Meaningfulness of Religious Language in the Light of Conceptual Metaphorical Use of Image Schema: A Cognitive Semantic Approach

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Iranian Association for Philosophy of Religion

2 Iranian educational administration


According to modern religious studies, religions are rooted in certain metaphorical representations, so they are metaphorical in nature. This article aims to show, first, how conceptual metaphors employ image schemas to make our language meaningful, and then to assert that image-schematic structure of religious expressions, by which religious metaphors conceptualize abstract meanings, is the basis of meaningfulness of religious language. Authors benefit from cognitive theories of some eminent semanticists, such as Mark Johnson, Jean Mandler, George Lakoff, et al., on metaphors. There are, as described by cognitive semantics, many preconceptual patterns that constitute a network of meaningful image-schemata upon which our primary knowledge is grounded. It is argued that image-schemata are inherently meaningful, and conceptual metaphors by using these image-schemata transmit the meaningfulness to the religious representations.


Abdulmoneim, Mohamed Shokr. 2006. “The Metaphorical Concept ‘Life is a Journey’ in the Qur’an: a Cognitive-semantic Analysis.” 10: 94-132.
El-Sharif, Ahmad. 2011. “A Linguistic Study of Islamic Religious Discourse: Conceptual Metaphors in the Prophetic Tradition.” PhD diss., Queen Mary-University.
Erussard, Laurence. 1997. “From SALT to SALT: Cognitive Metaphor and Religious Language.” Cuadernos de FilologiaInglesa, 612: 197-212.
Evans, Vyvyan. 2007. A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin K. Bergen, and Jörg Zinken. 2007. “The Cognitive Linguistics Enterprise: An Overview.” In the Cognitive Linguistics Reader, edited by V. Evans, B. Bergen, and J. Zinken. London: Equinox.
Fillmore, Charles. 1975. “An Alternative to Check List Theories of Meaning.” Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123-131.
Grady, Joseph, Todd Oakley, and Sean Coulson. 1999. “Blending and metaphor.” In Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by R. W. Gibbs and G. Steen. 101-124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jäkel, Olaf. 2002. “Hypotheses Revisited: The Cognitive Theory of Metaphor Applied to Religious Texts.” 2: 20-42.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1989. “Image-Schematic Bases of Meaning.” RSSI (Recherches Semiotique/Semiotic Inquiry 9: 109-118.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1990. “The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas?” Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 39-74.
Lakoff, George, and Henry Thompson. 1975. “Introduction to Cognitive Grammar.” Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 295-313.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live by. London: The university of Chicago press.
———. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge for Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Mandler, Jean. 1992. “How to Build a Baby II. Conceptual Primitives.” Psychological Review 99: 567-604.
———. 2004. The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104 (3): 192-233.
Tracy, David, 1978. “Metaphor and Religion: The Test Case of Christian Texts.” Critical Inquiry 5(1): 91-106.
Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.