Ẩn dụ ý niệm trong “as you like it” của william shakespeare

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
----------o0o----------

TRẦN NGỌC ANH

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN “AS YOU LIKE IT”
BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
(Ẩn dụ ý niệm trong “As You Like It” của William Shakespeare)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201.01

Hanoi - 2021


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
----------o0o----------

TRẦN NGỌC ANH

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN “AS YOU LIKE IT”
BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
(Ẩn dụ ý niệm trong “As You Like It” của William Shakespeare)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201.01
Supervisor: Huỳnh Anh Tuấn, Ph.D

Hanoi - 2021


DECLARATION

Except where reference has been made in the text, this thesis contains no
material previously published or written by another person.
I, Tran Ngoc Anh, hereby state that this M.A. thesis is the result of my own
research and the substance of the thesis has not, wholly or in part, been submitted for
any degrees to any other institutions.
Hanoi, …../ …../ ………..

i


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For the accomplishment of this study, I have been lucky to receive help and
support from many people.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Huỳnh Anh Tuấn,
Ph.D., my supervisor, who provided me with inspiration, ideas, and materials.
My great thankfulness is also given to the teachers of the Foreign Language
University of Hanoi National University for my M.A. thesis.
Finally, my warmest thanks are due to my family for their support and spiritual
encouragement in the process of study.

Hanoi, …../ …../ ………..

ii


ABSTRACT

Conceptual metaphors in pastoral comedies are a unique topic to study. The
study attempts to find out the conceptual metaphors in ―As You Like It‖ by William
Shakespeare. The theory of conceptual metaphor suggested by Lakoff and Johnson
(1980/2003) and Kovecses (2002) is adopted as the analytical framework in this study.
This thesis uses the qualitative method mostly to choose the data for conceptual
metaphors are to clarify the types in ―As You Like It‖. There are 76 conceptual
metaphors are identified and classified in the present study. The most popular source
domains are an object, a journey, a natural-nature, an animal, a human, a man, a rope,
a person, a treatment, time, temperature, water, a drink, money...etc. The target
domains are love, insolence, spirit, education, freedom, death, smart, the brain,
information, the story, the voice, peace and sweetness, sadness ...etc. Of these target
domains, love is the most common target domain. The results show that love can be
conceptualized as a weapon, a treatment/ insolence is a disease, an object…etc. In
addition, there are many expressions (fire/ time/ sadness/ water…etc) conceptualized
as (passion/ a journey/an object/ a human/ a man/ a person/ containers...etc).The
linguistic extremes produce very diverse conceptual metaphors depending on the large
shape of the source domain and target domain.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1
1.1. Rationale ...................................................................................................................1
1.2. Aims and Objectives.................................................................................................2
1.3. Research questions ...................................................................................................2
1.4. The scope of the study .............................................................................................. 2
1.5. The significance of the study ....................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................5
2.1. Cognitive Linguistics................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1. The concepts of Cognitive Linguistics ..................................................................5
2.2. Related research ........................................................................................................6
2.2.1. A general review ....................................................................................................6
2.2.2. The typically related works in English ..................................................................7
2.2.3. The typically related works in Vietnamese ...........................................................8
2.3. Metaphor and Conceptual metaphor .....................................................................10
2.3.1. Metaphor Theory .................................................................................................10
2.3.2. Conceptual metaphor Theory ..............................................................................12
2.3.3. Classifications of Conceptual Metaphors ............................................................ 15
2.4. An introduction to William Shakespeare ............................................................... 20
2.5. Summary................................................................................................................21
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................23
3.1. Research approach ..................................................................................................23
3.1.1. Descriptive method .............................................................................................. 23
3.1.2. Analytic and synthetic methods...........................................................................23

iv

3.1.3. Qualitative and quantitative methods ..................................................................24
3.1.4. Deductive and inductive methods .......................................................................24
3.2. Research procedures ............................................................................................... 24
3.3. Data collection ........................................................................................................29
3.4. Data analytical framework .....................................................................................31
3.5. Summary.................................................................................................................31
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS ..............................................................................33
4.1. Conceptual Metaphors in As You Like It with Source domains ............................ 34
4.2. The conceptual metaphors are linguistically represented in the comedy ...............41
4.3. A brief comment on Shakespeare's contribution of conceptual metaphors to the
success of this comedy ..................................................................................................54
4.4. Summary.................................................................................................................55
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................56
1. Recapitulation ............................................................................................................56
2. Implications of the study ........................................................................................... 59
3. Limitations of the study ............................................................................................. 60
4. Suggestions for further research ................................................................................60
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................61
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ I
APPENDIX 1 .................................................................................................................. I
APPENDIX 2 ............................................................................................................... IV
APPENDIX 3 ............................................................................................................. VIII

