ASp

la revue du GERAS
19-22 | 1998
Théorie et pratique des discours spécialisés

Understanding science: when metaphors become

terms
Kathryn English

Electronic version
URL: [Link]
DOI: 10.4000/asp.2800
ISSN: 2108-6354

Publisher
Groupe d'étude et de recherche en anglais de spécialité

Printed version
Date of publication: 1 December 1998
Number of pages: 151-163
ISSN: 1246-8185

Electronic reference
Kathryn English, « Understanding science: when metaphors become terms », ASp [Online],
19-22 | 1998, Online since 13 March 2012, connection on 30 April 2019. URL : http://
[Link]/asp/2800 ; DOI : 10.4000/asp.2800

This text was automatically generated on 30 April 2019.

Tous droits réservés

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 1

Understanding science: when

metaphors become terms
Kathryn English

Introduction
1 Terminology theory and metaphor theory can be mutually enriching. Metaphor theory
uses the concept of assumptive frameworks, as well as source and target fields to clarify
how metaphors function. Terminology theory describes conceptual space, and defines
terms in a way that could subsequently explain them. Within the framework of Language
for Specific Purposes, concepts roam from one field to another and this illustrates the
need for a pragmatic perspective to define meaning. We will first examine how metaphor
theory and terminology can work together to facilitate access to scientific concepts via
description, explanation and definition. We will then explore in more detail the use of
assumptive frameworks in relativist or defined (demetaphored) contexts.

1. Metaphor theory and learning in the sciences

2 Students learning science need to associate theoretical descriptions and explanations of
how things in the universe work with common sense, or knowledge derived from
everyday experience. This process builds up background knowledge or theory and can
provoke what philosophers refer to as intuition dissonance, when common sense and
theory conflict. Resolution of dissonance requires retracing historical steps or using
heuristic devices of rationalisation. For example, understanding the heliocentric universe
(with the sun at the centre) makes more sense once one has understood the ways in
which the geocentric model is inadequate. On the other hand we can all understand how
easy it is to believe that the Sun might revolve around the Earth since we see it rise from
the East and set, reliably, in the West.
3 Contemporary metaphor theory was born within the context of analytical philosophy. In
his seminal article entitled “Metaphor” the American philosopher, Max Black (1955)

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 2

introduced the concept of assumptive frameworks or systems of associated

commonplaces to describe how intuitively dissonant statements can be explained in
understandable words and then shared with others using the traditional rhetorical device
known as metaphor. An assumptive framework allows us to filter out what appears to be
useless information —the unused part of metaphor— and focus on what we deem
pertinent for the statement, text, or problem at hand. Take, for example, this famous
metaphor, expressed as a truth value, “Man is a wolf”. We express the new or unusual,
the target, in terms of concepts which are better known and assumed to be commonly
shared, the source (Fig. 1a). When several source fields interact, a new mental space is
opened. This is known as conceptual blending (Fig.1b). (Rohrer 1997; Fauconnier 1997)

Figure 1. A visual representation of Black’s interaction hypothesis

4 In the example above, we describe the cruelty of mankind by activating a common

assumptive framework. We automatically filter out information which is unused (four-
footed, furry, having fangs, etc.) and concentrate on a highly-specific and tailor-designed-
for-the-task-at-hand system of associated commonplaces. In this case we focus on the
characteristics of being wild, ferocious, dangerous (Fig.2). It doesn’t really matter if what
we assume about something, and therefore focus on, is inaccurate. Are wolves really
fierce? Zoologists indicate the contrary; wolves are not fierce but rather cowardly
mammals. Such comparisons rely on a common cultural background which is currently
under examination in the Figurative Language Network discussion list (
fln@[Link]). In fact, the wolves we know are literary creatures. They come from
folk tales or comic strips. This reinforces their character stereotype at the expense of
more objectified dictionary definitions.

Figure 2. When a metaphor is operational we focus on a selection of features and this activates a
perspective or opens a new mental space.

