Conceptual metaphors using plants as source domain in english and vietnamese internet newspapers

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

BÙI THỊ PHƯỢNG

CONCEPTUAL METARPHORS USING PLANTS AS
SOURCE DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
INTERNET NEWSPAPERS
(ẨN DỤ Ý NIỆM SỬ DỤNG THỰC VẬT NHƯ LÀ MIỀN
NGUỒN TRÊN CÁC BÁO ĐIỆN TỬ TIẾNG ANH VÀ
TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 8220201

Hanoi, 2018


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

BÙI THỊ PHƯỢNG

CONCEPTUAL METARPHORS USING PLANTS AS
SOURCE DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
INTERNET NEWSPAPERS
(ẨN DỤ Ý NIỆM SỬ DỤNG THỰC VẬT NHƯ LÀ MIỀN
NGUỒN TRÊN CÁC BÁO ĐIỆN TỬ TIẾNG ANH VÀ
TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 8220201
Supervisor: Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn

Hanoi, 2018


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report
entitled CONCEPTUAL METARPHORS USING PLANTS AS SOURCE
DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE INTERNET NEWSPAPERS
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in
English Language. Except where the reference is indicated, no other person‟s
work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.
Hanoi, 2018

Bùi Thị Phượng
Approved by
SUPERVISOR

Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn
Date: ……………………

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my endless thanks and hearty gratitude to
my supervisor Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn. His kindly support and continuous advices

went through the process of completion of my thesis. His encouragement and
comments had significantly enriched and improved my work. Without his
motivation and instructions, the thesis would have been impossible to be done
effectively.
I am also indebted to all my lecturers at Hanoi Open University for their
precious knowledge, useful lectures in linguistics, which laid the foundation for this
study.
Next, my thanks also go to my friends, who gave me documents and
encouraged me much while the work was in process.
Especially, I would like to express how thankful I am to my beloved
families, who always stand by me and help me overcome all the difficulties in
studying and completing this thesis.
Last but not least, I personally wish to thank all my readers for their
attention, and I would highly appreciate any comments to my study.

ii


ABSTRACT
Among the many issues of research within the perspective of cognitive
linguistics, metaphor has been considered as a specific mental mapping that
provides a foundation for human thought and conceptualization. In the study, the
author has chosen Lakoff and Johnson‟s Conceptual Metaphor Theory as the
analytical framework, tried to find out the conceptual metaphors using plants as
source domain in English and Vietnamese internet newspapers and locate whether
there are any similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese in terms
of conceptual metaphor usage. It aims to help the reader have a deeper sight into
theoretical knowledge on metaphors and enhance the effectiveness of teaching,
learning and understanding conceptual metaphors in English and Vietnamese.
Within the limitation of this study, the researcher expects that the two languages

which express the conceptual metaphors involved will reveal some different
features of the two cultures.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of authorship

i

Acknowledgements
Abstract
Table of contents

ii
iii
iv

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale for the study

1
1

1.2. Aims and objectives of the study
1.3. Research questions

2
2

1.4. Methods of the study
1.5. Scope of the study
1.6. Significance of the study
1.7. Organization of the study
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

3
3
4
4
6

2.1. Previous studies
2.2. Theoretical background

6
7

2.2.1. Cognitive linguistics
2.2.2. Cognitive semantics
2.1.2.2.1. Definition of cognitive semantics
2.1.2.2.2. Main tenets of cognitive semantics
2.2.3. Conceptual metaphor Theory
2.2.3.1. Metaphor
2.2.3.1.1. Traditional view on metaphor
2.2.3.1.2. Metaphor in the light of cognitive linguistics
2.2.3.2. Conceptual metaphor
2.2.3.3. Classification of conceptual metaphor
2.2.3.3.1. Structural metaphor

2.2.3.3.2. Ontological Metaphor
2.2.3.3.3. Orientational Conceptual Metaphor
2.2.3.4. Metaphorical mapping
2.2.3.4.1. Mapping principles
2.2.3.4.2. Image schema

iv

7
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
15
16


2.2.3.5. Source domain and target domain

16

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

19

3.1. Data

19

3.2. Instruments
3.3. Procedures
3.4. Statistical analysis

19
19
20

3.5. Analytical framework
Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Conceptual metaphors using plants as source domain in English