v


LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: A summary of conceptual metaphors in As You Like It ............................. 33

vi


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

In chapter I, the rationale, aims, and objectives; research questions; the scope of
the study, the significance of the study, and structure of the study are presented.
1.1. Rationale
Nowadays, English becomes the most popular and universal language to be
used in different countries. Because they said that English is easy for people to learn, it
is also proper flexible, has a concern with numerous languages and you can say an
affair by about hundred ways, although in each country English is different.
Furthermore, change is often going with the trend of developing global language in the
world. As the result, they learn and use English everywhere in the world such as in
business, film, etc.
Metaphor is an infinite enjoyable phenomenon of linguistic, in particular:
literature and poetry, where metaphor is to be used as an indispensable tool, so it is not
astonished at figurative language are regarded as literature and poetry language.
However, it is extensible, universally, and automatically used in social life today.
Together with developing a change of English, the metaphor also tends to profoundly.
Not only it is compared, transfer (which is transferred unknown thing into the known
thing) but also it is regarded as the mode of thought helping humanity to have
cognition about the world by the way, which moves the concept of a morpheme
domain to another, it is so-called: conceptual metaphor.
Shakespeare was a success in playwriting. Like other playwrights, to convey
emotions and meaningful messages into plays, Shakespeare makes viewers perceive
his emotions differently: each audience has a different emotion when watches the same
play using many conceptual metaphors in his work.
For all these reasons, the writer of this thesis hopes to find out the conceptual

metaphors to be used in Shakespeare's pastoral comedy to help the audiences and
English learners can firstly understand, then they can comprehend the abstract
meaning in that. Thereby, we can understand more about English thought, language,

1


mind in common and Shakespeare in particular. Besides, to some extent, we can see
how is conceptual metaphors used flexibly so that we can apply this learning and using
the English language in life? It may be not bored if an English learner would like to
study English by pastoral comedy.
1.2. Aims and Objectives
The study is intended to fulfill the following objectives:
- To find out conceptual metaphors in the pastoral comedy As You Like It
- To clarify the conceptual metaphors
- To analyze how the conceptual metaphors are linguistically represented in the
comedy
1.3. Research questions
To achieve the objectives of the study the following research questions should
be answered:
- What conceptual metaphors are generated in the comedy As You Like It?
- How are the conceptual metaphors linguistically represented in the comedy?
1.4. The scope of the study
Metaphor in cognitive linguistic is regarded as new in recent. But it is studied
by multiple researchers from various perspectives. Because of a large studying scope
to be researched by researchers in the past, so this thesis concentrates on the
conceptual metaphor of cognition which grew out of George Lakoff & Mark Johnson‘s
theory in the points of Metaphors We Live By (1980/ 2003) and Kovecses (2002) in
Metaphor A Practical Introduction. Basically, the view of the conceptual metaphor
written by them having the same idea, so studies all of the authors made me have more

examples and knowledge of the conceptual metaphor of As You Like It.
The scope of the research is mainly viewed on three kinds of conceptual
metaphors in Shakespeare's pastoral comedy. These kinds of conceptual metaphors are
Structural Metaphors, Ontological Metaphors, Orientation Metaphors.
Shakespeare has numerous plays and comedy is the main theme of his works.
But in this research is only limited to 76 expressions of conceptual metaphors that are

2


selected from pastoral comedy As You Like It in 1599 by William Shakespeare from a
cognitive linguistic perspective.
1.5. The significance of the study
Theoretically, the research results will confirm the theory of cognitive
linguistics to analyze the language in general and clarify several issues about the
conceptual metaphors through As You Like It by William Shakespeare in particular.
Studying, applying, using cognitive linguistics is of large significance to us in dealing
with numerous problems of linguistics that was not explained by classic theory.
Especially with foreign language learners like me, cognitive linguistics opened a new
view so that they can approach foreign language easier.
Practically, the findings of the research, to some extent, are applied to analyze,
evaluate, and translate the pastoral comedy As You Like It. This result helps the
readers and the listeners uncover the implicit thinking of William Shakespeare through
conceptual metaphors in As You Like It.
Generally, the study surely assists teachers, students, and translators of English
and Vietnamese in teaching and learning languages as well as in their works.
1.6. Structure of the thesis
*

