

“shines through” another (the effect of oscillation or

palimpsest).

Internet communication is often metaphorical and

polycodal. For example, at least two cognitive

processes occur if you see a picture of a tiger

preparing to jump and read the inscription: “This is

how your wife is waiting for you when you say that

you will come in 10 minutes, but come in 2 hours ...”.

We are witnessing an anthropomorphic, or rather

animate rethinking, when the qualities of an animal

are transferred to a person and, therefore, it must be

attributed to the first type of a simple intuitive

metaphor. However, at least two cognitive processes

are involved here: the perception and combination of

graphic and linguistic information. Based on this

criterion, such example of recategorization is more

difficult to perceive and can be attributed to the

second class of metaphors.

Nevertheless, we recognize that there is a field for

discussion here, as graphic perception may serve as

means of linguistic content understanding. In

addition, metaphors are so diverse and rooted in our

lives that it is extremely difficult to draw a clear

demarcation line of classification between them.

Finally, the third class of metaphors includes

folded multi-stage metaphors with multiple degrees

of understanding. In such transfers, the semantic

arrow in turn points to the semantic movement as a

multi-level (double, triple, etc.) rethought of

information, occurring in someone’s imagination.

This type of metaphors can cover the entire

literary work - a poem or prose (cf. F. Wheelwright's

diaphora, meaning the combination of the most

diverse details into a single new perspective). At the

same time, semantic information can be packed into

a number of metaphorical images that interact with

each other in the most unusual way. We are talking

about the formation of new complexes by successive

fusion of some impressions that are difficult to

commensurate.

Сritical thinking, a high level of culture, a good

working combination of flexible and crystallized

intelligence are needed to understand nested

metaphors. The individual must see a generalizing

idea and be abile to produce ideas.

In connection with the foregoing, it is important

to find the key to decoding at least basic intuitive

metaphors, to learn to see the commonality that unites

the contextual realizations of the figurative meanings

of the same word.

We have proposed a hypothesis for the effective

decoding of basic intuitive metaphors in order to rely

on the common thing that unites the contextual

realizations of the figurative meanings of the same

word. To do this, we use the concept of “lexical

invariant”, which we understand as an abstract

linguistic entity, a cluster of semantic components.

Еhis cluster underlies all or a number of meanings of

the polysemous word in one of its configurations in

accordance with the intuition of the average native

speaker.

In the process of a metaphor decoding as part of a

speech context, the lexical invariant can make it

easier and faster to understand the metaphor. The

context metaphor implements one of the dominant

semantic components of the lexical invariant. Or, in

other words, the latter is embodied in one of its

combinatorial variants (Solonchak, 2015).

Let us illustrate what has been said by presenting

below the results of the analysis of the English

polysemous substantive a leg. The following are the

invariant components that hold together the semantics

of the English word a leg which we call a lexical

invariant: a long straight, often lower and branching

off part of an object which acts as a support or a

distinct portion or a stage between two stops or

positions (long straight, often lower and a branching

part of an object that acts as a support or separate part

or step between two stops or positions).

This lexical invariant includes the most

significant integral and differential semantic

components and is formed at the level of the language

system through numerous contextual realizations of

meanings (in particular, metaphorical ones). It is

opposed to the term “variant”, which functions at the

speech level as a contextual realization of the

invariant. This opposition is built into the language-

speech dichotomy (Kostina, 2015; Pesina, 2021).

As an illustration of the functioning of the lexical

invariant, let us present an empirical invariant-

component analysis of the polysemous English word

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"

204

leg. All metaphorical meanings can be divided into

five clusters. In each of the clusters, the configuration

of the semantic components is somewhat different.

As a result of the analysis of 16 meanings of the

polysemous word a leg, the following groups of

metaphors can be identified:

− part of an object, long, straight, acts as a

support (leg of a triangle; leg of a

divider/compass – side of a triangle other than

base or hypotenuse);

− part of an object, long, straight, branching off

from the main object (leg of a road (a way

radiating from an intersection); leg of antenna

(a branch or lateral circuit connecting a

communication instrument with the main line);

leg of a cricket field (the part of the field to the

left of and behind a right-handed batsman and

vice versa);

− part of an object, long, straight, lower, acts as

a support (leg of a plant – the part of a plant

stem between the base and the point from

which branches arrive; leg of a table/chair/bed

(the part of furniture that rests on the floor and

helps to support its weight);

− a distinct portion or a stage between two stops

or positions, long, straight (leg of a long

journey/flight – one of the distinct portions or

stages of any course or journey; that part of an

air flight pattern that is between two successive

stops or positions, or changes in direction);

− part of an object, long, straight leg of a football

game/a dart match/races etс – a part of a game,

a part of a race, or a game of a pair or series of

games.

The content of the following value is as abstract

as possible: something resembling or suggesting a leg

in use, position or appearance [ACD]; something

resembling a support branch of a forked or joined

object [NDWEL]. This metaphorical meaning

implies a wide range of referents, suitable for the

concept of a support or a long branch from something.

This value indicates that over time, as metaphors are

used, a certain generalizing construct is formed in the

individual, which increases the efficiency of his

thinking.

The equivalent of this word in Russian is not rich

in metaphors and has less anthropomorphic power

than the English one. It is actually only a metaphor,

such as “a leg of a chair”. The Russian polysemous

word is rich in phraseological units, like its English

equivalent, in which the components of the main

meaning are realized: вверх ногами (upside down),

на широкую ногу (to live richly, not embarrassed in

means), на короткой (дружеской) ноге (in close,

friendly relations), ни в зуб ногой (not to understand

anything), etc.

