Floarea Vîrban, Accademia Europea di Firenze / CEA CAPA Florence, Italy - fvirban@ceacapa.com

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu

3. Metaphor in Coseriu

Although there is only one study with a focus on metaphor (Coseriu 1956), the idea of language as an essentially creative activity is transversal in Coseriu’s work. Therefore, Coseriu’s views on metaphor (and language), as expressed in his 1956 article, should be integrated, when necessary, with additional relevant points from his other works and connected to his overall theory, which positions itself within the broad Western European tradition and, more particularly, the human sciences paradigm.

 3.1.Language as cognitive creative activity

In his 1956 study “La creación metafórica en el lenguaje”, Coseriu defines language in terms of genus proximum and differentia specifica. In his views, the genus proximum of language consists in it being essentially a human activity – “Language is a human activity” (Coseriu 1956: § 4, p. 8; § 7, p. 14). An important detail highlighted by Coseriu is that language is not only an activity, but also a faculty; it is, at the same time, activity and faculty (that is, the ability to do, the capacity to make and the very making of language):

And, being an activity, it is implicitly a ‘faculty’: in fact, this last term, applied to language, does not refer to a distinct, prior, or subsequent ascertainment, but to the same ascertainment seen from another perspective, since it only indicates the very possibility of being of an activity that is, and that a faculty would not be such if it were not realised as an activity. That is to say, the two statements considered above (‘language is a human activity’, ‘language is a human faculty’) essentially mean the same thing. (Coseriu 1956: § 4., pp. 8-9. My trans. – F.V.)⁵⁴

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 65 -

As for the differentia specifica [¿ qué actividad es el lenguaje? – Which kind of activity is language?], in declared continuity with Cassirer, Coseriu conceives language as an essentially cognitive activity, a cognitive activity that realises itself through symbols or symbolic signs.

Now, Cassirer himself emphasises that language is a specific human being modality to be in contact with the world, that is, to know reality, his reality, into which the human being ‘translates,’ that is, classifies and clarifies, designates, and expresses, through symbols: symbols are, therefore, forms whose content is knowledge. That is to say that the adjective symbolic falls under a broader concept, namely the cognitive; that is, language is essentially a cognitive activity: a cognitive activity that is carried out through symbols (or symbolic signs). It is a form of knowledge. And this is not only at the moment in which a symbolic sign is produced for the first time in history (a moment that implies the recognition of a class as such and its differentiation, through the name, from the other classes, which are distinguished in reality), but in all its moments. In fact, symbols are re-created in every concrete act of speaking and, on the other hand, every linguistic act presupposes, both in the speaker and in the listener, complex operations of a fundamentally cognitive nature: identifying a particular object as belonging to a class (recognising that an object falls under a concept) and understanding, through the name of the class, the same particular object, that is: a cognitive movement that goes from the object to the concept, in the speaker, and from the concept to the object, in the listener. (Coseriu 1956: § 5., 9. My trans. – F.V. Italics of E.C.)

The indissoluble relationship between science [knowledge] and language is one of the underlying principles of Coseriu’s theory.⁵⁶ He insists that “The relationship between science

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 66 -

and language is, therefore, a relationship of something secondary and conditioned with something primary and conditioning. [...] What is not possible without language is science, the episteme [...] science has its basis and its starting point in language” (Coseriu 1977[1968/1966]: 20-21. My trans. – F.V.).⁵⁷
  Ultimately, Coseriu states that language is essentially a creative activity; an activity of creation and re-creation, with the latter (re-creation) being defined as a particular form of creation.

The activity of imagination (phantasy), the poetic activity of man (in the etymological sense of the term), is noted in all speaking individuals (not only in ‘gods and heroes’) and in every linguistic act, in literary language as in the language of current use, in enunciative language as in emotive language. The philosopher and the scientist create their language, just as the orator and the poet do. (Coseriu 1956: § 8., 15. My trans. – F.V. Italics of E.C.)⁵⁸

  The idea (of language as a creative activity) is another key principle in Coseriu.⁵⁹ Such a view derives from the conceiving of language as energeia, in direct Humboldtian descent (Coseriu 1978[1958]: II, § 1.1. 30-31, §§ 2.1.-2.2., 44-48; cf. Kabatek 2016: § 2.2., 47-48, 2023: 26; Vîrban 2022: § 2.1.1., 181-183), though with deeper roots in the ancient Greek tradition.⁶⁰ The conceiving of language as creative activity is also reinforced by the additional assumption

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 67 -

of a primary essential coincidence between language and poetry, present already in Aristotle (language is essentially and originally lógos semantikós) and then in Vico, Hegel, Croce, and Heidegger (Coseriu (1977[1968/1966]: 16-17, 21; cf. Saramandu 1996: 46, 48; cf. Kabatek 2023: § 11.4, 250-251; cf. Vîrban 2025a). This assumption informs the frame for the next point.

 3.2.Linguistic knowledge as metaphorical knowledge

Even more so, Coseriu clearly states that “linguistic knowledge is often a metaphorical knowledge, knowledge through images” (Coseriu 1956: § 9., 15).⁶¹
But what does metaphor mean in Coseriu? He defines it as follows:

[...] we call metaphor, which we do not understand here as a simple verbal transposition, as an ‘abbreviated comparison’, but as a unitary, spontaneous and immediate expression (that is, without any intervening ‘as’) of a vision, of a poetic intuition, which may imply a momentary identification of distinct objects (head-gourd), or a hyperbolization of a particular aspect of the object (as in the case of medved’, ‘the one who eats honey’, to designate the bear, in Slavic languages) and even an identification between opposites, logically ‘absurd’, but with evident ironic meaning and effect, in certain situations, as in the case of the black-blond, or of a fat man called skinny, or of an old man called youngish. (Coseriu 1956: § 9., 16. My trans. – F.V. Italics of E. C.)⁶²

  First, Coseriu conceives metaphor as a “verbal transposition,” the “unitary, spontaneous and immediate expression of a vision.” With this, he defines it as a linguistic device, that is, something pertaining to language. Second, it is the verbal transposition of a “vision,” of an “intuition.”⁶³ It follows that one simultaneously sees and expresses what one sees. Third, it is about a “poetic intuition” (one sees something new). Then, in the second part of the definition, Coseriu narrows down the field to exemplify the types of intuitions: “identification of two distinct objects,” “hyperbolization of a particular aspect of an object,” and “identification between opposites.”

