A person's thinking is based upon complex, dynamic systems that one can successfully influence only by subtly attuning to the complexity and taking it into account.

Direct the process so that participant may experience adequacy of own metaphors given what participant currently knows or experiences. Concepts may change only when the tensions they resolve are resolved better by different concepts, thereby affecting learning, beliefs and attitudes.

An accepted didactic context may sometimes relax the requirement to attune to existing complexity, but mediation is done not from the authoritarian stance of teacher-student or doctor-patient, but from the egalitarian interest-based perspective. Rather than exerting legal, emotional, physical, social or personal power, emphasis is placed on participants' perceptions, needs and interests that underly legal claims or bargaining positions.

Because metaphor is a fundamental part of people's thinking, conscious awareness of these metaphors will assist the mediator in making mediation a self-directed process, understanding their story and issues fully, encouraging development of their own resourcefulness and self-determination.

Exploration of clients' own metaphors as they are being used is a way of inquiring about the participants experience, needs, interests, alternatives. It can also help participants gradually learn what they need to know or recall for use. Self-generated metaphors also have been found to stimulate imagination more effectively than when therapist introduces new metaphors.

Can note repetition of metaphors, maybe indicating entrenched thinking or doxa... or desire to persuade by appealing to these...

Can note evocation of emotions or cultural mythology (e.g., fear, security, disease, flood, national history...).

Can note if more than one mapping of conceptual or thematic metaphor occurs, suggests this metaphor has pervasive influence in the participant's thinking...

Can note if particular metaphor chosen to highlight or foreground certain aspects, make parallels in processes, point-by-point correspondences...

Can note if various complementary, mixed, or contradictory metaphors used; patterns, etc.

Can assess whether participant seems conscious of metaphor use (name it, use hedge (divided
...)

Can note whether metonymic use, triggering, literal aspects...

Can note alignment [matching] (with previously used metaphors; with literal meaning...).

Can note indications of intent for metaphor to be convergent or divergent... (e.g., repetition, draw directional or evaluative conclusions, use analogical form vs questions, acknowledgment of metaphor's limits, exploration, sustain ambiguity or tension...)

Mediator can simply be aware of a metaphor used, but not reflect it back or comment on it (Ferrera 1994).

Can reflect it back or use some of the same metaphoric language (Ferrera 1994).

Can invoke the conceptual key (Charteris-Black, 2004) of the metaphor...

Lakoff & Turner (1989; also Kovecses 2002) point out that metaphors are never perfectly apt and can be questioned. Fully mapped, there will always be some aspects of the source domain that don’t accurately correspond to the target. For example, When Kafka has an ape lecturing scientists about human development he has called into question the Man is Animal metaphor and the reader may wonder how the traits of an ape might possibly be re-evaluated to make this possible. Such discrepancies can be used to highlight important characteristics of the target domain, to break thought patterns, or suggest contrary mappings. Muller suggests asking if the metaphor applies, and this would seem to highlight the distinctions between source and target (cf. Wee). Eubanks asks people if the metaphor is true for a given situation and finds this elicits recognition that the metaphor is not literally true but apt to some degree, after which they tend to offer more mappings to illustrate their understanding. Ferrara (1994) suggests deliberately misinterpreting a client's metaphor to see if it elicits a correction. Educators use the shortcomings of a pedigogical metaphor to increase students' curiosity and familiarity with the new material. Experiential educators wait for students to realize that an operating metaphor is not serving a useful purpose and then facilitate exploration of other metaphors that might be more apt.

Can compose (divided
different metaphors (Lakoff & Turner 1989), combining them together in a complementary way that expands mappings (Muller 2006) or generates others. For example, Kafka combines Man is an Animal with Life is a Journey and Life is Acting on a Stage to portray the step-by-step ascension from unreflective ape behavior, through imitation to mastery of the role of a man.

Personification as described by Lakoff & Turner (1989; see also Charteris-Black 2004), is used spontaneously in formal and informal dialog, and is a method of composing together compatible metaphors that can be easily introduced or expanded. It occurs when one takes attributes, events and relationships observed in the target domain and represents them metaphorically as those of a human. This can render even something as impassive as a rock metaphorically in terms of human emotions, motivation, or perception, allowing us to think about it as we might regard ourselves (e.g., the hanging rock waited until just the right moment to fall). The creation and exploration of rich and unexpected ideas (e.g., the regulations did not foresee our situation and restricted our movements). Related to these are what might be called "animation" metaphors that attribute animal traits to inanimate objects or events (e.g., "circumstances forced me to reconsider").

