ways of denoting characteristics through domestic animal metaphor in english = cách cách diễn đạt tính cách thông qua ẩn dụ vật nuôi trong tiếng anh

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of contents iv
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Research question 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Organization of the study 3
PART II: DEVELOPMENT 4
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 4
1.1. An overview of Cognitive Linguistics 4
1.2. An overview of Cognitive Semantics 5
1.3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory 7
1.3.1. Definition of Conceptual Metaphor 7
1.3.2. Domain and Mapping 8
1.3.3. Image – schema 9
1.3.4. Levels of Conceptual Metaphor 10
1.3.5. Types of Conceptual Metaphor 11
1.3.6. Some features of Conceptual Metaphor 14
1.4. Animal Metaphor and The Great Chain of Being Metaphor 15
Chapter 2: The Study 18
2.1. Research question 18
2.2. Data Collection 18
2.3. Analytical Framework 19
2.4. Analysis 20

5
2.4.1. Arrogance 20
2.4.2. Maliciousness 21
2.4.3. Selfishness/ Greediness 24
2.4.4. Stupidity 25
2.4.5. Loose moral 26
2.4.6. Obstinacy 27
2.4.7. Cowardice 28
2.4.8. Servility 29
2.4.9. Smugness 30
2.4.10. Aggressiveness 30
2.4.11. Despicableness 31
2.4.12. Mild-manner 33
.2.4.13. Tenaciousness 33
PART III: CONCLUSION 34
1. Conclusions 34
2. Implications 35
3. Suggestions for further research 36
REFERENCES 37
APPENDIX 40









6

Part I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Over the past century, English has emerged as an international language with its
influence extending to almost every part of the world and almost fields of life. It is an
indispensable medium for diplomacy, aviation, transaction of international trade, scientific and
technological studies, etc. Accordingly, English teaching and learning are becoming
increasingly important. In Vietnam, there seems to exist a commonly-held assumption among
many English learners that in acquiring a foreign language, such linguistic factors as
grammatical, lexical, phonological etc. rules must be put priority and be the centre of the
learning process. Such assumption, though considered reasonable to certain extent, has
somehow shaped a rigid learning method which heavily focuses on linguistics factors and take
other non-linguistic elements for granted. However, it has been pointed out that if we learn
English without studying, at the same time, the underlying aspects of the language, we are
merely using words which might convey improper senses. A lot of language phenomena are
associated with cultural aspects of the country from which the language stems, and some also
reflect the specific way of viewing and experiencing the world of people of that country.
Metaphor is one such phenomenon.
Metaphor is traditionally considered a figure of speech, an ornamental device that is
restricted to literature and poetry and ―exclusive with the realm of ordinary everyday
language‖ (Lakoff, 1993, p. 202). In recent decades, with the increasing interest of cognitive
researchers in the subject, metaphor has been re-defined as a cognitive system that structures
our thoughts and behavior rather than a language phenomenon, hence the term ―conceptual
metaphor‖. According to cognitive linguistics, a conceptual metaphor is a mapping of the
structure of a source domain onto a target domain, in which the target domain is understood in
terms of the source domain. It acts as a powerful thinking mode in which people use their
familiar, material and concrete concepts to know, think about and experience immaterial
concepts which are difficult to be realize, thus obtain better understanding about themselves
and the outside world.

7

Out of the human world, there is a colourful animal world which is closely related with
our life. The ―neighbour‖ relationship between human and animals makes people very familiar
with the habits of animals, and gradually they begin to associate some animals‘ characters
with someone‘s characters, hence ―PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS‖ metaphor. Metaphorical
transfer from animal domain to human domain is considered universal and can be found in
many languages, including English and Vietnamese. However, although the same animal
metaphor may occur in the two languages, it does not mean that the concept represented by
that metaphor in English is totally identical to that in Vietnamese and vice versa. The
difference in the perception of each language community toward an animal metaphor may
cause difficulties for English learners in both learning and translating process. Therefore, a
good understanding of how an animal protypical atrribute is used to talk about a human trait in
a certain language not only helps English learners use it properly but also offers them
opportunity to get to the heart of English culture. For this reason, the study will attempt to
explore how animals related expressions are used to denote human characteristics in English
and Vietnamese. As it would be an exhausive work if all animal terms are investigated, the
study will limit itself to analyze just some domestic animals that are common in both everyday
life and language, namely Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig, and Cow.
2. Aims of the study
The study aims at
- Investigating different ways of denoting human character traits through Dog, Cat,
Chicken, Pig, and Cow metaphors in English.
- Identifying the symbolism of Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig and Cow in association with
human character traits as encoded in English.
3. Research question
To realize the above aims, the following research question will be addressed:
How are salient human characteristics denoted through the Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig
and Cow metaphor in English?