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 68 -

  Of relevance is also a note in “Determinación y entorno” [Determination and Surrounding Fields], in which Coseriu explains the relationship between name and concept⁶⁴ and insists on the fact that metaphor unites (assimilates) a ‘named’ with a diverse ‘denoted’. He also specifies the relevance of metaphor for the linguistics of speaking [hablar] and clarifies the relationship between comparison and metaphor, highlighting the primacy of the latter:

When a name is intentionally applied to denote an object that falls under a different concept than the one ‘named’ by the name itself, we say that we are dealing with a metaphor. Naturally, a metaphor is recognised as such to the extent that both values (the ‘named’ and the ‘denoted’) are perceived at the same time as diverse and as assimilated. The subject of metaphor, therefore, also belongs to the linguistics of speaking [lingüística del hablar]. For now, it is clear that a metaphor is not a ‘shortened comparison’;

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 69 -

on the contrary, a comparison is an explicit [explained] metaphor. (Coseriu 1955-1956[1957]: 2.2.1., note 22, p. 36. My trans. – F.V.)⁶⁵

  In addition, in his “Zur Vorgeschichte der strukturellen Semantik: Heyses Analyse des Wortfeldes ‘Schall’” [On the Prehistory of Structural Semantics: Heyse’s Analysis of the Word Field ‘Sound’], Coseriu sees the impossibility to distinguish between metaphorical and nonmetaphorical use as a limit (besides others) of J. J. Katz’s and J. A. Fodor‘s semantic theory (Coseriu 1967: § 3., Note 3, p. 494).

 3.3.Metaphorization

Metaphorization, demetaphorization, the reinterpretation of metaphors, and the creation of new metaphors are all inherent practices in the dynamic of language. And people (communities of speakers) may accept metaphors for several reasons. Moreover, metaphorization may have an infinite potential and a universal dimension.

3.3.1. Metaphorization versus demetaphorization

Coseriu rightly observed that many metaphors become language, that is, they lose their quality of sign-image; though some may preserve it for a while. While some metaphors cease to be so (demetaphorization – the relationship with other signs is lost), others may be created in language (metaphorization – new relationships with other signs are made) (Coseriu 1956: § 10., 17). At points, the current value of a metaphor may not coincide with the history of metaphor; that is, with its etymology. According to Coseriu, this illustrates the Saussurean discrepancy between synchrony and diachrony, or between norm and sentiment (that is, how the speaker perceives and reinterprets the metaphor). The speaker may ignore the original value of a metaphor and invent another, an ‘alternative’ etymology: the so-called popular etymology (Coseriu 1956: § 10., 18-19). Hence, the need to distinguish between technical-objective etymology and etymology in a broader perspective. The latter considers not only the strict evolution of the words (in isolation) but sees them also connected to things, as well as to “the

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 70 -

linguistic sentiment and the expressive value the speakers are investing them with” (Coseriu 1956: § 11., 21).⁶⁶ To a certain extent, the last type of etymology recalls Plato’s Cratylus.
Children, as well as people who are learning a foreign language, – Coseriu observes – have a higher capacity of metaphorization, because they do not use language in an automatic way (not yet). Rules do not fully constrain them (they do not know them, not yet) and, thus, they are free to invent, imagine (Coseriu 1956: § 10., 17-18). They behave as Vico’s primitive men (i primi uomini), who were poets (cf. also Croce 1922[1911]: 54-55). They also remind Nietzsche’s “overjoyed hero,” who, overlooking the rules or rejecting them by purpose, follows his intuition and, thus, his natural drive to form metaphors (cf. Nietzsche 2006[1973]: 121-122). This drive, which often becomes manifest (is reactivated) in art, is, however, according to Nietzsche, a universal human faculty:

The drive toward the formation of metaphors is the fundamental human drive, which one cannot for a single instant dispense with in thought, for one would thereby dispense with man himself. This drive is not truly vanquished and scarcely subdued by the fact that a regular and rigid new world is constructed as its prison from its own ephemeral products, the concepts. It seeks a new realm and another channel for its activity, and it finds this in myth and in art generally. (Nietzsche 2006[1973]: 121)

  Coseriu keeps the focus on metaphorization as inherent to language activity; that is, conceiving metaphorical competence as an integral part of linguistic competence (cf. Borcilă 2002-2003: 53). In a way that resounds with Aristotle’s views [see supra, 1.2.]⁶⁷, Coseriu states that:

[...] in addition to the significant, morphological, and syntactical relationships, in addition to the relationships due to the practical and standard derivation and composition, there exist in language particular relationships between words due to subjective and metaphorical associations, established sporadically or constantly between the corresponding intuitions, or between the same symbols, for formal reasons. (Coseriu 1956: § 11, 22. My trans. – F.V.)⁶⁸

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 71 -

3.3.2. Why is metaphor accepted?

Coseriu argues that the question of the foundation of metaphor (why is metaphor created?) is a pseudo-question (it is not a pertinent question):⁶⁹

But what are the reasons for metaphorical creation in language? Or better: can you investigate the inner reasons of linguistic creation? Evidently not, since creation, invention, is, by definition, inherent in language. No one can give the reasons for the capricious and unsuspecting movements of the creative human phantasy. (Coseriu 1956: § 12., 22. My trans. – F.V.)⁷⁰

  Instead, according to Coseriu, a pertinent question is why a metaphor is, more or less, accepted in a specific community. There are many reasons. Many are functional to the system itself, which may create new signs when the old ones are perceived as inexpressive or confusing. Another reason is the linguistic taboo, the need to avoid expressions perceived as too strong, impolite, or indecent. Additional reasons may include jokes, irony, humour, etc. (cf. Coseriu 1956: §§ 12.-13., 23-30).