The thesis begins with a Declaration by Author, Acknowledgements,

Abstract, Table of Contents.
*

The main body of this research paper is divided into six chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction
This part includes the rationale, the research questions, the scope of the study,
the significance of the study, the methodology, the structure of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature review
This chapter is all basic theory: consisting of six sections
•

Section one: cognitive linguistics. This part mainly introduces Cognitive

Linguistics which is defined by some researchers in different aspects of Cognitive
Linguistics.

3


•

Section two: related research

• Section three: metaphor and the conceptual metaphor.
•

Section four: an introduction to William Shakespeare

•

Section five: summary

Chapter 3: Research methodology
This chapter presents the research approach, research procedures, data
collection, data analytical framework, summary.
Chapter 4: Data analysis
This chapter presents the identification of conceptual metaphors.

Chapter 5: Conclusion
This chapter consists of recapitulation, implications, limitations, and
suggestions for further studies.
References
Come at the end of the study

4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is an analysis of the relevant literature of the nature of cognitive
aspects such as cognitive linguistics, related research,

metaphor, and conceptual

metaphor, an introduction William Shakespeare. The aim is to establish a theoretical
background for the study of conceptual metaphors in "As You Like It" by William
Shakespeare.
2.1. Cognitive Linguistics

2.1.1. The concepts of Cognitive Linguistics
Having emerged in the early 1970s, ―Cognitive linguistics (CL) is the school of
linguistics within cognitive science that conceives language creation, learning, and
usage as a part of a larger psychological theory of how humans understand the world‖
(Jackendoff, 2007 p. 192). According to Evans and Green (2006), ―CL is a modern
school of linguistic thought with formal approaches to language‖ (p. 5). It advocates
three principal positions: It denies the existence of an autonomous linguistic faculty in
the mind; It understands linguistic phenomena in terms of conceptualization; It claims
that language knowledge arises out of language use (Evans, et al., 2007). Cognitive
linguistics also argues that the storage and retrieval of linguistic knowledge do not
have to be fundamentally different from the storage and retrieval of other knowledge.
It concentrates on the semantics in terms of mental spaces instead of in terms of
models of the world as assumed by the objectivists.
Language in Cognitive linguistics is both embodied and situated in a specific
environment so that language and cognition continually influence one another. ―CL is
described as a ‗movement‘ or an ‗enterprise‘ because it is not a specific theory.
Instead, it is an approach that has adopted a common set of guiding principles,
assumptions and perspectives‖ (Evans & Green, 2006, p. 5). For cognitive linguists,
language is not structured arbitrarily. It is motivated and grounded more or less
directly in experience, in our bodily, physical, social, and cultural experiences because
after all, ―we are beings of the flesh‖ (Johnson 1992, p. 347).

5


Nesset (2008) suggests that ―CL is a family of broadly compatible theoretical
approaches sharing the fundamental assumption that language is an integral part of
cognition‖ (p. 9). The relationship between language and thought, of course, has been
addressed by many scholars. Cognitive linguistics, however, strongly emphasizes
specific features of this relation. Evans (2007) identified several central aspects, such