20
24
24

internet newspapers
4.1.1. Economy is a plant

24

4.1.1.1. Stages of economy are stages of plant growth

4.1.1.2. The abstract development of the economy is the growth of
the plant
4.1.2. Emotion is a plant
4.1.2.1. Love is a plant
4.1.2.2. Happiness is a plant
4.1.2.3. Sadness is a plant

24
27
29
29
30
31

4.1.2.4. Anger is a plant
4.1.2.5. Fear is a plant
4.1.3. Human being is a plant
4.1.3.1. Human being is a part of the plant
4.1.3.2. Human beings‟ development is the plant‟s growth
4.1.3.3. Disposing of unwanted human beings is weeding
4.1.3.4. Losing physical strength is freshness of a plant
4.1.3.5. Human beings‟ activities are common activities in agriculture
4.1.3.6. Human being is a specific plant

32
33
34
34
35
36

36
36
37

4.1.4. Social organization is a plant
4.1.4.1. The entire organization is the whole plant
4.1.4.2. A part of the organization is a part of the plant
4.1.4.3. The development of the organization is the growth of the plant
4.1.4.4. Reducing the organization is removing a part of the plant
4.1.4.5. The origin of the organization is the root of the plant
4.1.4.6. The best stage, the most successful stage is the flowering

37
38
38
39
39
40
40

v


4.1.4.7. The beneficial consequences is the fruit of crops
4.1.5. Idea is a plant

40
40

4.1.5.1. The origin of an idea is the parts of plants

40

4.1.5.2. A new idea is a bud
4.1.5.3. Different ideas of a topic are branches
4.1.5.4. The success of an idea is the fruit

41
42
42

4.1.5.5. Getting rid of problems is destroying plants
4.1.5.6. Conveying ideas is sowing /planting
4.1.5.7. The failure of ideas is the death of plants

42
43
43

4.2. Conceptual metaphors using plants as source domain in Vietnamese
internet newspapers
4.2.1. Economy is a plant
4.2.1.1. Stages of economy are stages of plant growth
4.2.1.2. The abstract development of the economy is the growth of
the plant
4.2.2. Emotion is plant
4.2.2.1. Love is a plant
4.2.2.2. Happiness is a plant

44

44
44
46
48
48
49

4.2.2.3. Sadness is a plant
4.2.2.4. Anger is a plant
4.2.2.5. Fear is a plant
4.2.3. Human being is a plant
4.2.3.1. Human being is a part of the plant
4.2.3.2. Human beings‟ development is the plant‟s growth
4.2.3.3. Disposing of unwanted human beings is weeding
4.2.3.4. Losing physical strength is freshness of a plant
4.2.3.5. Human beings‟ activities are common activities in agriculture

50
50
50
51
51
53
53
53
54

4.2.3.6. Human being is a specific plant
4.2.4. Social organization is a plant
4.2.4.1. The entire organization is the whole plant

4.2.4.2. A part of the organization is a part of the plant
4.2.4.3. The development of the organization is the growth of the plant
4.2.4.4. Reducing the organization is removing a part of the plant
4.2.4.5. The origin of the organization is the root of the plant

54
55
55
55
56
56
56

vi


4.2.4.6. The best stage, the most successful stage is the flowering
4.2.5. Idea is a plant

56
57

4.2.5.1. The origin of an idea is the parts of plants

57

4.2.5.2. A new idea is a bud
4.2.5.3. Different ideas of a topic are branches
4.2.5.4. The success of an idea is the fruit

57
57
58

4.2.5.6. Getting rid of problems is destroying plants
58
4.2.5.7. Conveying ideas is sowing /planting
58
4.3. Similarities and differences between conceptual metaphors using plants as 58
source domain in English and Vietnamese internet newspapers
4.3.1. Similarities
.