3.3.3. Infinite potential and universal dimension

Moreover, at a deeper level, one may intuit “infinitas creaciones metafóricas” [infinite metaphorical creations] (Coseriu 1956: § 13., 28).
There is a more profound level, where metaphorical creation is functional to cognition; it is a fundamental human cognitive activity:

And much more profoundly, in the same distinction, classification and initial denomination of what is known, of what is presented as reality to the intuition of the man, creator of his specific world, as well as of his language (an activity that is placed as a mediating bridge between the conscience and the world), infinite metaphorical creations can be intuited. Man knows [conoce] and metaphorically designates phenomena and aspects of nature, plants and animals, his own products and activities, and the instruments that he makes for his work. (Coseriu 1956: § 13., 28. My trans. – F.V.)⁷¹

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 72 -

  Not only are speakers creating metaphors in all languages, but, often, they may create similar metaphors; there might be a sort of universal dimension of human phantasy:

Now, linguistic knowledge is often metaphorical knowledge, a knowledge conveyed through images, which, // moreover, are so often oriented in the same direction that make us think seriously about a certain universal unity of human fantasy, above linguistic, ethnic or cultural differences. (Coseriu 1956: § 9., 1516. My trans. – F.V. Italics of E.C.)⁷²

  Given the presence of some images in so many languages and dialects, Coseriu insists, “It would be very hard to think of the diffusion of a unique creation from a single center: we have to admit that several individuals, in various parts of the world, have had almost identical intuitions and have expressed them, each in their language, with analogous metaphors” (Coseriu 1956: § 13., 29-30. My trans. – F.V.).⁷³

3.4. Model of understanding for metaphor in Coseriu

Based on the analysis of Coseriu’s views on metaphor presented in the previous sections and considering Coseriu’s entire Integral Linguistics paradigm, I outline below the corresponding model of understanding.

1. Coseriu positions himself within a broad, thought-provoking framework (paradigm) shaped by Aristotle, Vico, Hegel, Humboldt, Husserl, and other thinkers. The way he conceives language (and metaphor) is deeply rooted in the human sciences tradition. Coseriu adopts a finalist approach to metaphorization (in contrast to the causalist approach). Why metaphors are created is not a linguistic question [we should not put the question in causal terms; in the same way as we should not put the question about language change in causal terms]. Why are metaphors accepted? is a pertinent question, instead.
2. He defines language as a human activity/faculty (this is its genus proximum).

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 73 -

3. Language is a cognitive activity/faculty (differentia specifica). Moreover, language is a necessary condition for science/knowledge. It is worth highlighting that, in Coseriu, words [names] refer to concepts [classes of objects], and not to objects.
4. Language is essentially a creative activity – ἐνέργεια.
5. In continuity with Aristotle, Vico, Croce, Hegel, and Heidegger, Coseriu reasserts the original identity between language, as λόγος σημαντικός (lógos semantikós), and poetry (in its etymological sense).
6. Metaphor is not simply a rhetorical device or a poetic device alone, but essentially a meaning-creating and cognitive tool; thus, a semantic-cognitive device.
7. Coseriu defines metaphor as "a unitary, spontaneous, and immediate expression […] of a vision, of a poetic intuition, which may imply a momentary identification of distinct objects […], or a hyperbolization of a particular aspect of the object […] and even an identification between opposites, logically 'absurd', but with evident ironic meaning and effect, in certain situations" (Coseriu 1956: § 9., 16).
8. Children and people learning a foreign language are more likely to produce metaphors.
9. Metaphorization and demetaphorization are inherent in the dynamic of human speaking/thinking. Metaphors may lose their symbolic power [demetaphorize] or may change their value. And new metaphors may always be created. Moreover, there may be "infinite metaphorical creations". Thus, in Coseriu, metaphorization is present in all moments (not limited to the original creation of meaning).
10. Etymology [à la Plato] (as an archaeology of meanings/concepts that connects words to things and speakers' sentiment) may unveil the meaning of a metaphorical expression.
11. In Coseriu, metaphor is a linguistic device.
12. Coseriu acknowledges a universal dimension of human phantasy.

Language is a cognitive activity/faculty (differentia specifica). Moreover, language is a necessary condition for science/knowledge. It is worth highlighting that, in Coseriu, words [names] refer to concepts [classes of objects], and not to objects. Language is essentially a creative activity – ἐνέργεια. In continuity with Aristotle, Vico, Croce, Hegel, and Heidegger, Coseriu reasserts the original identity between language, as λόγος σημαντικός (lógos semantikós), and poetry (in its etymological sense). Metaphor is not simply a rhetorical device or a poetic device alone, but essentially a meaning-creating and cognitive tool; thus, a semantic-cognitive device. Coseriu defines metaphor as “a unitary, spontaneous, and immediate expression […] of a vision, of a poetic intuition, which may imply a momentary identification of distinct objects […], or a hyperbolization of a particular aspect of the object […] and even an identification between opposites, logically ‘absurd’, but with evident ironic meaning and effect, in certain situations” (Coseriu 1956: § 9., 16). Children and people learning a foreign language are more likely to produce metaphors. Metaphorization and demetaphorization are inherent in the dynamic of human speaking/thinking. Metaphors may lose their symbolic power [demetaphorize] or may change their value. And new metaphors may always be created. Moreover, there may be “infinite metaphorical creations”. Thus, in Coseriu, metaphorization is present in all moments (not limited to the original creation of meaning). Etymology [à la Plato] (as an archaeology of meanings/concepts that connects words to things and speakers’ sentiment) may unveil the meaning of a metaphorical expression. In Coseriu, metaphor is a linguistic device. Coseriu acknowledges a universal dimension of human phantasy.