8
4. Scope of the study
The study examines a group of domestic animal metaphors. Within the domestic animal
source domain, five sub-domains are chosen: dog, cat, chicken, pig and cow. When a
comparison between humans and animals is made, different features of animals such as
physical appearance features, sounds, and prototypical behaviours can be respectively mapped
onto human domain. In this thesis, the foci will be on those metaphors that describe human
characteristics.
5. Organization of the study
The study consists of three parts. The first part ―Introduction” gives a brief account of
the rationale, scope, aims, research questions and organization of the study. The second and
also the main part of the study, ―Development”, consists of two chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical background, which provides an overview of conceptual
metaphor such as its definition, levels, types and features as well as other central concepts to
understand conceptual metaphor like domain, mapping and image-schema.
Chapter 2: The study. This chapter restates the research question, briefly describes the
data collection procedure as well as presents the analytical framework. The main focus of this
chapter is a discussion on the usage of different expressions with Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig, and
Cow to denote human characteristics in English.
The last part is “Conclusion”, which summarizes the main findings; draw important
conclusion and offers suggestions for further studies.
The study ends with “Reference” and “Appendix”

9
Part II: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. An Overview of Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive linguistics has emerged in the last twenty-five years as a powerful approach
to the study of language, conceptual systems, human cognition, and general meaning
construction. It views linguistic knowledge as part of general cognition and thinking; i.e.
linguistic behaviour is not separated from other general cognitive abilities which allow mental
processes of reasoning, memory, attention or learning, but understood as an integral part of it.
(Johnson, 1987). It addresses within language the structuring of basic conceptual categories
such as space and time, scenes and events, entities and processes, motion and location, force
and causation. It addresses the structuring of ideational and affective categories attributed to
cognitive agents, such as attention and perspective, volition and intention. Aspects of language
studied in cognitive linguistics include conceptualization, meaning, metaphor, grammar, and
many other aspects of the language facility as it relates to thinking. As an interdisciplinary
enterprise, it incorporates ideas from philosophy, neurobiology, psychology, computer science
and develops theoretical insights based on empirical methodologies.
The cognitive linguistics movement consists of different theories that share at least two
important tenets: first, language is symbolic in nature; and second, everything in language is
permeated with meaning.
In cognitive view, language is taken to be fundamentally symbolic at all levels of its
structure. The purpose of linguistic inquiry is to describe its semiotic function; i.e. the
symbolic association between a meaning and a phonological form. The lexicon, morphology,
and syntax form a continuum of symbolic structures that cannot easily be separated into
discrete compartments. Consequently, the grammar of a language can be described as ―a
structured inventory of conventional symbolic units‖ (Langacker, 1987, p.73). To put the same
thing differently, symbolic units constitute the totality of the grammar of the language, and
each symbolic unit is composed of a semantic and a phonological pole.
As linguistic expressions are inherently symbolic, the investigation of their meaning

represents a major field of studies in cognitive linguistics. Meaning is considered to be

10
equated with conceptualization, or to be more specific, in the human interpretation of the
world. It is subjective, anthropocentric, and reflects dominant cultural concerns and culture-
specific modes of interaction as well as features of the world as such (Lakoff 1987, Langacker
1991, Wierzbicka 1988). In that sense, man's conceptual system is postulated to be grounded
or ―embodied‖ in his physical experience, i.e. conceptual categories, and the meanings of
words, sentences and other linguistic structures are considered to be motivated and grounded
in one's concrete, direct experience with the surrounding world with which one interacts.
1.2. An Overview of Cognitive Semantics
As an indispensable part of cognitive linguistics, cognitive semantics is concerned with
investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic
structure encoded by language (Evans and Green, 2006). It is concerned most directly with the
form of the internal mental representations that constitute conceptual structure and with the
formal relations between this level and other levels of representation. In specific terms,
scholars working in cognitive semantics investigate knowledge representation (conceptual
structure), and meaning construction (conceptualization). Cognitive semanticists have
employed language as the lens through which these cognitive phenomena can be investigated.
Consequently, research in cognitive semantics tends to be interested in modelling the human
mind as much as it is concerned with investigating linguistic semantics.
Cognitive semantics is not a single unified framework. Those researchers who identify
themselves as cognitive semanticists typically have a diverse set of foci and interests.
However, there are a number of guiding principles that collectively characterize a cognitive
approach to semantics which can be stated as follows: (i) Conceptual structure is embodied;
(ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure; (iii) Meaning representation is encyclopedic;
and (ix) Meaning-construction is conceptualization (Evans and Green, 2006)
(i) Conceptual structure is embodied
A fundamental concern for cognitive semanticists is the nature of the relationship
between conceptual structure and the external world of sensory experience. One idea that has

emerged in an attempt to explain the nature of conceptual organization on the basis of
interaction with the physical world is the embodied cognition thesis. The thesis holds that the