5 However, as with any statement, it is the pragmatic perspective that defines meaning. A
point of view is essential to grasping any metaphor. Misunderstood or spoiled metaphors
are frequently the result of differing interpretations across cultures. Language teachers
know and use the concept of cross-cultural perspectives on a daily basis. They

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 3

instinctively take into account the fact that someone is speaking to someone else about a
given subject. The context designates grammatical subjects, situates time frames,
determines which articles are used or provides naturally correct prepositions. In a similar
way, scientific models also appear to refer to assumptive frameworks —those in which
their legitimacy is grounded.
6 Learning in the technical sciences entails the appropriation of concepts and precise
quantification techniques. This, however, should in no way exclude metaphoric
qualitative explanation and the activation of potentially contradictory systems of
associated commonplaces. More concretely, scientific texts contain elements of
description, definition and explanation. All three dimensions interact to produce
meaningful communication. We will examine them below.

1.1. Description

7 Description of phenomena can come in the form of verbal rules. Electricity flows from the
negative to the positive pole. The literal description of Ohm's law is current = voltage/
resistance or (I=V/R). The description of processes may also list the order of events
required to reach a given (desired) stage of development. For example, in data-
processing, instructions can be given in a strictly linear, hierarchical and sequential form,
such as in the MS-DOS computer operating system. Alternatively, instructions may be
presented metaphorically, via the more user-friendly, Graphic User Interface (GUI)
depicting a desktop. The MAC OS and Windows 95 operating system use these
metaphorical techniques to make complex computer technology seem simple to ordinary
users.
8 The underlying assumption behind the linear vision of description is that the world exists
in an objectively literal form and the scientist’s task is to find straightforward ways of
describing it. Similarly, the linguist working in specialised languages tends to identify
objective observation with literal language.
Science is supposed to be characterised by precision and the absence of ambiguity,
and the language of science is assumed to be correspondingly precise and
unambiguous —in short, literal. (Ortony 1993: 1)
9 However, literal language is not necessarily objective and literal statements certainly do
not guarantee objectivity. Attitudes about language itself are often expressed by linguists
in terms of generic metaphors. The conduit metaphor, presented by M. Reddy of
Columbia University (in Ortony 1993: 167) illustrates how this objective and literal view of
language may operate. Language is seen as a carrier of ideas, values, and beliefs. The
listener unpacks the message to take out what was in it. Reddy provides an extensive list of
expressions in English to support this idea. A selection of his examples follow:
You have to put each concept into words very carefully.
Insert those ideas elsewhere in the paragraph.
Try to pack more thoughts into fewer words.
Try to get your thoughts across better.
10 Scientific description and attitudes toward language share the notion that both seem to
be framed by the same objectivist paradigm. Learning to use or already using a language
is mistakenly assumed to be like learning a scientific concept. It is a question of
transmitting information from someone who knows to someone who doesn’t know yet.

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 4

11 Substantial grassroots work in the ESP field (autonomous learning, learner

empowerment, guided autonomy), however, points to a different perspective. It is hardly
necessary in these pages to suggest that language learners do not merely memorise words
or rules of grammar. More emphatically, the physiopsychologist J.F. Lambert, suggested
during the CERCLES conference in Bordeaux 1997 that using language involves action,
“Pour apprendre une langue il faut la prendre”. In other words, learning a language
necessarily entails learner empowerment. This would imply activating or modifying his/
her assumptive frameworks.
12 The use of language (Langue), and its instantiation (Parole), is testimony to effective
appropriation. For this, learners need more than to cram the formula behind it. They
require an understanding of the causes and effects of language. In the world of science
this would be formulated as the concept of explanation.