  Beyond these explicit considerations about metaphor, it is Coseriu’s entire theoretical paradigm (also known as Integral Linguistics) that opens ‘relevant’ avenues for the refoundation of metaphor. Even more so, the metaphor might be the stern test of this paradigm. As Borcilă (2002-2003: 47) holds, “The authentic scientific potential of integral linguistics can be brought to light, exponentially, at present, by revealing the underlying platform that this conception can provide for the systematic and rigorous foundation of the study of ‘metaphorical

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 74 -

creation in language.’”⁷⁴ Coseriu does not develop a systematic theory on metaphor (cf. Borcilă 2002-2003: p. 47, note 2). Borcilă is the first to outline an Integral paradigm of metaphorology (“ o platformă integrală a metaforologiei ”). This is essentially linguistic, based on the conceptual cognitive and conceptual creative coordinates, and concerns all three levels of linguistic competence (elocutional, idiomatic, and expressive). Moreover, Borcilă insists that metaphorical competence is not only an organic part of linguistic competence but also its exponential strength (2002-2003: §§ 4.-5., 60-68).
  In the 1956 study, Coseriu makes no explicit reference to Vico. He does so on several other occasions. He writes about Vico in his Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie – History of the Philosophy of Language (Coseriu 2003 [1969/1972]: Chap. 16) and in a 1995 article “Von den universali fantastici ” (Coseriu 1995). According to Coseriu (2003: 14), “Until Vico and until German Romanticism, the philosophy of language does not thematise language as such”⁷⁵ (cf. Kabatek 2023: § 8.3).⁷⁶ To Vico is also linked the beginning of the so-called human sciences tradition (as distinct from both the natural and the mathematical sciences) (details in Vîrban 2003). Coseriu positions himself within this tradition, stating that language is a cultural and historical object. In the 1997 interview conducted by Kabatek and Murguía, Coseriu makes a direct reference to Vico, stating that we have no certainty about natural facts: “no certum in the sense of Vico” (cf. Kabatek/Murguía 1997: 197-198).⁷⁷

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 75 -

4. Concluding Remarks

A close examination of Vico’s and Coseriu’s ideas about metaphor yields two complex models of understanding [see infra, 4.1. and 4.2, respectively]. I repropose them in a simplified version below.

 4.1. Vico’s model

Vico's model may be further simplified as follows:

1. general frame: verum–factum (new science – incipient human sciences paradigm);
2. language as a human faculty/activity;
3. language as a cognitive human faculty/activity (man has access to truth through language, re-creates things through elements of words);
4. language as a creative faculty/activity (man can recreate things in language employing his phantasy);
5. language – poetry identity (in terms of meaning-creation);
6. metaphor/ingenium as a semantic-cognitive device (beyond rhetoric);
7. metaphor/ingenium is defined as uniting separate, diverse, absurd things;
8. children/adolescents are more inclined to use phantasy;
9. metaphorization is inherent in human language and thinking: it is connected to the original foundation of meaning/knowledge; hence Vico’s idea of metafisica fantastica as the antechamber of metafisica ragionata;
10. etymology [à la Plato] as a practice to recover the original meaning;
11. although mainly a linguistic device, metaphor may transcend language;
12. the assumption of a universal dimension of human imagination as a basis for the universal dimension of human civilisation, including language and knowledge (wisdom).

 4.2. Coseriu’s model

In its turn, Coseriu’s model can be synthesised as follows:

1. general frame: within the human sciences paradigms, initiated by Vico and further developed by other thinkers (Paul, Windelband, Rickert, Cassirer, Husserl and his disciples, among others);
2. language as a human activity/faculty (the genus proximus of language);
3. language as a cognitive activity (differentia specifica);

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 76 -

4. language as a creative activity – ἐνέργεια;
5. language (as λόγος σημαντικός) is identical with poetry;
6. metaphor beyond rhetoric – a semantic-cognitive device;
7. metaphor as expression of an immediate intuition/vision of a unity between diverse, separate, opposite things;
8. children and those who learn a foreign language are more inclined to metaphorization;
9. metaphorization is inherent in human language/thinking; in all moments (not limited to the original creation of meaning);
10. etymology [à la Plato] as a practice linked to metaphorization (to unveil words' links to things and speakers' sentiment);
11. metaphor is a linguistic device;
12. there might be a universal dimension of human phantasy (which makes conceptual thinking possible).

language as a creative activity – ἐνέργεια; language (as λόγος σημαντικός) is identical with poetry; metaphor beyond rhetoric – a semantic-cognitive device; metaphor as expression of an immediate intuition/vision of a unity between diverse, separate, opposite things; children and those who learn a foreign language are more inclined to metaphorization; metaphorization is inherent in human language/thinking; in all moments (not limited to the original creation of meaning); etymology [à la Plato] as a practice linked to metaphorization (to unveil words’ links to things and speakers’ sentiment); metaphor is a linguistic device; there might be a universal dimension of human phantasy (which makes conceptual thinking possible).

 4.3. Vico’s and Coseriu’s models in the mirror

The analysis I undertook in the above [see supra, 2. and 3.; cf. the synthesis in 4.1-4.2.] brought to the fore a series of similarities between Coseriu’s and Vico’s models. A closer look at the two models, presented in the mirror below, provides striking evidence.

The similarities are so evident that they require no further comment. There are many different nuances, but the general framework and underlying principles remain the same. One

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 78 -

may say that Coseriu’s wisdom on metaphor was shaped, directly or indirectly (through Croce),⁷⁸ by Vico.
  The two main differences concern points (9) and (11). In the first case, while Vico seems to relegate metaphorization to the original foundation of meaning/knowledge, Coseriu sees it as inherent to human thinking/language in all moments. In the second case, Coseriu views metaphor as a linguistic device, whereas, in Vico, metaphor appears to transcend language. One may infer that these two thinkers had highly pertinent intuitions that led to a complex and highly valuable model of understanding for metaphor, which might be called the Vichian-Coserian model. One can assimilate ideas from other thinkers, such as Nietzsche, into this model.

 4.4.A proto-paradigm of conceptual metaphor?