as ―the role of meaning, conceptual processes and embodied experience in the study of
language and the mind and how they intersect‖ (p. 22). This point distinguishes
cognitive linguistics different from other approaches to the study of language.
According to Evans (2007) that ―language is assumed to reflect certain fundamental
properties and design features of the human mind‖ (p. 5). Geeraerts (1997) claimed
that ―the analysis of the conceptual and experiential basis of linguistic categories is of
primary importance within cognitive linguistics‖ (p. 7). He places ―all approaches in
which natural language is studied as a mental phenomenon‖ (Geeraerts, 2006, p. 3)
under the umbrella of cognitive linguistic theory.
In fact, Cognitive linguistics contributes to extending the limits of conceptual
phenomena generated by cognitive scientists. It could be the mappings in Conceptual
Metaphor, Mental Space, and Conceptual Blending Theory, which argue that language
reveals the systematic processes working in the human mind, distinguishing itself with
a focus on the human mind and the non-autonomy of language. Cognitive linguistics
and Halliday‘s Functional Grammar both emphasize this concept against Chomsky‘s
viewpoint that language is autonomous.
2.2. Related research
2.2.1. A general review
From Aristotelian's time, the existence of metaphors has been recognized
(Kövecses, 2002, p. 5). Until the 1960s-70s, cognitive linguistics emerged and was
considered the classic study. According to Evans and Green (2006), although firmly
rooted around ten years ago, Cognitive linguistics‘s research was dominated by a few
scholars in the 1970s-80s. However, ―by the early 1990s, there was a growing
proliferation of research in this area, and of researchers who identified themselves as

6


cognitive linguists‖ (Evans & Green, 2006, p. 5). It ―marked the birth of cognitive
linguistics as a broadly grounded, self-conscious intellectual movement‖ (Langacker,

1991/2002, p. xv). Then, Cognitive linguistics has gained a good deal of visibility in
research in many languages in the world. The works can be listed here: Evans (2007);
Evans & Green (2006), Lee, D. (2001) and Geeraerts (2006) had the works to
introduce CL; Johnson (1992) gave a detail in philosophical implications of Cognitive
Semantics; Langacker (1987) wrote ―Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical
Prerequisites‖; Nesset T. (2008) showed ―Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model:
Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology - Phonology Interface‖; Sweetser (1999)
studied on ―Compositionality and blending: semantic composition, in the cognitively
realistic framework‖ and ― lended spaces and performativity‖ (2000); Talmy (2000)
gave a study of ―Toward a Cognitive Semantics‖; L To n Th ng had some typical
works such as ―Linguistics and Space Cognition‖ (1984), ―Cognitive Linguistics From theory to practice‖ (2005) and ―Applying embodiment theory on analyzing some
linguistic expressions‖ (2007). Some authors studied it on cultural aspects such as
Sweetser with ―From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure‖ (1990).
However, due to limited space and time, the writer chose "As You Like It" to
consider conceptual metaphors.
2.2.2. The typically related works in English
2.2.2.1. The work of Lakoff and Johnson
In 1980, Lakoff and Johnson first published their seminal book Metaphors We
Live By (revised 2003) which has been applied to the study of many different
languages. In this work, Lakoff and Johnson gave a new perspective on metaphor.
They take the position that metaphor is a part of language usage and is, therefore, part
of cognition. Further, metaphor is not merely cognitive; it is also a linguistic,
sociocultural, neural, and bodily phenomenon (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 2003). This
view is shared by other scholars (Gibbs, 1998; Kövecses, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2010;
Charteris Black, 2002; Picken, 2007). The difference with previous approaches is that,

7

in the Cognitive linguistics perspective, metaphor is defined as understanding one
conceptual domain in terms of another. According to Lakoff and Johnson (2003),
metaphor constitutes one of the basic strands of Cognitive linguistics and one which is
mentioned in most Cognitive linguistics studies in Cognitive linguistics. In other
words, Cognitive linguistics gave conceptual metaphorical analysis its academic
foundation (Kövecses, 2002). Lakoff & Johnson (1980) stated that ―these patterns are
in fact so widespread and established that it affects the way we speak, think and even
act, thus being a dominant character in our everyday life‖ (p. 3). It is also defined that
―they ultimately assert that metaphors go beyond mere words and that our thought
processes are largely metaphorical in nature‖ (p. 6).
2.2.2.2. The work of Kövecses
A conceptual metaphor has also been the focus of cross-linguistic study.
Kövecses (2006) examined the same figurative meaning in English and Hungarian.
Assuming that different word forms are utilized in different languages to express
roughly equivalent meanings, the literal meaning of an expression with a figurative
meaning may be either the same or different in the two languages. Kövecses highlights
three cognitive devices: conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy, and a
combination of the two. Each may be either the same or different in the two languages.
Kövecses‘ work clarifies the relation between metaphorical language and the allimportant notion of culture in its many forms.
According to Kövecses (2002, p. 6) ―as metaphors are frequently used to
demonstrate or better understand a theoretical concept, it appears intuitive to use a
more concrete concept for further clarification‖.
2.2.3. The typically related works in Vietnamese
There are some scholars of Vietnamese sharing the general approach to
Cognitive linguistics and metaphors in its view. Tr n V n C (2007), for example,
examines metaphor from a cognitive linguistics perspective and states that metaphor is
used to help understand abstract concepts and that we normally understand metaphors
based on non-metaphorical expressions. Others who have taken a Cognitive linguistics