11
nature of conceptual organization arises from bodily experience so part of what makes
conceptual structure meaningful is the bodily experience with which it is associated. We can
only talk about what we can perceive and conceive, and the things that we can perceive and
conceive derive from embodied experience. Hence, conceptual structure (the nature of human
concepts) is a consequence of the nature of our embodiment and thus is embodied.
(ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure
This principle asserts that language refers to concepts in the mind of the speaker rather
than to objects in the external world (Evans and Green, 2006). In other words, semantic
structure (the meanings conventionally associated with words and other linguistic unit) can be
equated with concepts. However, the claim that semantic structure can be equated with
conceptual structure does not mean that the two are identical. Instead, cognitive semanticists
claim that the meanings associated with linguistic units such as words, for example, form only
a subset of possible concepts. After all, we have many more thoughts, ideas and feelings than
we can conventionally encode in language.
(iii) Meaning representation is encyclopedic
The third central principle of cognitive semantics holds that semantic structure is
encyclopedic in nature. This means that lexical concepts do not represent neatly packaged
bundles of meaning This means that words do not represent neatly packaged bundles of
meaning but serve as ―points of access‖ to vast repositories of knowledge relating to a
particular concept of conceptual domain (Langacker 1987).
(ix) Meaning-construction is conceptualization
The fourth principle associated with cognitive semantics is that language itself does not
encode meaning. Instead, as we have seen, words are only ―prompts‖ for the construction of
meaning (Evans and Green, 2006). According to this view, meaning is constructed at the
conceptual level: meaning construction is equated with conceptualization, a dynamic process
whereby linguistics units serve as prompts for an array of conceptual operations and the

recruitment of background knowledge. It follows from this view that meaning is a process
rather than a discrete ―thing‖ that can be ―packaged‖ by language.


12
1.3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory
Since the appearance of Cognitive Linguistics in the mid 1970s, metaphor has received
great amount of attention by scholars such as Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1987) and
Turner (1987) who have devoted their research to studying this phenomenon. In Metaphors
We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson propose Conceptual Metaphor Theory which postulates that
metaphors develop through experiences and become a part of our basic conceptual system.
Through our bodily experiences we learn to connect one thing to something else and the
mapping is stored in our brain. Thus, the use of metaphor reflects speakers‘ ideas and the
interactions with the world. Assuming that the human ordinary conceptual system is
metaphorically structured, metaphor in Lakoff and Johnson‘s description is not simply a
means of expression, but a means of conceptualization (Deignan, 2005; Kövecses, 2005). It
resides in thought, and structures thinking and knowledge; and it is grounded in physical
experience (Deignan, 2005, p. 13) Hence, metaphor is primarily a matter of conceptual
structure, and derivatively a matter of language: ―Metaphor is a tool so ordinary that we use it
unconsciously and automatically it is irreplaceable: metaphor allows us to understand our
selves and our world in ways that no other modes of thought can.‖ (Lakoff & Turner, 1989, p.
xi). Therefore, it should not at any time be forgotten is that the Conceptual Metaphor Theory is
not merely a linguistic theory of how figurative language works, but a theory of language,
cognition and reasoning.
In the later part, some of the key concepts in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory such as
domain and mappings, image-schema, levels of conceptual metaphor, types of conceptual
metaphor as well as some of its basic features are explained in details.
1.3.1. Definition of Conceptual Metaphor
Lakoff and Johnson argue that ―the essence of metaphor is understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another‖ (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, p. 5). Thus, from

the cognitive linguistic point of view, metaphor is defined as the cognitive mechanism
whereby one conceptual domain (source domain) is partially mapped or projected onto another
conceptual domain (target domain), so that the second domain is partially understood in terms
of the first one. Metaphor is thus ―a cross domain mapping in the conceptual system‖ (Lakoff

13
1994, p.203). A convenient short hand way of capturing this view of metaphor is as follows:
CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (A) IS CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (B).
1.3.2. Domain and Mapping
As stated above, conceptual metaphors are systematic mappings across two conceptual
domains: the source domain is mapped onto the target domain. A conceptual domain is any
coherent organization of experience. Of the two domains that participate in conceptual
metaphor, the one from which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another
conceptual domain is called source domain, and the one that is understood this way is the
target domain. The target domain is that which is described and the source domain or the
metaphoric theme provides the terms which the target is described. The source domain is
typically concrete and the target domain is typically abstract. For example, in such conceptual
metaphors as LOVE IS A JOURNEY, AN ARGUMENT IS WAR, or THEORIES ARE
BUILDINGS, ideas and knowledge from the source domain of ―journey‖, ―war‖, or
―buildings‖ are mapped onto the target domain of ―love‖, ―argument‖, and ―theories‖. In other
words, it is through the source domains of ―journey‖, ―war‖, or ―buildings‖ that we better
understand ―love‖, ―argument‖ and ―theories‖.
The mapping between two conceptual domains A and B is ―a set of systematic
correspondences between the source and the target in the sense that constituent conceptual
elements of B correspond to constituent elements of A‖ (Kovecses, 2002, p.6) To know a
conceptual metaphor is to know the set of mappings that applies to a given source-target
pairing. Taken the LOVE IS A JOURNEY conceptual metaphor as an example, we can lay out
a set of correspondences or mappings between constituent elements of the source and those of
the target as follows:
Source: JOURNEY

the travelers
the vehicle
the journey
the distance covered
the obstacles encountered
Target: LOVE
 the lovers
 the love relationship itself
 events in the relationship
 the progress made
 the difficulties experienced