The main framework for the current debates about metaphor was initially shaped by Lakoff’s and Johnson’s (1981[1980]) conceptual metaphor theory. As Trabant already noted, some of the principles put forth by this theory⁷⁸ resonate with Vico’s views. Observing that “contemporary philosophy rediscovered the cognitive centrality of the metaphor”, Trabant clearly states that “Vico has not been considered a ‘precursor’ of this philosophy, simply

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 79 -

because the Americans mentioned above have not read Vico (or any other anti-Cartesian philosopher of the past)” and adds “But the surprising or not surprising parallelism demonstrates the modernity of the old Neapolitan” (Trabant 2019b: §2., 10, 11)⁸⁰; hence the conclusion:

But the parallel also demonstrates a profound difference: that one can gain insights into the nature of the human mind not only through modern experimental psychology, but also through reading old books, epic poems, and cultural testimonies – that is, through what Vico calls ‘philology’. (Trabant 2019b: § 2., 11)⁸¹

This is what Vico and Coseriu did.
  For truth’s sake, one should admit that conceptual metaphor theory cannot be reduced to Lakoff and Johnson (even less so to their 1980 work). One should also consider more recent contributions (such as Fusaroli/Morgagni (a cura di) 2013, Zlatev/Jacobsson/Paju 2021, Zlatev 2024). Moreover, some valuable studies link Vico to the cognitive paradigm (Danesi, 2001; Gensini, 2004, 2014/2015).
  Paraphrasing Trabant, one may also say that “Coseriu has not been considered a ‘precursor’ of the conceptual metaphor theory simply because the Americans mentioned above did not read Coseriu.” In some views, Coseriu’s Integral Linguistics paradigm may contain a model superior to that proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (Borcilă 2002-2003: 65 and note 33). According to Borcilă, the cognitive paradigm overlooks the essential linguistic dimension of metaphorization and, thus, risks ending up in a blind alley of a new form of empiricism.
A dialogic stance is adopted, instead, in Faur (2021) and Faur/Zlatev (2025). Faur (2021: 311312) argues that “[…] Coseriu’s Integral Linguistics is in some aspects convergent with the central position attributed to // the metaphorical process within a largely ‘cognitively’ oriented trend in present-day metaphor studies.” She demonstrates that a dialogue between the Integral theory of metaphor (as shaped by Coseriu’s Integral Linguistics and its further development) and the wider Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT and related trends) is not only possible but also mutually enlightening (cf. also Faur/Zlatev 2025). Faur also adds that “At the same time, Coseriu’s principled position – as already advanced in his article ‘La creación metafórica en el

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 80 -

lenguaje’ as early as 1956 – presents itself as being based on a distinctive theoretical perspective, which is grounded in the major European tradition in philosophy of language and culture (Aristotle, Vico, Hegel, Humboldt)” (Faur 2021: 312). Indeed, it is in these deep philosophical roots that lies the strength of the Integral model of understanding for metaphor, as well as the strength of the Integral Linguistics paradigm more generally.
In continuity with Trabant (and to some extent to Borcilă and Faur), I hazard to argue that, to a certain extent, the wider Vichian–Coserian paradigm (as mainly shaped by Vico and Coseriu, but to which one may assimilate ideas by other thinkers, such as Nietzsche, for instance), contains the underlying principles of a proto-conceptual metaphor theory. One may hold that the newest wisdom of contemporary scholarship on metaphor is (often without knowing) ‘in debt’ with Vico’s model and to other developments, directly (Coseriu) or indirectly (Nietzsche) related to it. While acknowledging the relevance of many theories, I think that the model articulated by Coseriu is the one that honours and develops Vico’s legacy at best (while also assimilating other views) – mainly through the creation of an unprecedented systematic theory of language (Integral Linguistics) and, implicitly, laying the more or less explicit foundation for a very pertinent model of understanding for metaphor, a point already acknowledged by Borcilă (2002-2003) and further reinforced by Faur (2013a,b, 2021). My intuition is that recovering and creatively assimilating the wider Vichian–Coserian paradigm might bring about a true Renaissance in metaphorical studies, precisely as the recovery of the ancient Greek and Roman traditions brought about the Florentine/Italian Renaissance. And I would add that this was the way both Vico and Coseriu proceeded. But this is too complex a line of inquiry to be developed here. It transcends the purpose of my current study and requires additional substantial research.

Bibliography

Arduini, Stefano / Fabbri, Roberta (2008): Che cos’è la linguistica cognitiva. Roma: Carocci.

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 81 -

Aristotle (1922): The Poetics of Aristotle. S. H. Butcher (ed., critical notes, and tr.). Gr.–Eng. edition. London: MacMillan and Co. Fourth edition.

Battistini, Andrea (1977): “Gli Studi Vichiani di Antonino Pagliaro”, in: Bolletino del Centro di Studi Vichiani, 7, 81-112.

Bianchi, Angela (2019a): “Istanze di etimologia fra Vico e Leopardi”, in: Diego Poli (a cura di): In Limine. Frontiere e Integrazioni. In the series Episteme dell’Antichità e oltre – Collana a cura di Diego Poli, 18. Roma: Il Calamo, 481-497.

Bianchi, Angela (2019b): “La mia scrittura sarà delle lingue.” Idee e teorie linguistiche nell’ipertesto leopardiano. In the series Episteme dell’Antichità e oltre – Collana a cura di Diego Poli, 19. Roma: Il Calamo.

Bolognesi, Giancarlo (2003): “Eugenio Coseriu e il ‘Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese’. Il noviziato scientifico”, in: Vincenzo Orioles (ed.): Studi in memoria di Eugenio Coseriu, Udine, Forum (Supplément de Plurilinguismo. Contatti di lingue e culture, X), 41-52. Borcilă, Mircea (2002-2003): “Lingvistica integrală și fundamentele metaforologiei”, in Dacoromania, serie nouă, VII-VIII, 47-77 [online: https://dacoromania.instpuscariu.ro/articole/2002-2003_3.pdf, last accessed: 31/07/2025]. Cacciatore, Giuseppe / Gessa Kurotschka, Vanna / Nuzzo, Enrico / Sanna, Manuela (a cura di): Il sapere poetico e gli universali fantastici. La presenza di Vico nella riflessione filosofica contemporanea. Napoli: Guida, 27-54.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1954): Forma y sustancia en los sonidos del lenguage (con un resumen en inglés). Montevideo: Universidad de la República.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1955-1956[1957]): “Determinación y entorno. Dos problemas de una lingüística del hablar”, in: Romanistisches Jahrbuch, VII Band, 29-54.

Coseriu, Eugeniu (1956): “La creación metafórica en el lenguaje.” Montevideo: Universidad de la República.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1978[1958]): Sincronía, diacronía e historia: el problema del cambio lingüístico. Madrid: Gredos, third edition [first published: Montevideo: Universidad de la República].

Coseriu, Eugenio (2009[1963-1964]): “Sprache und Dichtung”, edited by Christophe Gérard, in: Energeia 1, 118-127 [a text originating in 1963-1964].