8

approach to the study of metaphor as Nguy n

c T n (2002) with ―Studying on

specific characteristics of culture and people of language and thought‖; L

To n

Th ng (2005) with ―Cognitive Linguistics - From general theory to practice in
Vietnamese‖; Tr n V n C (2007) with ―Cognitive Metaphor‖, ―Treatise of Cognitive
Metaphor‖(2009), etc.
Recently, there have been some other researchers as follows:
A doctoral study by Trịnh Thị Thanh Huệ (2011) examines the relationship
between cognitive metaphors and language, culture, and thought on the basis that a
better understanding of the mechanism of metaphor creation will contribute to more
general research on cognitive functioning.
Another English-Vietnamese comparative study by Nguy n Lưu Quỳnh Như
(2013) looked at the EMOTION-IS-LIQUID metaphor. This research shows that English
and Vietnamese share the conceptual metaphor EMOTION IS LIQUID and identifies the
seven mappings, for example, ‗The Physical State of Liquid is The Physical State of
Emotion‘, ‗The Change of Physical State of Liquid is The Change of Physical State of
Emotion‘, ‗The Consumer/Container of The Liquid is The Consumer/Container of The
Emotion‘, ‗The Act to Take The Liquid into The Body is The Act to Take The Emotion
into The

od‘, etc. She used the notation conventions of Lakoff and Johnson (1980,

2003).

More recent work by Nguy n Thị Quyết (2015) shows the similarities and
differences of metaphors in modern lyric poems in English and Vietnamese. The author
shows the variation in the conceptualization of metaphors in the language which appear to
be rooted in different beliefs, living conditions, and philosophies of life in the two
cultures.
Previous studies differ in the materials used in each study, ranging from
idioms, poems, novels, and other spoken languages such as Esenova (2011), Mashak et
al. (2012), Esmaeili et al. (2015), Nguy n V n Tr o (2009). It is noteworthy that
studies on conceptual metaphors involving the plays of Shakespeare rare. There has
been no specific study on conceptual metaphors in " As You Like It" by William

9


Shakespeare. From that, I want to research, conceptual metaphors in "As You Like It",
based on the view of Lakoff & Johnson( 1980/2003) and Kovecses ( 2003).
2.3. Metaphor and Conceptual metaphor
2.3.1. Metaphor Theory
2.3.1.1. Traditional theories of metaphors
The metaphor used to be simply defined as ―…a figure of speech in which a
word or phrase is used to describe something it does not literally denote‖ (McGlone,
13-2007:109). The Greek rhetoricians considered metaphor one of the master devices
namely trope which is based on the implicitly marked comparison of two categories.
Up to the late 19th century, the study of metaphor was still considered the main
concern of literary scholars who were interested in the interpretation of particular
tropes in poetry and fiction. According to the Aristotelian ―comparison view‖ (1965),
the metaphor was characterized by the schematic form: X is Y, such as this journal is a
gem and could be explicitly interpreted in simile form: X is like Y (this journal is like
a gem) (cited in McGlone, 2007:110). Thus, the comparison view, underlines Miller
(1993: 186-188), treats metaphors as a species of analogy and asserts that the

perception of similarity is the basis of metaphor use and comprehension. However,
many scholars reject that simplistic comparison view about metaphor. Richards
(1936:90) denies that metaphor is a mere ornament and a unique feature of language
but ―the omnipresent principle of all its free action‖. He also clarifies the metaphor
form and provides a fairly standard terminology of metaphor. The term used
metaphorically is the ―vehicle‖ (e.g. a gem), the term to which it is applied is the
―tenor‖ or ―topic‖ (e.g. this journal), and the meaning of the metaphor is the ―ground‖.
uilding on Richards‘ work,

lack (1962) proposes his ―interaction view‖ where

metaphors reflect the process of perceiving the topic concept ‗‗in terms of‘‘ the vehicle
concept to produce a ground that combines their conceptual attributes and transcends
their literal denotations (cited in McGlone, 2007:110). His theory, however, is
criticized by many contemporary metaphor theorists for its vague explanation of
figurative transcendence.