14
decisions about which way to go
the destination of the journey
 choices about what to do
 the goal(s) of the relationship
In the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY, Lakoff and Johnson use the above
mappings as evidence that love is conceptualized as a journey in the English language. People
in a long-term love relationship are expected to have both an individual and joint purpose in
life. Each individual‘s life can be seen as a journey and a couple‘s life together can also be
seen as a journey to common goals. An individual journey is difficult and the task of choosing
and pursuing common goals is even more difficult. Thus, LOVE IS A JOURNEY is a
complex metaphor that concerns the difficulties faced in setting and pursuing common goals
by people in a long-term love relationship
1.3.3. Image-schema
Another concept central to conceptual metaphor theory is image-schema. According to
Geeraets (2006, p.12), ―an image-schema is a regular pattern that recurs as a source domain
(or a structuring part of a source domain) for different target domains‖. In his book ―The body
in the mind‖ (1987), Mark Johnson proposed that embodied experience gives rise to image

schemas within the conceptual system, and image schemas derive from sensory and perceptual
experience as we interact with and move about the world. For example, in the metaphor LIFE
IS A JOURNEY we find the following metaphorical usages.
He's cruising down the highway of success.
You'd better slow down and think about what you want to do with your life.
She lives her life in the fast lane.
All these examples have to do with the image schema of speed. Speed in the source
domain of JOURNEY relates to the speed at which the journey (usually in a car) takes place.
This image-schema maps onto the speed at which LIFE takes place.
Mark Johnson (1987) has identified some of the most basic of the kinesthetic image
schemas, ones arguably most central to human experience. These include the container
schema (a boundary distinguishing an interior from and exterior), the part-whole schema (the
part-whole structure of bodies and objects), the link schema (which secures the location of one
thing relative to another e.g. a rope), the center/periphery schema (center = identity or

15
importance), and the source-path-goal schema (all actions involve a starting point, a trajectory,
and an endpoint). Other central schemas include the up-down schema, the front-back schema,
and the linear order schema, for example, although the full range and centrality of all of these
is under continuous investigation to date.
1.3.4. Levels of metaphor
The Conceptual Metaphor Theory discriminates between two levels of metaphor: the
conceptual level and the linguistic level. The former is represented by conceptual metaphor,
which has come to mean ―a cross-domain mapping in the conceptual system‖ (Lakoff, 1993,
p.203). The linguistic level of metaphor is represented by metaphorical expression which
refers to ―a linguistic expression (a word, a phrase, or a sentence) that is the surface realization
of such a cross-domain mapping‖ (Lakoff, 1993, p.203). Metaphorical expressions are
systematically tied to a conceptual metaphor, with each of the former as a particular linguistic
instantiation or manifestation of the latter. In other words, it is the metaphorical expression
that make explicit of and reveal the existence of conceptual metaphor. For example, the

conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY can be manifested through numerous
metaphorical expressions as follows:
LOVE IS A JOURNEY
Look how far we‟ve come.
We‘re at a crossroads.
We‘ll just have to go our separate ways.
We can‘t turn back now.
I don‘t think this relationship is going anywhere.
Where are we?
We are stuck.
It‘s been a long, bumpy road.
This relationship is a dead-end street.
We‘re just spinning our wheels.
Our marriage is on the rocks.
We‘ve gotten off the track.

16
This relationship is foundering
1.3.5. Types of conceptual metaphors
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) distinguish three fundamental types of conceptual metaphor,
namely structural, ontological, and orientational.
1.3.5.1. Structural metaphors
Structural metaphors make up the largest portion in conceptual metaphors. According to
Lakoff & Johnson (1980, p.197), structural metaphors ―involve the structuring of one kind of
experience or activity in terms of another kind of experience or activity.‖ To put the same
thing differently, in structural metaphor, one concept is understood and expressed in terms of
another structured, sharply defined concept. The cognitive function of such a metaphor is to
enable speakers to understand target A by means of the structure of source B.
For instance, war is a concept that is frequently mapped onto target domain such as
argument. We know that war is a concrete concept referring to a very complex process that

involves plan, attack, defense, counterattack, fight, win, lose, truce etc. Argument is an
abstract concept that shares a lot of similarities with the war concept. Many aspects of an
argument are partially structured by the concept of war. We can actually win or lose
arguments. We plan and use strategies. We defend our own positions and attack others‘ and
the person we are arguing can be seen as an opponent. As a result, there can be a lot of
metaphorical expressions motivated by the structural metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR:
Your claims are indefensible.
He attacked every weak point in my argument.
His criticisms were right on target.
I demolished his argument.
I‘ve never won an argument with him.
You disagree? Okay, shoot!
If you use that strategy, he‘ll wipe you out.
He shot down all of my arguments.
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 4)

17
This is an example of what it means for a metaphorical concept, namely, ARGUMENT
IS WAR, to structure what we do and how we understand what we are doing when we argue.
It is not that arguments are a subspecies of war. Arguments and wars are different kinds of
things - one is verbal discourse and the other armed conflict - and the actions performed are
different kinds of actions. But ARGUMENT is partially structured, understood, performed,
and talked about in terms of WAR.
1.3.5.2. Ontological metaphors
Ontological metaphors ―involve the projection of entity or substance status on
something that does not have that status inherently‖ (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 196). In this
group of metaphors, we conceive intangible concepts, such as feelings, activities, and ideas as
objects and substances, and set up artificial boundaries for them. As a result, we can "refer to
them, categorize them, group them, and quantify them - and, by this means, reason about
them" (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p.25).