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 82 -

Coseriu, Eugenio (1967): “Zur Vorgeschichte der strukturellen Semantik: Heyses Analyse des Wortfeldes ‘Schall’”, in: To Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Vol. I. The Hague / Paris: Mouton, 489-498.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1977[1968/1966]): “L’uomo e il suo linguaggio.” Trad. di Gio Batta Bucciol, in: Agora. Filosofia e letteratura, nn. 14-15, L’Aquila: Japadre Editore, 9-22 [“Der Mensch und seine Sprache”, in: Herbert Haag / Franz Peter Möhres (Hrsg.) (1968): Ursprung und Wesen des Menschen. Ringvorlesung gehalten an der Universität Tübingen Sommersemester 1966. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)].

Coseriu, Eugenio (1979[1968]): “Tesis sobre el tema ‘lenguaje y poesia’”, in: Lingüística española actual I, 1, 181-186. Revised version. [“Thesen zum Thema ‘Sprache und Dichtung’”, in: Stempel, Wolf-Dieter (ed.) (1971): Beiträge zur Textlinguistik [Proccedings of Symposium in Constanza, 13-15, June 1968]. München: Wilhelm Fink, 183-188; also preproduced in: Richard Brütting / Bernhard Zimmermann (eds) (1975): Theorie – Literatur – Praxis. Frankfurt am Main: Athenaion, 85-90.

Coseriu, Eugenio (2003[1969/1972]): Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie. Von den Anfängen bis Rousseau. Neu bearbeitet und erweitert von Jörn Albrecht. Mit einer Vor-Bemerkung von Jürgen Trabant. Tübingen / Basel: A. Francke. Based on Coseriu’s lectures of 1968/69 and 1970/71, recorded by Rudolf Windisch and Gunter Narr and first published in 1969/1972.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1974[1972]): “Les universaux linguistiques (et les autres)”, in: Luigi Heilmann (ed.): Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Bologna – Florence 1972. Bologna: Il Mulino, 47-73.

Coseriu, Eugeniu (1988[1983/1982]): “Linguistic Change Does Not Exist”, (reproduced) in: Jörn Albrecht (Eingel. und Hrsg. von): Energeia und Ergon. Studia in honorem Eugenio Coseriu. Band I: Schriften von Eugenio Coseriu (1965-1987), Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 4., 147 - 157 [First published in: Linguistica nuova ed antica, Anno I, 1983, 51-63 / Originally presented at UCLA Conference on Causality and Linguistic Change, Los Angeles, May 1982].

Coseriu, Eugenio (1990): “Semántica estructural y semántica cognitiva”, in: Profesor Francisco Marsá. Jornadas de Filología. Collecció Homenatges. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona, 239-282. Cf. (2000): “Structural

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 83 -

Semantics and ‘Cognitive’ Semantics”, in: Logos and Language: Journal of General Linguistics and Language Theory Vol. 1, no. 1, 19-42.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1995): “Von den universali fantastici ”, in: Jürgen Trabant (Hrsg.): Vico und die Zeichen / Vico e i segni. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 73-80.

Coseriu, Eugenio (1999): “Un libro classico”, preface to: Antonino Pagliaro, La Parola e l’immagine [re-edited]. Palermo: Novecento, 5-10.

Croce, Benedetto (1922[1911]): La filosofia di Giambattista Vico, seconda edizione riveduta. Bari: G. Laterza e figli.

Danesi, Marcel (1993): Vico, Metaphor, and the Origin of Language. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Danesi, Marcel (2001): Lingua, metafora, concetto. Vico e la lingua cognitiva. Modugno: Edizioni dal Sud.

Danesi, Marcel (2004): “La metafora come traccia della sapienza poetica”, in: Giuseppe Cacciatore / Vanna Gessa Kurotschka / Enrico Nuzzo / Manuela Sanna (a cura di): Il sapere poetico e gli universali fantastici. La presenza di Vico nella riflessione filosofica contemporanea. Napoli: Guida, 27-54. Di Cesare, Donatella (1986): “Sul concetto di metafora in G. B. Vico”, in: Bollettino del Centro di Studi Vichiani XVI, 325-334. Di Cesare, Donatella (1995): “Dal tropo retorico all’universale fantastico” , in: Jürgen Trabant (Hrsg.): Vico und die Zeichen / Vico e i segni. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 81-92.

Diodato, Filomena (2021a): “The Botanist and the Gardner: Norm and Meaning in Coseriu’s Semantics”, in: Stefano Gensini / Marina De Palo (eds.): With Saussure beyond Saussure. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.

Diodato, Filomena (2021b): “Why Semantics Cannot Be but Cognitive. Coseriu’s Criticism of Cognitive Semantics”, in: Filomena Diodato (a cura di): Il linguaggio e le lingue: tra teoria e storia. Atti del I Convegno Cispels, Roma 17-19 Sett. 2018. Roma: Aracne, 387408.

Diodato, Filomena (2025): “Between Norm and Sentiment. Types of Creativity in the Lexical Semantics of Eugenio Coseriu”, intervention at: Linguistica Coseriana IX: Linguistic and Poetic Creativity, Cluj-Napoca, Feb 21 -22 [in preparation for publication].

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 84 -

Esposito, Maurizio (2025): Vico and the Maker’s Knowledge Tradition. Praxis and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Faur, Elena (2013a): Semantica cognitivă și emergența studiilor elocuționale. Ph.D. Thesis. Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai.

Faur, Elena (2013b): “Integral Semantics and Conceptual Metaphor: Rethinking Conceptual Metaphor Within an Integral Semantics Framework”, in: Riccardo Fusaroli / Simone Morgagni (eds.): Cognitive Semiotics. Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Thirty Years After, (Journal of Cognitive Semiotics Vol. V, no. 1-2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 108-139.

Faur, Elena (2021): “The Crux of Metaphor: between Cognitive and Integral Linguistics”, in: Klaas Willems / Cristinel Munteanu (eds): Eugenio Coseriu: Past, Present and Future. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 311-326.