10


2.3.1.2. Contemporary theories of metaphors
A great number of treatises and models have been proposed to specify the
interaction of topic and vehicle concepts to yield metaphoric meanings. Let consider
the following expressions which commonly refer to particular experiences of love
relationships:
a.

Look how far we‘ve come.

b.

We‘re at a crossroads.

c.

We can‘t turn back now.

d.

I don‘t think this relationship is going anywhere.

e.

Where are we?

f.

We‘re stuck.

g.

It‘s been a long, bumpy road.

h.

We‘re just spinning our wheels.

i.

Our marriage is on the rocks.

j.

We‘ve gotten off the track.

k.

This relationship is foundering
Lakoff and Johnson (1980:44-45)

Noticeably, these expressions are used to talk about relationships in ordinary
daily life, without stylistic and poetic features. Moreover, the linguistic formula X is Y
is not applied in these expressions. However, it cannot deny that these expressions are
apparently non-literal because a relationship cannot literally spin its wheels nor stand
at the crossroads. Black (1962) argues that metaphor does not merely deal with the
level of word meaning, but with the deeper level of conceptual structure. Richardt
(2005:19) also affirms that the ―conceptual metaphor‖ framework advanced by Lakoff
and his colleagues has undoubtedly become the most influential theory of metaphor.
Although most people may view metaphor as characteristic of language alone, and
also as ―a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language‖, Lakoff and Johnson
(1980:3) again insist that metaphor takes part in every aspect of our life and deep roots
in our conceptual system. It is not only a matter of language but also of thought and

11


action. According to their proposal, one cognitive domain can be understood, or even
created, in terms of components more usually associated with another cognitive
domain (cited in Ferrando, 1998:81). Similarly, Kovecses (2002:4) identifies metaphor
in the cognitive linguistic view as ―…understanding one conceptual domain in terms

of another conceptual domain‖.
In conclusion, in the cognitive approach, metaphors do not simply use as
figures of speech in literature, but they are also pervasive in everyday language. They
are rooted in our minds and operate naturally and unconsciously. Besides, they are
conceptual tools whereby more abstract and intangible domains can be understood and
created in terms of familiarity and concrete.
2.3.2. Conceptual metaphor Theory
The term ―conceptual metaphor‖ was arguably mentioned the first time in 1980
by Lakoff and Johnson in Metaphors We Live By, as they shared with each other
about the views on ―meaning‖ in western philosophy and linguistics and the
―meaningful‖ in life (see more in the Preface of this book). Here the metaphor is
named and writing in capital letters, examples: HAPPY IS UP, INFLATION IS AN
ADVERSARY, etc., on their view, the metaphor is not just a matter of language, it is
being in ―the way we think, what we experience, and what we do every day‖ (Lakoff
and Johnson, 1980/2003, p.3). In other words, Conceptual Metaphor is the studying
metaphor in cognitive linguistics. In this case, the metaphor is: one concept is
understood by other concepts or we are understood one domain of experience by
others‘ (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980/2003, p. 117). So conceptual metaphor is not only
the means of poetry, it can be used in everyday language. We still use Conceptual
Metaphor every day and everywhere, but we perhaps don‘t realize that. Conceptual
Metaphor is not a comparison or trope because Conceptual Metaphors is not only the
matter of language, it also matters of our thought, mind, etc.(Which belong to
cognition) or we can say that our thought and action is the matter of conceptualization.
Kövecses, one of the famous researcher on metaphor, he defined the term of
―conceptual metaphor‖ in the Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2002): ―A

12


convenient shorthand way of capturing this view of metaphor is the following:

CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN A IS CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN B, which is what is called
a conceptual metaphor‖, ―A conceptual metaphor consists of two conceptual domains,
in which one domain is understood in terms of another‖ (Kovesces, 2002, p. 4).
Following Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2003), Kovecses (2002), studying
metaphor need do in cognitive science because of the matter of metaphor, not just
linguistics, but in cognition or cognitive-linguistic science. In other words, conceptual
metaphor is the transference of meaning from one domain to another domain, or in the
way that we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another. Like as when we
learn conceptual metaphor, we can understand our mind and think on the matter of
conceptualization. These are, Target Domain and Source Domain, the process of
understanding the target domain through a source domain is called a conceptual
metaphor. Each target domain can be understood by many source domains it depends
on the experiences of each person. And following Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2003)
one target domain is not understood by one source domain only, at least having two or
more source domains are mapped.
2.3.2.1. Conceptual Metaphor Domain
As above, to define conceptual metaphor, depending on the transfer of the
conceptual domain, so how is the conceptual domain defined by Lakoff and Johnson?
According to the view of conceptual metaphor in Metaphors we live by (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980/2003), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics is a process of cognition that
allows us to comprehend one domain of experience (the target domain) in the term of
another (the source domain). Two domains both participate in the conceptual metaphor
as Lakoff & Johnson‘s view, the same as Koveses (2002) asserted that the domain
understands another is called the source domain, vice versa the domain is understood
that is called the target domain.
The Domain was defined by Kovecses (2002, p. 4) ―a conceptual domain is any
coherent organization of experience‖, the coherent organization of experience depends
on organized knowledge of human beings of the field that metaphor refers to, it is

13

conceptualized by concepts. He believed that if we have coherent knowledge about
one thing, we would see that, there are some definitions or concepts in dictionaries so
it has characteristic linguistics. Besides, they have features of psychology, chemistry,
etc., which belong to nature, then they are also experienced by human feelings, all of
these must be coherently organization knowledge to become ―domain‖.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2003, p.117) suggested that: ―understanding takes
place in terms of entire domains of experience and not in terms of isolated concepts‖.
So ―concepts arising from our experience are opened-ended‖ (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980/2003, p.125), the domain of experience of concepts are opened-ended too and
this infers that domains are opened-ended. Domain in the process of conceptual
metaphor is called the domain of experience, which is conceptualized and defined as
the basic domain of experience. They seemed to call domains of experience are
organized in terms of natural dimensions to be ―natural kinds of experience‖, they are
also called ―products of human nature‖ while others perhaps have changed depending
on the culture.
In the process of conceptual metaphor, we see that understanding domain A
there are some domains which are natural kinds of experiences, (ex: to try to
understand the LOVE (domain A) by some natural kinds of experience (domain B): A
JOURNEY, MADNESS, WAR, POSSESSION, SAFETY, FIRE, PAIN, UNITY,
HAPPINESS, A DESIRE, AN OBJECT, A PERSON, A CONTAINER, A SOURCE
OF WARMTH, FLUID, etc.,) Lakoff and Johnson called it ―interactional properties‖,
it was regarded as it is interaction with another and with the world. Thus, each domain
is not only understood by one other domain but also can be understood by some of the
other domains (natural kinds of experience).
Lakoff and Johnson asserted that in a metaphor, there are two domains: the
target domain, and the source domain. Kovecses also believed that domain A is
the target domain.
Target Domain

Saying about the target domain in a conceptual metaphor, Lakoff and Johnson

14


defined ―the target domain, which is constituted by the immediate subject matter‖
(Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p.265), target domain here is a subject matter which we
need to understand or try understand by using source domain, it was made a
comparison with ―as an initial slide on the projector and metaphorical projection‖
(Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 253), projection metaphor starts with the first step:
target domain, which is goals of metaphorical projection too. If metaphor projection is
the give and takes process so the target domain would consider as an image recipient.
They also believed that target domains are often abstract subject matters, which are
unintelligible, such as LOVE, LIFE, ARGUMENTS, etc.
Basically, Kovecses had the same idea, he considered that target the domain is
abstract experiences,

he wrote:

―conceptual domain that is understood this way is

the target domain‖ (Kovesces, 2002, p. 4), conceptual domain He was regarded as
―coherent organization of experience‖, so we infer target domain as a coherent
organization of experience (experiences) to be understood via others.
Source Domain
Source domain, which we are used to understanding other concept domain
(target domain), following Kovesces, Lakoff, and Johnson. In other words, the source
domain is a conceptual domain that is used in reasoning about others. Thus, source
domains are concept domains (the domain of experience) which are typically more
concrete concepts, such as JOURNEY, WAR, BUILDINGS, FOOD, PLANTS, etc.,