1.2. Explanation

13 Explanation differs from description in that it seeks to elucidate the mechanisms that
underpin the descriptive rules. Recourse to instructive metaphor is frequent when
abstract concepts must be learned. Richard E. Mayer from the University of California at
Santa Barbara quotes a well-known scientific textbook which explicitly compares
electricity to water flowing in pipes to explain Ohm’s law.
To understand this idea, compare the pictures of pipes. [Pictures show water
coming out of a narrow pipe and water coming out of a wide pipe.] The only
difference in the pipe is their diameters. The pump pushes water equally in both
cases. But more water passes through the pipe with the large opening. The larger
pipe offers less resistance to the flow of water than the smaller pipe. In a similar
way, more current flows through a conductor with less resistance than through a
conductor with more resistance. (Mayer in Ortony 1993: 562)
14 Clearly the verbal description of Ohm’s law, given in section 1.1, is shorter, more
economic than the wordy explanation. However, the re-deployment of the visual analogy
with pipes allows the students to intuitively grasp the abstract concepts and make the
verbal law, i.e. the law of physics expressed in words, real. In the case of the well-known
metaphor, Internet-is-an-information superhighway, larger cables are frequently
depicted as transmitting information at a faster rate. In reality, just like the truth value of
wolves being fierce, the modern, narrow cables use higher bit rates to carry more
information. This ‘intuitively dissonant' metaphor functions well —even if the underlying
reality is false. So, although succinct mathematical notation is sometimes unavoidable, so
are the half-truths of metaphor which often underpin the equations.
...Description without explanation is incomplete ... literal precision without models
or metaphors of the underlying mechanisms is sterile. (Mayer in Ortony 1993: 566)
15 Description and explanation go hand in hand in both developing concepts and
communicating them to others. But, on the other hand, definitions, are used to situate
and limit the conceptual space designated by specific concepts. They tie the metaphorical
to the literal and situate mental spaces within flexible terminological trees.

1.3. Definition (demetaphoring)

16 It is well known that definitions of scientific concepts are often difficult or even
impossible to understand for the uninitiated reader. A selection of characteristics is

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 5

retained in order to distinguish the generic hyperonym from a more specific hyponym.
Descriptions are therefore trimmed to their necessary and sufficient minimums and
explanation is considered superfluous. Take for example this definition, in French, of the
concept cellule in topology, a field of mathematics dealing with Euclidean spaces.

Table 1

17 It is assumed that the person consulting the mathematics dictionary where this definition
was given possesses sufficient conceptual baggage to understand the lexical and
notational items at work. For the linguist more explanation may be necessary. He may
look up another dictionary, which makes learning long and laborious. In addition,
definitions usually deal with dead metaphors as we will see below. The concept cell
involves a specified area which can assume any shape and is defined by its interior, its
boundary (homeomorphic or not) and this also implies the existence of an exterior. For
example, a lump of clay can assume any shape, but its overall volume or topological space
remains constant. It is homeomorphous if there are no holes or corners in its boundary.
The concept and its name, cell, appear to have phenomenological or experiential and
metaphoric origins.1 In his well-known book, Metaphors We Live By, the American linguist
George Lakoff, lays out the linguistic basis for metaphoric grounding using extensive
examples drawn from everyday, non specialised language. For example, the /containe/r
scheme reflects one of the most fundamental human instincts —that of territory.
We are physical beings, bounded and set off from the rest of the world by the
surface of our skins, and we experience the rest of the world as outside us. Each of
us is a container, with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation. (Lakoff &
Johnson 1980: 29)
18 Thus, the grammar of everyday language is testimony to the relation between language
and an individual perception of reality. In a sentence, content words and grammatical
words interact. This interactive association introduces a specific framework or series of
shared commonplaces. Here are some of Lakoff’s examples (1980: 30-31):
• The Visual Field = a container The ship is coming into view. I have him in sight. (...)
• Events, Actions, Activities, and States = container object
Are you in the race on Saturday ?
Halfway into the race, I ran out of energy. (...)
• Activities viewed as containers
In washing the window, I splashed water all over the floor. [...]
19 In these examples it is relatively straightforward to see how the speaker experiences his
universe.
20 In the definition of the concept cellule, the term may be considered what the Belgian
terminologist Rita Temmerman refers to as demetaphored (1995: 110). In fact, the device of
figurative language that is first used to explain and describe (perhaps even invent) a

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 6

notion is subsequently transformed into a standardised term which, via definition, is

granted the prestige of literal language. The standardised definition confers official term
recognition to what may have previously been a fluctuating value due to visibly
metaphorical expression. The act of ‘demetaphorisation’ is the product of a discourse
community which includes not only authors and readers but also a specified
communication situation which would guarantee reference to the shared assumptive
frameworks mentioned above.
21 However, the concept cellule is subject to multiple interpretations according to the
specific purpose required by the user. In one case I consulted a pure mathematician who
felt the concept could not be represented visually since, by definition, it exists in n
dimensions and can take on any form. Later, an engineer deployed the same
mathematical notation to represent the concept visually. This representation is given in
figure 3.