Faur, Elena / Zlatev, Jordan (2025): “Integrating Ideas from Cognitive Semiotics and Integral Linguistics in the Study of Metaphor”, intervention at: Linguistica Coseriana IX: Linguistic and Poetic Creativity, Cluj-Napoca, Feb 21 -22 [in preparation for publication].

Gensini, Stefano (2004): “Su Vico, le metafore e la linguistica cognitiva”, in: Giuseppe Cacciatore / Vanna Gessa Kurotschka / Enrico Nuzzo / Manuela Sanna (a cura di), Il sapere poetico e gli universali fantastici. La presenza di Vico nella riflessione filosofica contemporanea. Napoli: Guida, 55-72.

Gensini, Stefano (2014/2015): “La metáfora viquiana y la ciencia cognitiva: un problema de filosofía de lenguaje”, in: Cuadernos sobre Vico 28 (2014) / 29 (2015), 33-51.

Gensini, Stefano (2017): “Fantasia e immaginazione tra Vico e Leopardi: lo spazio ‘naturale’ del linguaggio”, in: Maurizio Martirano / Manuela Sanna (a cura di), Itinerari di ricerca intorno a Vico e a Leopardi: potenza e limitatezza dell’umana conoscenza. Napoli: Ispf Lab, CNR, 45-73.

Ginevra, Riccardo (2024): “From Etymology to Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Ancient Greek θνῄσκω ‘to die’ and the metaphor DEATH IS DEPARTURE in Indo-European,” in: Chiara De Felice / Chiara Fedriani, Studies in Cognitive Classical Semantics. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 111-146.

Gobber, Giovanni (2025): “Autour des racines aristotéliciennes dans la creativité comme universel du langage chez Eugenio Coseriu,” plenary speech at: Linguistica Coseriana IX

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 85 -

– Linguistic and Poetic Creativity. Cluj-Napoca, Feb 21 -22 [in preparation for publication].

Kabatek, Johannes (2016): “Diez tesis sobre el cambio lingüístico (Y una nota sobre el gallego)”, Alba García Rodríguez / Cristina Bleorţu (trs), in: Lucrările celui de-al şaselea simpozion internaţional de lingvistică. Bucureşti: Univers Enciclopedic, 44-61. Original Galician versión (2017): “Dez teses sobre o cambio lingüístico (e unha nota sobre o galego)”, in: Xosé Luis Regueira / Elisa Fernández Rei (eds): Estudos sobre o cambio lingüístico no galego actual. Santiago de Compostela: Consello da Cultura Galega, 2143.

Kabatek, Johannes / Murguía, Adolfo (1997): “Die Sachen sagen, wie sie sind…”. Eugenio Coseriu im Gespräch. Tübingen: Narr.

Kabatek, Johannes (2023): Eugenio Coseriu. Beyond Structuralism. Berlin / Boston: de Gruyter [also online: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110716573/html, last accessed 31/07/2025].

Lakoff, George / Johnson, Mark (1981[1980]): Metaphor We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George / Johnson, Mark (1999): Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books. Mahon, James Edwin (1999): “Getting Your Sources Right: What Aristotle Didn’t Say ”, in: Lynne Cameron / Graham Low (eds): Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69-80.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (2006[1873]): “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”, in: Keith Ansell Pearson / Duncan Large (eds): The Nietzsche Reader. Daniel Breazeale (tr.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 114-123.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (2000[1873]): “Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn”, in: Über Wahrheit und Lüge. Ein Essay, Aphorismen, Notate und Briefe Herausgegeben von Steffen Dietzsch. Frankfurt am Main / Leipzig: Insel, 7-18.

O’Rourke, Fran (2006): “Aristotle and the Metaphysics of Metaphor”, in: Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 21 , Colloquium 5, 155-190.

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 86 -

Pagliaro, Antonino (1961): “Lingua e poesia secondo G. B. Vico”, in: Altri saggi di critica semantica. Messina / Firenze: D’Anna, 299-344.

Pagliaro, Antonino (1999): La Parola e l’immagine [re-edited]. With a preface by Eugenio Coseriu. Palermo: Novecento.

Price, David W. (1994): “Vico and Nietzsche: On Metaphor, History, and Literature”, in: The Personalist Forum Vol 10, No. 2, Vico and Nietzsche, 119-132.

Saramandu, Nicolae (1996): Lingvistica integrală. Interviu cu Eugeniu Coșeriu, realizat de Nicolae Saramandu. București: Editura Fundației Culturale Române.

Sonesson, Göran (2021a): “Nothing Human Is Foreign to Me – Except Some of It: From the Semiotic Tradition to Cognitive Semiotic by the Way of Phenomenology”, in: Degrés 186/187: 1-23.

Sonesson, Göran (2021b): “Considerations on the Subtle Art of Integrating Linguistics (and/or Semiotics)”, in: Klaas Willems / Cristinel Munteanu (eds): Eugenio Coseriu: Past, Present and Future. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 151-164.

Sonesson, Göran (2023): “Steps towards an Epistemology for Cognitive Semiotics”, in: Syn- Thèses 14, 16-32.

Trabant, Jürgen (2013[1994]): Vico’s New Science of Ancient Signs. A Study of Sematology. Trans. from German by Sean Ward. Forward by Donald Phillip Verene. New York: Routledge [(1994): Neue Wissenschaft von alten Zeichen. Vicos Sematologia. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp]. Cf. also (1996): La scienza nuova dei segni antichi. La sematologia di Vico. Trad. di Donatella di Cesare. Bari: Laterza]. Trabant, Jürgen (Hrsg.) (1995): Vico und die Zeichnen / Vico e i segni. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Trabant, Jürgen (2019a.): Giambattista Vico. Poetische Charaktere. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Trabant, Jürgen (2019b): “TRASPORTO. La metafora come origine della conoscenza in Giambattista Vico”, in: CoSMo – Comparative Studies in Modernism n. 15 (Fall). The text of the Pietro Debenedetti Lecture at Università degli Studi di Torino, April 2nd.

Valagussa, Francesco (2014): “Vico. La metafora fa il maggior corpo delle lingue: Menare fuori le forme dalla materia”, in: Aisthesis, anno VI, no. 2, 127-142. Verene, Donald Phillip (1995): “The Bodily Logic of Vico’s Universali fantastici”, in: Jürgen Trabant (Hrsg.): Vico und die Zeichen / Vico e i segni. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 93-100.

