Conceptual Metaphors of Time in the Sonnets of Shakespeare: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article studies the conceptual metaphors of time in the sonnets of Shakespeare in light of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) presented in their book, Metaphors We Live By, and Kovecses’ (2002) informative views in his book, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. The extracted metaphors selected from a variety of sonnets that tackle the theme of time will be divided into three sub-categories: structural, ontological, and orientational. Under ontological metaphors, the study addresses metaphors in the forms of personification, metonymy, and synecdoche. Using the cognitive approach to understand the abstract concept of time in terms of a variety of concrete concepts with experiential dimension enables the reader to perceive this concept from different perspectives. The study hopes to show that the cluster of source domains Shakespeare provides in the metaphors maps an association of multidimensional possibilities that improve our understanding of time. Also, this consortium of possibilities points to the creativity and the wide scope of Shakespeare’s vision. The study hopes to add another vantage point from which to view Shakespeare’s presentation of time in light of modern progress in the studies of conceptual metaphors and cognitive poetics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".