Figure 3. One possible, two-dimensional representation of the concept cell in topology

22 Is either one ‘correct'? The mathematician is perhaps correct in respecting to the letter
the notational definition of n dimensions. The engineer needs to bend the truth to give a
usable, visual representation. Both use the concept for their own specific purposes and
interpret the notation according to their own assumptive frameworks. The mathematical
notation is however, considered unambiguous. It can be applied, or reproduced to give
predictable results.
23 But how do students go about learning both precise formulae as well as reductive or
blatantly false metaphoric descriptions? From the perspective of defining dissonant
assumptive frameworks it is interesting to note how students read verbal or notational
information.

2. Using assumptive frameworks to retain scientific

concepts
24 We have seen how metaphor can be used to describe and perhaps even create a new
conceptual, mental space. Water flowing through pipes, imaginary information highways
and graphic user interface (GUI) desktops or imaginary, homeomorphic boundaries
present an approximate image but a representation that is sufficient to access some
understanding of the abstract concepts under consideration. A strong analogy can help
the student learn an underlying process and this approach can be refined by quantifying
the situation using different mathematical notation.

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 7

25 Research in the cognitive sciences has suggested that the mental model students use, i.e.
the mental metaphor, influences how they go about formulating mathematical notation.
For example, students who used the flowing water metaphor to solve problems related to
Ohm’s law performed differently than those who used a different, teeming crowd
metaphor (where current is seen as particles clinging together). Macintosh users
automatically file metaphorical dossiers in metaphorical trash cans which become plump
when filled. MS-DOS users learn how to delete by checking a codebox. The metaphor
structures the argument, albeit unwittingly.
26 Not only do formulations differ according to the metaphor in use but information appears
to possess different priority levels. Research on expertise in scientific problem solving
suggests that experts
[…] rely initially on qualitative reasoning and, if the problem requires it, employ
quantitative models after they had [sic] analysed the problem in conceptual,
qualitative terms. (White & Frederiksen,1987: 281)
27 Analysis of students’ eye movements when solving arithmetic word problems show that
successful students look first at the words in the problem before looking at the numbers
(Hegarty, Mayer & Green 1992: 76-84). In scientific problems, it would seem that solving
qualitative reasoning precedes quantitative calculation. Curiously then, the function of
explanation appears to precede description.
Unless one presupposes that most of the work of grasping the metaphor has already
occurred , the ‘literal’ definition may not do the trick at all. (Petrie 1976)
28 Assumptive frameworks are essential to the interpretation of metaphors as well as the
appropriation of scientific models. Highlighting essential characteristics and screening
unused portions of metaphors (the furry, four-footedness of wolves in the “Man is a wolf”
metaphor), not only conveys the message but puts a living, culturally-grounded author
behind it. The economy of language, a defining characteristic of LSP, is preserved by the
automatic activation of a common assumptive framework. The conventional transparent
windowpane metaphor used to describe scientific prose, has given way to a discourse
umbrella, which more accurately describes the situation of a technical author, a language
teacher, or a student all working within their own series of assumptive frameworks. Their
interaction takes place within a defined setting, or an assumed communication situation
which can range from the classroom to the technical journal. It is their shared
expectations that foster understanding.
29 In this section we have examined how metaphors can provide the descriptive and
explanatory elements which are lacking in formal definitions. Learners and experts use
both figurative, qualitative analysis as well as literal, quantitative formulation. However,
even formal notation, as illustrated by the use of the concept cell in topology, is subject to
differing interpretations according to the specific purposes of the language/concept user.
30 In the following section we will examine some consequences of the persistence of the
view of specialised language in light of the transparent windowpane metaphor. This
outdated metaphor or communication paradigm seriously underestimates the impact of
situational interpretation, instantiation or Parole in specialist discourse.