Lakoff and Johnson (2003) ―the source domain, in which important metaphorical
reasoning takes place and that provides the source concepts used in that reasoning‖
(Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 265). Source domain roles as an image donor in
projection metaphor and all of the source domains should be projected onto the target.
2.3.3. Classifications of Conceptual Metaphors
According to the function Conceptual metaphor can be divided into three kinds:
ontological metaphor, structural metaphor, and orientation metaphor (Kovesces, 2002,
pp.33-34), he had distinct types of conceptual metaphor and possibly to classify
metaphors in a variety of ways, but rely on the especially important role of cognitive,

15


linguistic view he divided conceptual metaphor in this way rely on the
―conventionality, function, nature and level of generality of metaphor‖ (Kovesces,
2002, p.33). Depending on cognitive function: structural, ontological, orientation, their
nature: knowledge-based or image-based, their conventionality: conventional or
unconventional, their complexity: simple or complex, and so forth (Kovesces, 2002,
p.310). Lakoff and Johnson: ―The division of metaphors into three types—orientation,
ontological, and structural—was artificial‖ (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980/2003, p.264).
They claimed that "all metaphors are structural (in that they map structures to
structures); all are ontological (in that they create target domain entities), and many are
orientational (in that they map orientational image-schemas)."(Lakoff and Johnson,
2003, p.264)
Basically, Conceptual Metaphor is classified into three types: orientation
metaphor, ontological metaphor, a structural metaphor which divided by Lakoff and
Johnson, Kovesces. And following them, Structural Metaphor has used most time vice
versa Orientation and Ontological Metaphors are less.
2.3.3.1. Orientation Metaphors
Conceptually, spatial orientation is regarded as locating something somewhere

in space, Orientation metaphors were said by Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2003), that is
one concept is organized by a whole system of concepts with regard to one other, most
of the orientation metaphors have to do with spatial orientation: un-down, in-out,
front-back, on-off, deep-shallow, central-peripheral, and so on. It is different from
culture to culture because orientation metaphors are basic to our physical and cultural
experience. Following Lakoff and Johnson, physical and cultural basic here are the
human point of view in one culture or physical characteristic of human beings, in a
vertical position we rise from ―DOWN‖ to polar opposition ―UP‖. It is Clear that
HAPPY IS UP (happy is good emotion, feeling, they are rising higher), GOOD IS UP
(the same as happiness, health, life and control the principal characteristic of what is
good for a person are all UP), MORE IS UP(quantity and number of a substance or
physical objects are rising, or their container goes up), VIRTUE IS UP (a point of

16


human view about human nature, is good in society), HIGHT STATUS IS UP (status
is correlated with social and physical power, status up mean more social and physical
power), have different means in our experience so it gives rise to many different
metaphors. They recognized that most of their fundamental concepts are organized
concerning one or more specialization metaphors and metaphor has many possible
physical and social bases, but which is chosen that depending on a part of the
coherence in the overall system, this is the reason that why one concept structure in
vertical orientation is not breadthwise orientation, this is found that in some
circumstances specialization is an important part of a concept that is so hard to take
place of metaphor that it might structure the concept, examples: ―STATUS IS UP‖,
―HAPPY IS UP‖, etc.
Kovecses defined orientation metaphors ―the name ―orientation metaphor‖
derives from the fact that most metaphors that serve this function have to do with basic
human spatial orientations such as up-down, center-periphery, and the like‖

(Kovesces, 2002, p.40), ―Orientation metaphors have primarily an evaluative function.
They make large groups of metaphors coherent with each other‖, he also calls
orientation metaphor as ―coherence metaphor‖, and claimed that it is in accordance
with the cognitive function in performing metaphors. ―Coherence‖ meant that certain
target concepts were tendentiously conceptualized in a uniform manner. He gave
examples about orientations such as: ―upward‖ orientation and opposite orientation
―downward‖ so he found that Upward orientation was considered with positive
evaluation, vice versa downward orientation is negative evaluation.
He pointed out that a lot of spatial image schemas are ―bipolar and bivalent‖,
having two evaluations such as positive-negative evaluation.
He pointed out that a lot of spatial image schemas are ―bipolar and bivalent‖,
having two evaluations such as positive-negative evaluation.
2.3.3.2. Structural Metaphors
Most of the metaphors are used in everyday life language is a structural
metaphor, following Lakoff and Johnson (1980), he called metaphors in the cases that

17