The marker of the lexical invariant functioning is

the appearance of the meanings beginning with the

following words: “something resembling or

suggesting ...” For the word a leg we can present the

following meanings of broad semantics: “something

resembling a hood in shape or use” [LDCE] (for the

polysemantic a hood), “something resembling or

suggesting a leg in use, position or appearance” (for

the polysemantic a leg), “that part of anything which

is considered as forming the top or upper end; the

foremost part or projecting end of anything"

[NWDEL] (for the a head polysemant), any

projection resembling or suggesting a tooth

[NWDEL] (for the a tooth polysemant).

Let us consider some other examples of such

meanings: “something that resembles a blanket,

anything that covers”, “a series of closely linked or

connected things, a number of connected things,

events etc.” [Oxford St.] (for word a chain), “a small

piece of something” (for word a knob), “something

resembling a bridge in form or function” [LDCE] (for

word a bridge), “a division into usually two parts or

one of the parts” [CIDE] (for word a fork). The more

frequent the word, the more reason to expect it to

develop an extended polysemy with a developed

metaphor and a subsequent tendency towards broad

meaning.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The presented classifications of metaphors testify to

the levels of understanding by a person of the world

of conventions that he himself creates. It reflects the

nuances of the interpretation of refracted reality and

the ontological connection between the features of the

subjective perception of the surrounding world and

the world itself.

The refracted world can be endowed with the

same physiological and spiritual properties as the

person himself due to the need to create his own

comfortable psychological space and explain the laws

and mechanisms of functioning of the often hostile

environment. A person, in accordance with the

anthropic worldview, adapts his habitat to himself,

apparently using innate mechanisms of metaphorical

categorization of reality.

This refracted world is reflected and embodied in

the nuclear information formed behind the structure

of the word about the semantics of this word, in what

we call the lexical invariant. It functions at the

background level, providing an effective quick access

Classiﬁcation of Regional Metaphors from the Standpoint of Invariant Semantics

205

to the semantics of a metaphor, fastens the structure

of the polysemous word, preventing it from

disintegrating into homonyms. The lexical invariant

involves referring directly to the dominant nuclear

features of the word, which underlie the metaphors,

are learned intuitively and are absolutely necessary

for the successful decoding of hidden meanings.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION

S. Pesina a performed the research; S. Pitina, A.

Taskaeva and E Kharchenko contributed to the

analysis of the results; Y. Vtorushina designed and

directed the project. All authors discussed the results

and contributed to the final manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To the financial support of the grant of the Russian

Scientific Fund and Chelyabinsk Region, project №

22-18-20022, https://rscf.ru/project/22-18-20022/.

REFERENCES

Ackerman P. L., Beier M. E., Boyle M. O., 2005. Working

memory and intelligence:

The same or diﬀerent constructs? PSYCHOLOGICAL

BULLETIN. 131, pp. 30-60.

Cattell R. B., 1971. Abilities: Their Structure, Growth, and

Action.

Kostina N., Zerkina N., Pesina S., 2015. Polysemous Words

Functioning and Process of Concept Formation.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 192. 24. pp.

690-694.

Lakoﬀ G., Johnson M., 1980. Metaphors we live by.

Marks L. E., Stevence J. C., 1966. Individual brightness

functions. Perception and Psychophysics. 1. p. 17.

Pesina S. А., Zimareva О. L., Baklykova Т. Y., 2019.

Experimental Study of Semantic Structure of the Word

in Terms of Anthropocentric Approach. Humanities

and Pedagogy Studies. 3. 4. pp. 34-38.

Pesina S. А., Vinogradova S. A., Kiseleva S.V., Trofimova

N. A., Pastushkova M. A., Ovcharenko N. V., 2021.

Functional aspects of indeterminacy category and

invariant study of polysemous words. REVISTA

ENTRELINGUAS. 7. 8. pp. 1-10.

Pesina S. A., Yusupova L. G., Kozhushkova N. V.,

Baklykova T. Yu., Golubeva I. A., Velikanova S. S.,

2021. Representation of polysemous words in lexicon.

Applied Linguistics Research Journal. 5. 2. pp. 131-

136.

Pesina S. A., Yusupova L. G., Vinogradova S. A, Kiseleva,

S. V, Trofimova N. F., Rudakova S. V., Baklykova T.

Yu., 2021. Functioning of metaphor through the prism

of invariant theory in polysemy. Applied Linguistics

Research Journal. 4. 5. pp. 247-252.

Solonchak T., Pesina S., 2015. Cognitive Properties of

Images and Metaphors. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences. 192. 24. pp. 650-655.

Solonchak T., Pesina S., 2015. Language Ability and Word

Functioning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences. 192. 24. pp. 447-452.

Solonchak T., Pesina S., 2015. Lexicon Core and Its

Functioning Metaphors. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences. 192. 24. pp. 481-485.

[ACD] − American College Dictionary, 1951.

[CIDE] − Cambridge International Dictionary of English

Language, 1995.

[LDCE] − Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,

1995.

[NWDEL] − New Webster′s Dictionary of English

Language. College ed. - 4th repr., 1989.

[Oxford St.] - Oxford Student’s Dictionary of Current

English, 1981.

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"

206