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 8

3. Ignoring assumptive frameworks

31 We have seen that scientific concepts require formal notation and definition, but may
also need metaphorical description and explanation. Students focus first on essential
information and they are the ones to judge what is essential since they are the final
consumers of a text. In other words, the learner establishes his own approach to a text
and that defines what user expectations are. The instantiation of Language, the industry
of Parole, uses the transformational capacities of metaphor to generate boundaries of
meaning. Metaphor or nomadic concepts, which according to Isabelle Stengers (1987) are
notions borrowed from other fields, operate within these assumptive frameworks. We
will examine some consequences of this approach below.

3.1. Metaphors in a ‘relativist’ context

32 Emerging technologies require new words and frequently borrow from other fields which
may be contiguous or totally unrelated. What features or defining characteristics do
biological cells and mathematical cells share? Alternatively, what do the words “syntax”,
“semantics”, “grammar” mean when the computer scientist refers to them instead of the
(natural) language teacher? In nearly all cases, meanings expand, contract or are reduced
due to their transfer through differing assumptive frameworks. The French philosopher,
Paul Ricoeur, in a series of dialogues with the neuroscientist J.-P. Changeux, refers to this
as semantic duality.
De cette hypothèse de travail qui rend possible un échange d’informations et
d’arguments entre philosophes et scientifiques, je tirerai une maxime, non de
complaisance, mais de concession: face à des connexions bien établies, le
scientifique s’autorise lui-même —ou plutôt est autorisé par le consentement tacite de
la communauté scientifique— à introduire dans ses modèles explicatifs des
explications mixtes abrégées qui démentent le dualisme sémantique. Ainsi le
scientifique s’autorise-t-il à dire que le cerveau est ‘concerné’ par tel ou tel
phénomène mental, qu’il y est ‘impliqué’, qu’il est ‘responsable de’. (...) Pour le
philosophe, grand lecteur de textes scientifiques, c’est un devoir d’ajouter la
tolérance sémantique à la critique sémantique ; de ratifier pratiquement ce qu’il
dénonce sémantiquement. (Ricoeur 1998: 55) (my italics)
33 Is the scientist lying when he states that the brain is “concerned”? Or is it his subjective
construction of language and therefore relative vision of truth? For the French
semanticist, Robert Martin, this instantiation of language reflects one’s universe of beliefs
which is constrained by the concept of the individual —the univers de croyance of the given
person. Martin uses the notation Uje to illustrate this semantic value.
Le propre de la vérité langagière —constatation banale mais qui n’en est pas moins
décisive— est une vérité prise en charge par un sujet. Un énoncé est vrai pour
quelqu’un. Tout l’effort du locuteur consiste à faire admettre ce qu’il croit être vrai.
Peu importe que le locuteur mente: aux yeux du linguiste est vrai ce que le locuteur
asserte, la présomption étant celle de la sincérité. Peu importe que le locuteur se
trompe, que ce qu’il dit être vrai ne corresponde pas aux données de l’univers. Une
assertion véhicule en tant que telle sa propre vérité ; celle-ci vaut à tout le moins à
l’intérieur d’un univers dont le locuteur —à tort ou à raison, de bonne foi ou non—
se porte garant. (Martin 1992: 38) (my italics)
34 Clearly then, the truth value of a statement, be it literal or metaphorical, lies in the eye of
the beholder.