The most typical and representative example of ontological metaphor is container
metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). We are physical beings, bounded and separated from the
rest of the world by the surface of our skins, and we experience the rest of the world as outside
us. Each of us is a container, with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation. We project our
own un-out orientation onto other physical objects that are bounded by surfaces. Thus we also
view them as containers with an inside and an outside. Rooms and houses are obvious
containers. Moving from room to room is moving from one container to another; that is,
moving out of one room and into another. We project this conception on to our natural
environment, or even to those abstract, unbounded events, actions and activities. Thus we have
the following expressions. For example, THE MIND IS A CONTAINER metaphor:
I can‘t get the tune out of my mind.
He‘s empty-headed.
His brain is packed with interesting ideas.
Do I have to pound these statistics into your head?
I need to clear my head.

18
Ontological metaphors like these are so natural and so pervasive in our thought that they
are usually taken as self-evident, direct descriptions of mental phenomena. The fact that they
are metaphorical never occurs to most of us.
1.3.5.3. Orientational metaphors
Orientational metaphors ―structure concepts linearly, orienting them with respect to
non-metaphorical linear orientations.‖ (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p.196). In other words,
orientational metaphor organizes concept by giving them a spatial orientation, such as up-
down, front-back, center-periphery, etc. These spatial orientations arise from the fact that we
have bodies of the sort we have and that they function as they do in our physical environment
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p.462). The cognitive function of orientational metaphors is to
allow for coherency among the target concepts in the conceptual system. Two typical
examples of orientational metaphors are GOOD IS UP and BAD IS DOWN. Some
metaphorical expressions motivated by these orientational metaphors are as follows:

Things are looking up.
It‘s polite to yield up your seat on the bus to an old lady.
Bernard has fallen on evil days since he lost his job and his wife left him.
He lives down and out.
These examples illustrate that an upward orientation usually goes together with a
positive evaluation, and conversely, a downward orientation usually indicates a negative
evaluation. This can be explained taking account into the human posture. We all know that
human beings walk erect, which means that they have the ability to overcome the gravitational
force. As a result of this, the erect body tend to have a positive connotation and prostrate
posture has a negative one. However, these orientational metaphors are culture-specific, that is,
not all cultures give priority to the up-down orientation. In some cultures more emphasis may,
for example, be put on an active-passive orientation or in-out orientation.
There are overlaps between these three categories of conceptual metaphors. Structural
metaphors and orientational metaphors may have ontological functions too, while ontologicale
metaphors depend on having structured source domain.


19
1.3.5. Some features of conceptual metaphors
1.3.5.1.Uni-directionality principle
Lakoff and Turner (1989) categorically state that metaphorical mapping goes in one
direction. Conceptual metaphors typically employ a more abstract concept as target and a
more concrete or physical concept as their source. In such conceptual metaphors as
―ARGUMENT IS WAR‖, ―LOVE IS A JOURNEY‖, ―IDEAS ARE FOODS‖, ―IDEAS ARE
PLANTS‖, argument, love, idea are all more abstract concepts than war, journey, food and
plant. This is because our experiences with the physical world serve as the foundation for our
understanding of more abstract domains. Therefore, in most cases of conceptual metaphors,
the source and target domains are not reversible: the metaphorical process typically goes from
the more concrete to the more abstract and not the other way around.
1.3.5.2. Invariance principle

Lakoff (1993) proposes the Invariance Principle to guarantee that the mapping is
consistent in the both the source and target domain. The Invariance Principle states:
―Metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology (i.e. the image-schema structure) of
the source domain in a way that is consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain‖
(Lakoff, 1993, p. 125). That is, not only the topology of the source domain transferred remains
invariant but also that the mapping remains consistent with the supposedly logical structure of
the target domain. Accordingly, the Invariance Principle first limits the choice of source
domains for a particular target domain as well as in a second step the possibilities for
individual mappings. In a container schema, for example, source domain interiors correspond
to target domain interiors; exteriors correspond to exteriors, and so on. One cannot find cases
where a source domain interior is mapped onto a target domain exterior, or where a source
domain exterior is mapped onto a target domain path.
1.3.5.3. Systematicity
The idea that metaphors are systematic is fundamental to conceptual metaphor theory.
Metaphorical systematicity allows highlighting and focusing on certain aspects of the target
domain. Conceptual metaphor theory uses the term ―highlighting‖ to refer to the selective
mapping of source domain features onto target domains, and the suppression of other features