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 87 -

Vico, Giambattista (1965[1709]): On the Study Methods of Our Time. Trans., introd., and notes by Elio Gianturco. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Vico, Giambattista (1971[1709]): Il metodo degli studi del nostro tempo / De nostri temporis studiorum ratione, in: Vico, Opere Filosofiche. Introd. di Nicola Badaloni. Testi, versioni e note a cura di Paolo Cristofolini. Firenze: Sansoni Editore, 787-855 [It./Lat.].

Vico, Giambattista (1988[1710]): On the Most Ancient Wisdom of the Italians: Unearthed from the Origins of the Latin Language. Including the Disputation with the Giornale de’ letterati d’Italia. Trans., introd., and notes by L. M. Palmer. Ithaca–London: Cornell University Press, 35-110.

Vico, Giambattista (1971[1710]): L’antichissima sapienza degli italici. Da ricavarsi dalle origini della lingua latina / De antiquissima italorum sapientia ex linguae latinae originibus eruenda, in: Vico, Opere Filosofiche. Introd. di Nicola Badaloni. Testi, versioni e note a cura di Paolo Cristofolini. Firenze: Sansoni Editore, 55-131 [It./Lat.].

Vico, Giambattista (1988[1711-1712]): [Responses] “Vico’s First Response” and “Vico’s Second Response”, in: On the Most Ancient Wisdom of the Italians: Unearthed from the Origins of the Latin Language. Including the Disputation with the Giornale de’ letterati d’Italia. Trans., introd., and notes by L. M. Palmer. Ithaca / London: Cornell University Press, 118-135 and 150-185.

Vico, Giambattista (1971[1911-1712]): “[Prima] Risposta del Signor Giambattista Vico” e “[Seconda] Risposta del Signor Giambattista Vico”, in: Vico, Opere Filosofiche. Introd. di Nicola Badaloni. Testi, versioni e note a cura di Paolo Cristofolini. Firenze: Sansoni Editore, 132-144 and 145-168.

Vico, Giambattista (2000[1720-1722): Universal Right. Giorgio Pinton / Margaret Diehl (trs). Amsterdam / Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.

Vico, Giambattista (1948[1744]): The New Science of Giambattista Vico. Trans. from the third edition (1744) by Thomas Goddard Bergin / Max Harold Fisch. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Vico, Giambattista (2000[1744]): Scienza nuova, in: Vico: Autobiografia, Poesie, Scienza nuova. A cura di Pasquale Soccio. Milano: Garzanti, 73-602.

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 88 -

Vico, Giambattista (2022[1725]): Die Erste Neue Wissenschaft (1725). Übersetzt und mit einer Einleitung [I–XXVI] herausgegeben von Jürgen Trabant. Philosophische Bibliothek. Frankfurt: Meiner Verlag.

Vîrban, Floarea (2003): O fenomenologie a Spiritului în limbaj. Cu o aplicație pe baza operei lui Nichita Stănescu. București: Universitatea București. [First] PhD Thesis.

Vîrban, Floarea (2015[2013]): “Origini dell’integralismo coseriano: indagando su una possibile matrice fenomenologica”, in: Vincenzo Orioles / Raffaela Bombi (eds): Oltre Saussure. L’eredità scientifica di Eugenio Coseriu // Beyond Saussure. Eugenio Coseriu’s Scientific Legacy. Firenze: Cesati Editore, 397-410 [Intervention at: Linguistica Coseriana III, Udine, 2013].

Vîrban, Floarea (2022[2020]): “Language Change versus Language Non-change in Coseriu: The Peculiar Issue of Language Identity. Questioning an Eventual Resemblance to Locke’s Theory of Personal Identity”, in: José María García Martín et al. [Maria Maiseyenka / Francisco Ruiz Fernández / Nuria Campos Carrasco / Benito Gutiérrez Santaella] (eds.): La historia de la lengua, la dialectología y el concepto de cambio lingüístico en el pensamiento de Eugenio Coseriu. Berlin: Peter Lang [Proceedings of Congreso Internacional de Lingüística Coseriana VII., Cádiz, Spain, Jan 2020], 177-204.

Vîrban, Floarea (2022[2021]): “Lingvistica [integrală] – știință eidetică?”, in: Elena Faur / Diana Feurdean / Iulia Pop (eds): “La izvoarele imaginației creatoare”. Studii și cercetări în onoarea profesorului Mircea Borcilă. Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut / București: Eikon, 206-226 [intervention at: Școala de vară (online): Actualitatea Concepției lui Eugeniu Coșeriu, 2021] Vîrban, Floarea (2025a): “The Poetic Foundation of Meaning and Knowledge in Vico and Coseriu”, intervention at: Linguistica Coseriana IX: Linguistic and Poetic Creativity, Cluj-Napoca, February 21 -22 [in preparation for publication].

Vîrban, Floarea (2025b): “Eclectic Thoughts on the Foundation of Meaning and Knowledge in Vico, Husserl, and Coseriu”, online lecture at: Lund University CogSem Seminar, conducted by Jordan Zlatev. April 24.

Willems, Klaas (2020): “Form, Meaning, and Reference in Natural Language: A Phenomenological Account of Proper Names”, in: Diacronia, nr. 11 (June), A156 (1-20).

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 89 -

Willems, Klaas / Faur, Elena (2025): “Coseriu on Metaphor”, in: Energeia. Online Journal for Linguistics, Language Philosophy and History of Linguistics, X.

Zlatev, Jordan (2011): “From Cognitive to Integral Linguistics and Back Again” , in: Intellectica. Revue de l’Association pour la Recherche Cognitive, Vol. 56, no 2, 125-147.

Zlatev, Jordan (2024): “Constraining Metaphor and Metonymy in Language and Depiction: A Cognitive Semiotic Approach”, in: Sciendo. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 69 , 7-29.

Zlatev, Jordan / Jacobsson, Göran / Paju, Liina (2021): “Desiderata for Metaphor Theory, the Motivation & Sedimentation Model and Motion-Emotion Metaphoremes”, in: Augusto Soares da Silva (ed.): Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 41-109.

Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu - 90 -