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 9

3.2. Metaphors in a demetaphored context

35 Consideration of truth, be it literal, metaphoric or demetaphored, leads to the criticism

the American physicist, Alan Sokal and Belgian physicist and philosopher of science, Jean
Bricmont, formulated against French intellectuals and cognitive relativism in general.
Their book, Les Impostures intellectuels is becoming a best-seller and engineering students
and scientific instructors feel a sort of revenge is being rightfully accomplished. Sokal
and Bricmont state that they intend to illustrate how physico-mathematical concepts are
abused and when this is reiterated, abuse becomes an imposture. They feel that specific,
well-known texts are considered profound simply because they appear incomprehensible.
For Sokal and Bricmont they are meaningless and they state “Sous les habits d’empereur,
le roi est nu”. Sokal and Bricmont intend to defend the “canons de rationalité et de
l’honnêteté intellectuelle” so they examine the truth values of concepts used by authors
who use certain scientific concepts for their own specific purposes which are not those
for which they were originally designed. We could call it the unauthorised borrowing or
trespassing over nomadic concepts.
36 Sokal and Bricmont claim to be modest in their approach:
Quant aux vérités profondes contenues dans les textes que nous citons, il est vrai
que nous ne les percevons pas. (1997: 18)
37 However they seem to be more confident in their conclusions:
Par conséquent, nous restons sceptiques sur l’existence de ces vérités profondes.
(1997: 18)
38 Among other notions, Sokal and Bricmont criticise Lacan’s mathematics. They comment
on conferences which were given; the language retained is in a spoken form. They
criticise Lacan’s use of topology and quote a conference given in 1972:
Dans cet espace de la jouissance, prendre quelque chose de borné, fermé, c’est un
lieu, et en parler, c’est une topologie.
39 The authors contend that espace, borné, fermé, and topologie are mathematical terms and
Lacan’s text is therefore gobbledegook since the combination of these terms, according to
their absolute values would amount to nonsense. A student in psychology would however
probably not retain mathematical truth values for these terms; rather he would activate
his own assumptive framework and focus on the aspects which pertain to his study. The
engineer granting absolute, formal value to these terms would be disoriented in his effort
to learn about Lacanien psychology. Clearly, in this case, the terms espace, borné, fermé are
sufficiently marked in psychology; at the very least they are so polysemic as to afford an
interpretative assessment. That is, one which is attributed for a specific purpose —the
specific purpose at hand— which is not necessarily its original one. One way of analysing
how concepts roam from one field to another would be to examine the assumptive
frameworks which underpin the instantiation. In other words, the metaphor, even in a
literal or demetaphored expression, is still to some degree, alive and kicking.
40 The student studying Lacan would probably not focus on the absolute value of
mathematical concepts used to describe humanity. He might well be in complete
ignorance of these mathematical concepts. Rather he would use them as touches of paint
to approach some form of qualitative understanding —such as the analogy of modelling
clay for cell in topology, or flowing water for electricity. The successful student would
refer to his own universe of belief, his Uje to access Lacan’s description of the

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 10

subconscious. One need not know about the quality of the clay or the heat of the water to
foster a qualitative approach. Accessing Lacan’s text requires the attribution of a more
contextual, relative value for these adopted and thereby distorted terms. Few scholars
read Lacan to learn math. Sokal and Bricmont seem to expect all uses of math to be
rigorously true —although, from the point of view of the humanities, would it not be
rather worrisome to require an understanding of the subconscious in terms of absolute
values? Emerging theories in the humanities, literary criticism, psychology or the special
fields of linguistics require new concepts and researchers grapple for words to describe
them. Borrowing terms from other sciences is one way of bridging this gap.

Conclusion
41 Metaphor poses specific problems for both onomasiologically-oriented terminology
theory and applied terminography. Traditional terminological tools identify relations
between concepts (generic to specific) and link monosemic terms to them via definition.
The other partners of the didactic process description and explanation, are more
explicitly metaphoric and therefore more difficult to process on information-lean term
files. Contemporary metaphor theory has developed tools to account for metaphor;
source and target fields, assumptive frameworks, and systems of associated
commonplaces. Behind the precise terminology of a given scientific field, there are living
root metaphors which structure the comprehension of phenomena. Metaphor theory can
help shed light on some of the ambiguous aspects of terminological work. For example, is
it the specific purpose of a text that establishes the legitimacy of its metaphors? Or is
their validity grounded in an infinitely regressive, outside authority with a putative bird’s
eye view.
42 We have seen that were a student to apply an excellent understanding of mathematics to
the study of Lacan he would be bound for failure. By teaching a language aren’t we also
trying to learn the language of otherness – a different set of absolute or relative values?
Learning more than words and conventions of discourse can lead to more flexible
interpretative skills – and a new way of seeing things. Reading for specific purposes
implies this non-neutral approach to text. It implicitly recognises the legitimacy of the
author’s position.
43 Assumptive frameworks and systems of associated commonplaces can help situate new
knowledge and adapt our previous way of seeing things. They can also, at least
theoretically, account for modifications in language use. Metaphors challenge the status
quo. Theoretical advances account for the way metaphors work and make explicit what is
considered literal within each designated discourse community. In this way metaphor
theory and terminology theory could be of mutual benefit to each other.

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 11

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Black, Max. “Metaphor”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S. (1954-55), 273-294.