20
is termed ―hiding‖. The concept areas of source and target domains are complex, and different
aspects are highlighted in different metaphors, thus when a source or target domain has
multiple mappings, the individual mappings represent different sets of highlighted features.
For example, the metaphor ―ARGUMENT IS WAR‖ highlights the adversarial nature of
arguments but hides the fact that argument often involves an organized development of a
particular topic. In contrast, the metaphor ―AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY‖ highlights the
progressive aspects of arguments while hiding the confrontational aspects.
1.3.5.4. Explanatory function and creativity
Certain issues such as abstract conceptual domains, theoretical constructs, and
metaphysical ideas could hardly be understood or conceptualized at all without recourse to
conceptual metaphor. In order to grasp thorough understanding of such concepts, the common

way is to comprehend these abstract concepts in terms of other concepts which are more
concrete ones. Conceptual metaphors enable us to quantify, visualize, and generalize about
abstract concepts because they make use of relationships within source domains that we know
well from our concrete experience. Thus, when we take information from one domain and
project it to a second domain, the latter receives in this way the structure from the former. This
allows us to understand the second domain, the target, in a way that we otherwise could not.
This is the explanatory aspect of conceptual metaphor. In this way, conceptual metaphors exist
to enhance or facilitate the understanding of certain concepts.
Moreover, metaphor displays creativity both in ordinary and poetic discourse. As
language is changing continually, new conceptual metaphors are generalized and accordingly,
new metaphorical expressions are created. ―In ordinary everyday life it can restructure
ingrained patterns of thinking. And in scientific contexts it can have a heuristic function.‖
(Jākel, 2002, p. 22), that is way metaphor display its creativity power in both language and
cognition.
1.4. The Great Chain of Being and Animal Metaphor
In many languages, animal names are engaged in metaphorical process. Animal
metaphors refer to the metaphors with animals as source domains in the mappings. The
comprehension of human attributes and behaviours through animal attributes and behaviours

21
results from the application of the highly general conceptual metaphor, i.e. HUMANS ARE
ANIMALS. To comprehend the mappings of animal metaphors, Lakoff and Turner (1989)
declared the Great Chain of Being metaphor so we may understand the process of animal
metaphors through it.
The Great Chain of Being ―goes back to the Bible‖ as Kovecses (2002, p. 126) mentions.
It was a folk theory originally used to explain the relationship between different levels of
things in a hierarchy. The main purpose of ―Great Chain of Being‖ metaphor is to assign a
place for everything in a well-defined hierarchical system from the lowest to the highest,
which is pictured as a chain vertically extended:

At the bottom of the ―chain‖ stand various types of inanimate objects such as metals,
stones and the four elements. Higher up are various members of the vegetative class, like
flowers and plants. Then come animals; then, human beings and finally at the very top is God.
Within each level there are sub-levels defined by different degrees of complexity and power in
relation to each other. The ―Great Chain of Being‖ metaphor, thus, presupposes that the
natural order of the cosmos is that higher forms of existence dominate lower forms of
existence.
Furthermore, in terms of attribute of each level, the upper level contains attributes of the
levels below it, but it consists of some attributes the lower doesn‘t have. For example, animal
instincts are properties of animals and the upper beings humans, but humans think and have
rationalities which animals do not. Moreover, the attributes of the upper beings are more
specific and distinct since they do not appear in the lower ones. In this sense, when we apply

22
the Great Chain of Being to animal metaphors, we may find that human beings at the higher
level in the hierarchy contain the attributes that animals such as pig and tigers have. For
instance, pigs have its own instincts like gluttonous, while tigers are wild and fierce in nature.
All the attributes like gluttonous and fierce can be found among human beings as well so that
there are some associations between them.
As can be inferred from the Great Chain of Being, people are at the higher level, which
indicates it is more difficult to define their attributes. As a result, animals may be assisted to
explain these more abstract attributes. By comparing animals to humans, the more abstract
attributes of humans may be understood more easily. Lakoff and Turner (1989, p. 172) point
out that the Great Chain of Being Metaphor is ―a tool of great power and scope because it
allows us to comprehend general human character traits in terms of well-understood
nonhuman attributes; and, conversely, it allows us to comprehend less well- understood
aspects of the nature of animals and objects in terms of better-understood human
characteristics.‖

23
Chapter 2: THE STUDY
In this chapter, the research questions will be restated in 2.1, the methods of the study
will be highlighted in 2.2, the data will be described in 2.3, the analytical framework of the
study will be introduced in 2.4, and data analysis and discussion will be presented in 2.5.
Particularly, in section 2.5, which constitutes the central focus of the current study, a thorough
account of different ways of denoting human characteristics in English will be provided.
2.1. Research Question
The research question that serves as the guideline for the study are restated as follows:
How are salient human characteristics denoted through the Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig
and Cow metaphor in English?
2.2. Data collection
The English linguistic data have been gathered from Oxford English Dictionary,
Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, Collins Cobuild English Guides (7) – Metaphor, and British
National Corpus. As stated in the scope of the study, only lexemes relating to five domestic
animal categories (dog, cat, chicken, pig, and cow) are searched for. Within each of these

animal categories, different lexical items referring to male, female, and young animals are
included in the search as well since many of them carry metaphorical meaning when applied
to human. The thesis will also include some instances taken from Vietnamese sources to
illustrate the conceptualization of domestic animal names between the two languages. These
Vietnamese expressions have been obtained from short stories and online newspapers such as
Vnexpress.net, Tienphongonline.com.vn, Vietnamnet.vn, Giadinh.net. However, they are
merely used for reference, and a detailed description of how domestic animals represent
human characteristics in Vietnamese and a contrastive analysis between the two languages are
beyond the scope of the study.
All in all, an inventory of 80 English metaphorical expressions were collected for our
analysis. The metaphorical expressions can take the form of a single lexical item (a noun, verb,
or adjective) or be combined with other lexical items in a phrase or an idiom to denote a
human character trait. Most of the instances are used colloquially or as slang or addressing