4.3.2. Differences
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION
5.1. Concluding remarks
5.2. Implications
5.2.1. Implications for teachers

58
60
63
63
64
64

5.2.2. Implications for learners
5.2.3. Implications for translators

65

66

5.3. Recommendations for further study
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II

vii

66
67
I
I
XX


Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale of the study
Although newspapers have the longest history, they are still the most popular and
convenient means of communication. Newspapers have been improved and
developed in both quality and quantity to satisfy the requirements of the readers
now. Journalists often take the skills of language use into consideration. Metaphor
is one of the most popular devices causing difficulties. Using metaphor in
newspapers satisfies readers‟ curiosity and excitement but sometimes causes many
difficulties for us to understand. Study of metaphor has been traditionally
associated with the study of literature; the use of metaphor is not restricted to this
kind of language. Metaphor exists as a common fact in most of the languages in the
world.
In the field of cognitive linguistics, it has been widely accepted that our thought

processes are highly metaphorical. In other words, metaphor constitutes and
constructs human thoughts. In this field of study, cognitive linguists argue that
meaning construction is derived from embodied experience which is organized in
terms of image schemas, or experiential gestalts. It is believed that the work
conducted by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 2003) is a pioneer work in this field. In
their work, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, they argue that metaphor is the cross
domain mapping between the source domains and the target domains. Moreover,
there is a systematic network of metaphors that human beings utilize to construct
their thoughts. With this definition, metaphor is seen as a key to discover the
foundation of thinking and the perception of spiritual symbols about the world.
The grounding of metaphors is our basic experiences and one of the most
fundamental human experiences is that of agriculture, especially about plants.
Although this is an interesting topic, it has not been paid much attention. For a long
time, plants have become a cultural symbol of human beings with many meanings.
When used in languages, plants are reformed and reorganized in the relation with
many factors of a special communication process as a creative activity which
creates a unique metaphor. In English and Vietnamese newspaper texts, a variety of
metaphors are motivated by this experience. For this reason, I decide to make some
exploration into this profound and fascinating topic entitled “Conceptual metaphors
using plants as source domain in English and Vietnamese internet newspapers”.
The aim of the thesis is to apply the theory in cognitive linguistics to discover the

1


top target domains from the source domain “plants” in the English internet
newspaper in comparison with Vietnamese internet newspaper, mapping system
among the conceptual domains. Considering the limited size of the material, the
results of the research may probably not be generalized, but it is hoped that this
investigation will lead to a brief perception in conceptual metaphors about “plants”.

Moreover, the author also desires that the study will make a meaningful
contribution to profound linguistic knowledge of conceptual metaphor which might
help Vietnamese teachers, learners, and translators of English understand and use
the English language more effectively.
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study
1.2.1. Aims
The thesis is carried out to achieve the following aims:
- To investigate how conceptual metaphors using plants as source domain are
used in English and Vietnamese internet newspapers in the light of cognitive
perspective.
- To discover the typical target domains from the source domain “plants” in
English internet newspaper in comparison with Vietnamese internet newspaper.
- To help Vietnamese teachers, learners, and translators of English
understand and use English language more effectively.
1.2.2 Objectives
The study is intended to fulfill the following objectives:
- To analyze the plants as source domain metaphorically expressed in the
eminent English and Vietnamese internet newspapers.
- To discover and explain the similarities and differences between conceptual
metaphors using plants as source domain in the famous English and Vietnamese
internet newspapers.
- To make some suggestions for teaching, learning and translating conceptual
metaphors using plants as source domain.
1.3. Research questions
In order to achieve the aims of the study, the following research questions are to be
answered:
1. What conceptual metaphor using plants as source domain are found in the
eminent English and Vietnamese internet newspapers?

2

2. What are the similarities and differences between conceptual metaphors
using plants as source domain in the eminent English and Vietnamese
internet newspapers?
3. What are the recommendations for teaching, learning and translating
conceptual metaphors using plants as source domain to Vietnamese
learners of English effectively?
1.4. Methods of the study
First, the examples of metaphorical expressions of plant terms will be
identified. Second, the selected examples with war metaphors will be classified into
categories or subcategories according to different target domain and then underlying
major themes and mappings will be discussed.
The research is mainly carried out through the documentary analysis and
descriptive study with the support and qualitative and quantitative approach. The
data is quantitatively analyzed in terms of the percentage of the occurrence of the
metaphorical images in all the articles in both English and Vietnamese internet
newspapers from cognitive linguistic perspective to see the preference for which
sets of expressions. Through qualitative approach, the metaphor, after being divided
into categories according to the procedure of transferring meaning from the vehicles
to the tenors guided by a theoretical lens, will be analyzed in details, synthesized
and evaluated, then find out the similarities and differences in expressions of
metaphor using plants as source domain.
1.5. Scope of the study
Due to time constraints and within the framework of an M.A thesis, it is impossible
for a study to deal with all the features of language theory and practice in depth.
This study, therefore, only focuses on some typical target domains which used
plants as source domain found in the internet newspapers of English and
Vietnamese to see how they are different.
The thesis is limited to 259 expressions of conceptual metaphors using plants as