Bouvier, A., M. George & F. Le Lionnais. 1993. Dictionnaire des Mathématiques. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.

Changeux, Jean-Pierre & Paul Ricœur. 1998. La nature et la règle : Ce qui nous fait penser. Paris:
Éditions Odile Jacob.

Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner.1997. “Conceptual integration and formal expression”. Journal
of Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10/3 [Link]
#papers

Green, Thomas F. 1993. “Learning without metaphor”. In Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and
Thought 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hegarty, M., R.E. Mayer & C.E. Green.1992. “Comprehension of arithmetic word problems.
Evidence from students’ eye movements”. Journal of Educational Psychology 84, 76-84.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.

Martin, Robert. 1983. Pour une logique du sens, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Mayer, Richard E. 1993. “The instructive metaphor. Metaphoric aids to students' understanding
of science”. In Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Ortony, Andrew (ed.). 1993. Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Petrie, H.G. 1976. “Metaphorical models of mastery: Or how to learn to do the problems at the
end of the chapter in the physics textbook”. In Cohen, R.S., C.A. Hooker, A.C. Michalos & J.W. van
Evra (eds.), Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1974. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.

Reddy, Michael J. 1993. “The Conduit Metaphor”. In Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and Thought,
2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rohrer, Tim. 1997. “Conceptual Blending on the Information Highway: How Metaphorical
Inferences Work”. In International Cognitive Linguistics Conference ‘95 Proceedings, v.2 Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. [Link]

Sokal, Alain & Jean Bricmont. 1997. Les impostures intellectuelles. Paris: Éditions Odile Jacob.

Stengers, Isabelle (ed).1991. D’une science à l’autre. Des concepts nomades. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Temmerman, Rita. 1995. “The process of revitalisation of old words: ‘Splicing’, a case study in the
extension of reference”. Terminology 2/1, 107-128.

White, B.Y. & J.R. Frederiksen. 1987. “Qualitative models and intelligent learning environments”.
In Lawler,, R.W. & M. Yazdani (eds.), Artificial intelligence and education (vol. 1). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.

ASp, 19-22 | 1998

 Understanding science: when metaphors become terms 12

NOTES
1. Experiential and phenomenological are similar adjectives with different genealogies.
Experientialism comes from the American philosopher John Dewey (Experience and Nature, 1927),
and is based on experience as a unitary aesthetic whole. Phenomenology, as defended by, for
example, Paul Ricoeur, refers to the world as people experience it, opposing the myth of a
noumenal world underlying experience.

ABSTRACTS
Terminology is one of the main industries of specialised communication. This paper proposes an
account of how metaphors and terms interact when students learn scientific concepts and the
linguistic processes that drive designation when researchers try to name emerging concepts.
Selected tools of metaphor theory: assumptive frameworks, conceptual blending, source and
target fields will be presented along with terminological tools including concept description and
term definition which, if only theoretically, lead to monosemous, field-restricted terms.

La terminologie est une industrie de base dans la communication spécialisée. L’auteur examine
l’interaction entre métaphores et termes techniques lors de l’apprentissage des concepts
scientifiques, ainsi que les processus linguistiques de désignation des concepts nouveaux. Une
sélection d’outils qui relève de la théorie de la métaphore : le cadre de présupposés, l’agrégation
conceptuelle, les champs sources et les champs cibles est présentée. Deux outils de la
terminologie, la description de concepts et la définition des termes ont pour but, au moins dans
la théorie, de fournir des termes monosémiques dans un champ restreint.

INDEX
Keywords: assumptive framework, cognitive relativism, LSP, metaphor, terminology
Mots-clés: cadre des présupposés, langue de spécialité, métaphore, relativisme cognitif,
terminologie

AUTHOR
KATHRYN ENGLISH
Kathryn English est enseignant-chercheur à l’Institut National des Télécommunications. Elle a
soutenu en 1997 une thèse intitulée « Une place pour la métaphore dans la théorie de la
terminologie : les télécommunications en anglais et en français ». Elle s’intéresse à la théorie de
la métaphore, à la terminologie, à la communication interculturelle et à la communication par
réseaux informatiques. [Link]@[Link]

ASp, 19-22 | 1998