24
terms, some can be of old usage. Once they were collected, they were grouped and analyzed
according to the analytical framework provided below.
2.3. Analytical Framework
The analytical framework employed in the study is based on the theory of structural
metaphor and the mapping from source to target domain.
As proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), a structural metaphor refers to a conceptual
metaphor that is constructed from one conceptual structure to another. With the help of the
structural metaphor, we can use the words concerning one concept to talk about and
comprehend another concept. Hence, the metaphor that employs ascribed attributes of
domestic animals to understand human characteristics is a typical example of structural
metaphor.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) use the TARGET DOMAIN IS SOURCE DOMAIN
formula to describe the metaphorical connection between the two domains in a conceptual
metaphor. More precisely, the conceptual metaphor consists of a structural mapping between
the target domain and source domain, in which the target domain is then understood in terms

of the source domain. Therefore, in the general HUMANS ARE DOMESTIC ANIMALS
metaphor, HUMANS is target domain and DOMESTIC ANIMALS are the source domain.
However, when comparisons between people and domestic animals are established, not all
features present in the source domain will be transferred to the target domain. Rather, we
―map certain aspects of the source domain onto the target domain‖ (Lakoff & Turner, 1989,
p.38-39). For instance, in the sentence ―She knew Mandy wasn't normally catty”, there is a
mapping of the character trait of maliciousness from source domain of cats to the target
domain of women. In this case, only the attribute of maliciousness is highlighted while other
ascribed attributes of cats such as loose moral or cowardice are not mentioned.
Following the theory of structural metaphor and source-target domain, we group and
analyze the collected data according to the character traits that they represent in language.
Then, within each group of character trait, we identify the source domain or the name of the
animal that is commonly associated with that character trait.


25
2.4. Analysis
In this part, some of the main human characteristics that are often associated with dog,
cat, chicken, pig and cow will be discussed with illustrated examples. For better recognition of
metaphor and metaphorical expressions, the conceptual metaphors are printed capital, the
instances are in italic with the metaphorical expressions highlighted in bold font.
2.4.1. Arrogance
In English, the quality of being arrogant is usually perceived to be present in behaviours
of two domestic animals: cock from chicken category, puppy from dog category. Hence, in
English there exist two metaphors which denotes human arrogance using domestic animal
names: ARROGANT MEN ARE COCKS and ARROGANT YOUNG MEN ARE PUPPIES, The
latter part will provide a closer look at these metaphors.
(i) ARROGANT MEN ARE COCKS
(1) He may be cock of the walk just now, but there‟s an election next year and I‟m sure he‟ll
lose his seat in Parliament

(2) They appeared cocky even before they went one goal up
The lexical item ―cock‖ literally designates the adult male of the domestic chicken.
When applying to humans, it refers to an adult man and is generally associated with the idea of
leadership. Accordingly, the expression ―cock of the walk‖ in example (1) is used to describe
an over-confident man who tends to show his ruling role and be conceited about his position.
This is owing to the fact that on the farm, cocks usually fight for supremacy until one
remained – the supreme leader, or cock of the walk. The winner would then not only rule the
chicken coop but also dominate ―the walk‖ or the chicken yard, and no other cock is allowed
to enter the territory under the rule of the winning cock. Likewise, the lexeme ―cocky‖ in
example (2) denotes an unpleasantly and rudely confident man. The usage of this word may
originate from the brash self-confidence that is associated with the cock when ruling the roost
– to announce the break of the day, to have the run of the females, to chase the other males and
to eat whatever and whenever he wants.
(ii) ARROGANT YOUNG MEN ARE PUPPIES/ PUPS
(3) You ungrateful puppy!
(4) You saucy young pup!

26
In example (3) and (4), ―puppy‖ and ―pup‖ are two words denoting a juvenile dog which
is less than one year old, but when referring to human, both convey negative connotation of an
empty-headed but impertinent young man. This association is based on the analogy between
behaviour of juvenile dogs and young men. It is at the juvenile stage that a puppy starts to
change and the cheeky behaviour arrives. Many young men, at the transferring stage from
teenagers to adults, tend to have a too high self-esteem, always considering themselves the
best among their peers, bragging about their abilities and being disrespectful to others. Such
people are often called ―puppies‖ or ―pups‖ in a critical sense. This usage of these words is
even more emphatic when accompanied with such adjectives as ―conceited‖, ―saucy‖,
―ungrateful‖, ―proud‖, ―cheeky‖ etc.
Among the instances collected from Vietnamese sources, the concept of arrogance can
be found in two idioms in which the names of cat and dog are employed as in the following

