Metaphor in nature: a figure of action, perception and environment
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2026-1-93-120
The increasing prominence of interdisciplinary scientific projects, such as neurophenomenology, ecolinguistics, and bio- and ecosemiotics, has provided a wealth of empirical data that enables a more nuanced ecological understanding of metaphor. Traditionally viewed as mere figures of speech, metaphors can now be conceptualized as patterns of experience that not only influence our behavior, thought, and language but also shape our environment by creating "augmented constraints" on our perceptions. In our article, we explore metaphor from the naturalist perspective, as an integral function within the brain–body–environment system and as an ecological extension of our organismic functions. We analyze the complex process through which metaphor evolves into a figure of action, perception and environment, reflecting the cognitive and cultural maturation of the human mind. The research is structured into two main sections: the first offers a theoretical framework that situates metaphor within ecological and developmental contexts, while the second examines eight distinct types of metaphor across various domains of human experience. Our findings reveal that metaphor emerges from the most fundamental levels of awareness, underpinned by biological processes. By synthesizing insights from diverse cognitive theories, we identify six developmental stages through which humans cultivate their imaginative capacities for metaphorical action and thought: boundedness (homeostatic conditions), recurrence (homeostatic patterns), repetition (schematization), relation formation (image-schematization), reference (conceptualization), reversible operating. We argue that constructing metaphors involves coordinating and correlating distinct experiences rather than merely identifying similarities. This perspective shifts the focus from mere identification to understanding the recursive interrelationships between experiences, allowing for richer metaphorical connections. Furthermore, we explore various methods of metaphorization in perception, movement, evaluation and thought. In addition to the well-known conceptual metaphor, we describe perceptual, cross-gestural, verbo-gestural, sensorimotor, narrative, grammatical and stance metaphors that sustain our imaginative engagement with the environment. Ultimately, this research contributes to a constructivist and enactivist understanding of metaphor as a biologically enabled phenomenon that is continuously shaped by our experiences in relation to the world(s) that we construct. Along these lines, the research invites further inquiry into the implications of metaphorizing for understanding our place within the ecological fabric of life.
Keywords: embodiment, ecological cognition, biosemiotics, grammatical metaphor, stancetaking, cinematic metaphor
References:
Bunnell 2020 – Bunnell, P. (2020). Stories and alternative stories. Constructivist Foundations, 16(1), 84–87.
Cameron 2018 – Cameron, L. (2018). From metaphor to metaphorizing: How cinematic metaphor opens up metaphor studies. In S. Greifenstein, D. Horst, T. Scherer, C. Schmitt, H. Kappelhoff, & C. Müller (Eds.), Cinematic metaphor in perspective: Reflections on a transdisciplinary framework (pp. 17–35). De Gruyter.
Damasio 1999 – Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Damasio 2010 – Damasio, A. (2010). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. Vintage Books.
Damasio & Damasio 2023 – Damasio, A., & Damasio, H. (2023). Feelings are the source of consciousness. Neural Computation, 35(3), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco_a_01547
Druzhinin 2021 – Druzhinin, A. S. (2021). Euphemisms vs. Dysphemisms, or how we construct good and bad language. Constructivist Foundations, 17(1), 1–13.
Druzhinin & Fomina 2022 – Druzhinin, A. S., & Fomina, T. A. (2022). E'vfemizmy i disfemizmy v konstruirovanii opyta [Euphemisms and dysphemisms in the construction of experience]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya, 76, 47–75.
Druzhinin & Fomina 2023 – Druzhinin, A. S., & Fomina, T. A. (2023). The world of embodied dialogic creatures. Constructivist Foundations, 18(3), 406–409.
Druzhinin & Rakedzon 2024a – Druzhinin, A. S., & Rakedzon, T. (2024). Why language kills: Semantic patterns of (self)-destruction. Constructivist Foundations, 19(2), 113–126.
Druzhinin & Rakedzon 2024b – Druzhinin, A. S., & Rakedzon, T. (2024). Cancel culture in the flesh: An ecolinguistic view. Constructivist Foundations, 19(3), 205–215.