When two or more compatible metaphors (submappings; conceptual elements) within the same conceptual domain are uttered by an individual in the same section of dialog we may note two things: that the speaker has extended the conceptual metaphor in play (Muller) and that he or she may more reliably be regarded as using that conceptual metaphor in his or her thinking (Lakoff & Johnson 1999; Charteris-Black 2004; Smith 2005). We might regard such extensions as an indication that such conceptually related mappings would, even should their direction or implications be unexpected, be more easily understood and considered than if they were not conceptually related. For example, if a buyer-seller relationship is described with the buyer as loyal to a particular seller, and then later that the buyer may defect to another seller, we might more creatively explore this further by asking what credos (or what family feeling) seemed to bind the buyer to the seller in the first place, than if we asked, "why rock the boat?"

Regarding two or more compatible metaphors (submappings; conceptual elements) within the same conceptual domain uttered by two persons in dialog Musolff (2004, 146-147) gives the example of "metaphor negotiation" wherein Gorbachev of the Soviet Union and Weizsacher of West Germany explore European relations using an apartment metaphor; Gorbachev stated that not everyone likes to receive visitors at night (autonomy of tenants; submapping or conceptual element: European Nations are Apartments that are Autonomous/Free of Unwanted Visitors) while Weizsacher emphasized the East-West German divide as a ditch through the common living room (divided apartment; submapping or conceptual element: European Nations are Apartments Easy to Move Around In); they did not match their metaphor submappings, but the over-arching metaphor of European Nations are Apartments seemed to work as a common frame for understanding what the other meant, giving differing arguments a conceptually compatible basis for discussion, and the vagueness of what constituted a separate apartment may have allowed them to agree on the frame while disagreeing about certain details.

Besides metaphors that are compatible because they are within the same conceptual domain, metaphors may share a generic structure... or metaphors with different generic structures may complement each other (Chain of Being, Event Structure, Conduit) (divided
...

Partially related to generic structure is metaphor scenario (Musolf 2004). Metaphor scenarios are built up from conceptual clusters of sub-metaphor elements, ensembles of scenes or story lines that include assumptions about typical participants, roles, courses or sequences of action, idealized elements, causal relations, identity relations and purpose structures; scenarios may extend the conceptual core that holds a metaphor together by adding story line and perspective. (Musolff adds the story-line idea to what Lakoff might call the generic structure or Charteris-Black might call the conceptual key, and these are somewhat like Eubank's stories "licensed" by metaphors; inevitably roles, action and direction become part of the scenario idea - source-path-goal and movement.)

----------------

Contrasts between literal meaning and metaphorical meaning can be highlighted as irony or paradox.

Various aspects of a single metaphor (e.g., the very often-used Journey metaphor) mentioned at different moments can be brought together to unify a theme or discussion; this may be possible using a major aspect of a conceptual metaphor (e.g., for Journey metaphor, introducing the idea of a map).

Proposals can be made metaphorically, instead of literally, in order to try out certain ideas; metaphor allows you to retreat from a proposal without literally having made it; likewise, one may metaphorically agree, and thus discuss a matter hypothetically, while not committing literally; similarly a mediator can take sides metaphorically in order to redirect the discussion, while literally remaining neutral; sincere views can be put in metaphoric form and thus expressed more indirectly.

A metaphor could be used to exagerate an idea to highlight its features.

mbMetaphor can be modulated or inflected to strengthen or to attenuate a characterization; for example, the "journey" toward agreement could be a major voyage of world discovery or a simple fishing expedition.

· havior, through imitation to mastBecome conscious of restraints and direction imposed: Identify the metaphor in use and then discuss what that tends to exclude from the discussion.

Deliberately exclude a dominant metaphor: Identify the metaphor being used, then have participants continue the discussion in such a way that the metaphor is not used at all.

Shift a dominant metaphor to one that shares certain entailments: If a metaphor such as Discussion is Fight is being used, have participants convert this to Discussion is Game.. Fo

Expanding Metaphor: Open ended response asking for feelings (how do you feel about [image]?); asking re associations (describe, speak as if your were a, what does [image] do?); asking re interpersonal (who uses [image]?); ask historical, c (divided
ultural... questions (what has [image] been used for by__?); reflect own associations. [Note no use of mappings, only associations, so attention is mostly in source domain.]

Playing with possibilities, as in "expanding" but asking client to imagine something like him or herself as [image] and expect to get humorous, playful responses.

Involving others [again associations; avoid interpretations].

Select associations to focus on (recognizing that metaphors are "overdetermined" and give rise to more meaning and possibilities than can be used).

Connecting with goals of therapy and the future.