examples:
(5) Tôi chẳng dám nói gì về diễn xuất của mình, bởi ai lại tự làm cái việc mèo khen mèo dài
đuôi.
(6) Anh cứ chó chê mèo lắm lông, chứ thật tình anh còn kém xa cậu ấy ở cái khoản linh động.
In these examples, the idioms ―mèo khen mèo dài đuôi‖ (a cat praises its long tail) and
―chó chê mèo lắm lông‖ (a dog despises a cat for having thick fur) metaphorically refer toa
conceited person who tends to over praises himself while criticizing or degrading others,
ignoring the fact that he is just as commonplace as everyone else or he is even just a vain
fellow.
2.4.2. Maliciousness
The conceptual element of maliciousness clearly emerges from metaphors using CAT
and BITCH as source domains. In English, the association of maliciousness with CAT and
BITCH is gender specific, i.e. it is women rather than men who are commonly represented by
cats and bitches.
(i) MALICIOUS WOMEN ARE CATS
(7) What a cat she is!
(8) Barbara was cat-witted; she could see and seize an immediate advantage
(9) His mother was catty and loud.

27
According to Kiełtyka and Kleparski (2005), originally the word ―cat‖ meant any
malicious person but nowadays it particularly refers to woman. In example (7), if a woman is
said to be a ―cat‖, she is extremely spiteful and unpleasant, usually by making nasty
comments about someone when they are not there. The adjective ―cat-witted‖ in example (8)
is an old word describing a person who possesses a limited amount of intelligence and ability
but often acts in a spiteful wayward manner. Similarly, the word ―catty‖ in example (9) means
subtly cruel or malicious. From these examples, it is clear that in both English language and
culture, cats are conceived as a spiteful animal and the reason for this conception may be
rooted in the way a cat chases and kills its prey. Instead of forthrightly chasing down its prey
like a dog, a cat lies in wait, stalks, and pounces on its unsuspecting victims. Cat also prefers

to defer eating and play with its prey instead of immediately killing and wolfing it down like
other hunting animals.
In addition, the name of cats specifically and negatively associated with women. One
hypothesis accounting for the relationship between this domestic animal with spiteful females
is from historical cause. In England and in many other European countries during the
witchcraft trials in the 17
th
century, witches, mostly females, were credited with supernatural
powers that allowed them to assume the form of different animals, especially black cats. By
transforming themselves into forms of cats, they were supposed to easily cast spells on their
victims (Leach, 1964; Sax, 2001; cited in Rodriguez, 2009 ). From this belief might stem the
associations of cats with spiteful women. Another cause may arise from the association of
women‘s fighting with the cats‘ fighting behaviour. When cats fight, they use their sharp
teeth and claws to hurt the other cats; likewise, a fighting among women typically involves
scratching, slapping, hair-pulling, and shirt-shredding as opposed to punching or wrestling that
are usually observed in men‘s fighting. That is the reason why it is believed that a generic
characteristics of women is having the soul of a cat.
In Vietnamese folk understanding, cats are also known for being sly, independent and
even treacherous; accordingly, they have come to represent human maliciousness through such
expression as ―mèo già khóc chuột con‖:
(10) Tội ác tày trời, ấy vậy còn " mèo già khóc chuột con”

28
In example (10) ―mèo già khóc chuột con‖ (an old cat cries for a small mouse) denotes a
two-faced person who means to harm other people while pretending to feel sorry for and be
sympathetic with them. However, while the name of cat in English is specifically used as
designating terms for women, in Vietnamese, it can refer to both males and females.
(ii) MALICIOUS WOMEN ARE BITCHES
(8) You are putting the men down and they don‟t like it; they think you are being a bitch.
(9) She bitched about Dan but I knew she was devoted to him.

(10) She is good with her neighbours and never backbites or displays jealousy.
Known as ―man‘s best friend‖, dogs have a reputation for being faithful, noble and
reliable. Yet, none of these qualities are transferred in the metaphorical identification of
women with a dog‘s female counterpart – ―bitch‖. In English, this word is one of the most
common term of opprobrium for a woman. In the past, this lexical item was applied to a lewd
or immoral woman but nowadays it has come to denote a malicious woman (Kiełtyka and
Kleparski, 2005). To call a woman a ―bitch‖ is to render her less than human. It is also to
speak the sort of woman she is – unpleasant, unkind, vindictive, untrustworthy, scheming,
malicious, spiteful, and coarse. All these negative senses may derive from the polygamous
behaviour of the female dog and her disagreeable nature when she is in heat. In example (9)
and (10), the two verbs ―bitch‖ and ―backbite‖ are involved in the process of metaphorisation
to refer to the action of speaking slanderously or making nasty remarks about an absent person.
Among the Vietnamese instances that have been collected from online sources, the
expression ―backbiting‖ also is used to denote malicious and treacherous behaviour as follows.
(11) Nó chơi trò chó cắn trộm nên ai cũng bất ngờ.
It appears that ―chó cắn trộm‖ (a dog‘s backbiting) in Vietnamese is equivalent to
―backbiting‖ in English. However, in a closer look, the expression ―chó cắn trộm‖ in
Vietnamese seems to have a wider application, i.e. it is not just limited to mean slanderously
gossiping about an absent person as in English but also applied to other non-verbal actions
such as to play a dirty trick on someone.
2.4.3. Selfishness/ Greediness
The behavioural attribute of being greedy and selfish are usually expressed through
DOG and PIG metaphor in English.