Cognitive Metaphor in English Digital Discourse: Embodied Schemas in the Conceptualization of Online Activity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23132292
Abstract
This article examines conventional metaphors that organize the vocabulary of English digital discourse and explains how embodied experience provides cognitive structure for abstract online activity. The analysis focuses on recurrent expressions such as platform, window, page, navigate, stream, traffic, feed, viral, footprint, cloud and thread. Drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory and image-schema approaches, the study treats these units not as isolated stylistic ornaments but as evidence of systematic mappings from spatial, material, biological and motion-related experience to digital concepts. A qualitative semantic analysis shows that container, path, surface, flow, nourishment, contagion and trace schemas make technologically complex processes easier to conceptualize and communicate. The study also distinguishes between metaphorical motivation and lexical conventionalization: many digital metaphors remain cognitively transparent even after becoming routine technical vocabulary. The proposed classification clarifies how embodied schemas contribute to terminological productivity, user-interface language and the everyday interpretation of digital environments.
Keywords:
Cognitive metaphor digital discourse image schema conceptualization embodied cognition lexicalizationReferences
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753
Published
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Maxfuza Alisher qizi Yazdonova

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