Du Bois 2007 – Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fisher 2017 – Fisher, V. J. (2017). Unfurling the wings of flight: Clarifying 'the what' and 'the why' of mental imagery use in dance. Research in Dance Education, 18(3), 252–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2017.1369507
Fomina 2020 – Fomina, T. A. (2020). Iks-femiya, ili O trudnostyakh razgranicheniya e'vfemii i disfemii [X-phemy, or On the difficulties of distinguishing between euphemy and dysphemy]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Yazyk i literatura, 17(1), 122–134.
Fomina 2024 – Fomina, T. A. (2024). What is polite languaging? Constructivist Foundations, 19(3), 224–225.
Fomina & Druzhinin 2023 – Fomina, T. A., & Druzhinin, A. S. (2023). Kontekstual'no obuslovlennoe nominativnoe var'irovanie na osi e'vfemiya/disfemiya [Contextually determined nominative variation on the euphemy/dysphemy axis]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Yazyk i literatura, 20(1), 137–155.
Gibbs 2019 – Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2019). Metaphor as dynamical-ecological performance. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591713
Halliday 2001 – Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In A. Fill & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment (pp. 175–202). Continuum.
Halliday & Martin 1993 – Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Routledge.
Hutchins 1995 – Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
Jensen & Greve 2019 – Jensen, T. W., & Greve, L. (2019). Ecological cognition and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591710
Johnson 1999 – Johnson, M. (1999). Embodied reason. In G. Weiss & H. F. Haber (Eds.), Perspectives on embodiment: The intersections of nature and culture (pp. 81–102). Routledge.
Johnson 2007 – Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. University of Chicago Press.
Johnson 2017 – Johnson, M. (2017). Embodied mind, meaning, and reason: How our bodies give rise to understanding. University of Chicago Press.
Johnson & Shulkin 2023 – Johnson, M., & Shulkin, J. (2023). Mind in nature: John Dewey, cognitive science, and a naturalistic philosophy for living. The MIT Press.
Julich-Warpakowski & Jensen 2023 – Julich-Warpakowski, N., & Jensen, T. W. (2023). Zooming in on the notion of metaphoricity: Notions, dimensions, and operationalizations. Metaphor and the Social World, 13(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.21023.jul
Kiesling 2022 – Kiesling, S. F. (2022). Stance and stancetaking. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8(1), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-113204
Kimmel et al. 2024 – Kimmel, M., Schneider, S. M., & Fisher, V. J. (2024). "Introjecting" imagery: A process model of how minds and bodies are co-enacted. Language Sciences, 102, 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101602
Knyazeva 2022 – Knyazeva, E. N. (2022). Ideya mul'tiversa: mezhdisciplinarnaya perspektiva [The idea of the multiverse: An interdisciplinary perspective]. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki, 27(2), 121–135.
Lakoff & Johnson 1980 – Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Locher & Watts 2005 – Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
Maturana et al. 2011 – Maturana, H. R., Paucar-Caceres, A., & Harnden, R. (2011). Origins and implications of autopoiesis. Preface to the second edition of De máquinas y seres vivos. Constructivist Foundations, 6(3), 293–306.
Müller 2019 – Müller, C. (2019). Metaphorizing as embodied interactivity: What gesturing and film viewing can tell us about an ecological view on metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591712
O'Neill 2021 – O'Neill, S. P. (2021). Some good words about curses, and a few damning ones about Bowdlerization. Constructivist Foundations, 17(1), 18–20.
Piaget 1979 – Piaget, J. (1979). Correspondences and transformations. In F. B. Murray & M. C. Almy (Eds.), The impact of Piagetian theory (pp. 17–27). University Park Press.
Piaget & Garcia 1991 – Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1991). Toward a logic of meanings. Erlbaum.
Ricoeur 1984 – Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative (Vol. 1, K. McLaughlin & D. Pellauer, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Sheets-Johnstone 1999 – Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1999). The primacy of movement. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shiller 2019 – Shiller, R. J. (2019). Narrative economics: How stories go viral and drive major economic events. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 22(4), 620–627.
Steffensen 2025 – Steffensen, S. V. (2025). Surveying ecolinguistics. Journal of World Languages, 11(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2024-0045
White & Epston 1990 – White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. W. W. Norton & Company.
White 2007 – White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. W. W. Norton & Company.
( 555.35 kB ) 
( 523.04 kB )
Issue: 1, 2026
Series of issue: Issue 1
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 93 — 120
Downloads: 73