source domain which are selected from available articles from 2010 to 2018 in two
selected internet newspapers, namely the telegraph.co.uk for the English one and
the vnexpress.net for the Vietnamese one. These two newspapers are considered one
of the most famous and remarkable ones in English and Vietnamese. The telegraph,
founded in 1855, is a national British daily newspaper and distributed across the

3


United Kingdom and internationally. The Vnexpress is a Vietnamese internet
newspaper which is the first and has the highest ranking among other ones in
Vietnam. The number of English and Vietnamese expressions arrived at a total of
142 and 117 from the two sources respectively. The expressions were taken for
analysis belong to various fields such as economics, culture, politics, science,
technology, health, travel, sports, and other fields which are written in the two
newspapers.
1.6. Significance of the study
Theoretically, this research is to find out typical metaphorical expressions of plants
in the famous English and Vietnamese newspapers with a view to make a positive
contribution to the studies of linguistics from cognitive semantic approach. That
how these metaphorical images are manifested in cognition and linguistic value of
these images in English and Vietnamese newspapers are analyzed specifically can
provide a new look into English and Vietnamese literature.
Practically, this study is carried out with the purpose of helping Vietnamese
learners, teachers of English and translators better understand conceptual metaphor
in English and Vietnamese newspapers and then create the suitable tips to apply
language flexibly. As a result, they will be able to learn and teach English
productively. The research is also performed in the hope that its findings will help
Vietnamese learners of English enrich their knowledge of conceptual metaphor,
understand cultural elements that have a great influence on using metaphorical

expressions, and enhance learners valuable skills in interpreting and translating
newspapers as well.
1.7. Organization of the study
This study includes 5 chapters:
Chapter 1 – Introduction introduces the rationale, the aims and objectives, the
research questions, the methods of the study, the scope, the significance and the
organization of the study.
Chapter 2 – Literature review focuses on introducing important theoretical
matters relevant to the topic of the study such as definition of cognitive linguistics,
definition of cognitive semantics, the theories of metaphor, the conceptual
metaphors, the classification of conceptual metaphor, the metaphoric mappings, the
source domain and target domain. Besides, it presents some related studies reviewed

4


in order to provide the context for the research that is significant to the work that the
author is carrying out.
Chapter 3 – Research methodology discusses the methods and the procedures of
the research. It also deals with the description of samples and how the data are
collected, described and analyzed.
Chapter 4 – Findings and discussion involves describing and analyzing
conceptual metaphors using plants as source domain in the two prestigious agencies
in English including the nytimes.com and the telegraph.co.uk and two oriented
websites in Vietnamese namely, the vnexpress.net and the vietnamnet.vn. Besides,
it deals with metaphorical expressions which are compared and contrasted so as to
find out the similarities and differences in metaphorical expressions using plants as
source domain in both languages.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion will summarize the study‟s results and presents the
suggested implications for learning, teaching and translating conceptual metaphors

in English and Vietnamese. It will also present some limitations and suggestions for
further study.

5


Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Previous studies
Up to now, there have been various research on the metaphor based on theories of
linguistic scholars.
In the world, research on conceptual metaphor associated with establishment of
conceptual linguistics in the 1970s of the 20th century. The first work which marks
the transformation of the metaphor research trend and is the most helpful for the
researcher to take as a major theoretical background for their thesis is “Metaphor
We Live By” of Lakoff and Johnson, published in 1980. The book has a significant
influence on our understanding of metaphor and its role in language and the mind.
The authors asserted "The common conceptual system of us, basing on it, we both
thinking and acting, mainly have metaphoric in nature". Lakoff and Johnson
provide an afterword surveying how their opinion of metaphor has flourished within
the cognitive sciences to become central to the contemporary understanding of how
we think and how we show our thoughts in language. The authors pioneer a
stimulating deconstruction of what they term “conceptual metaphors”, and the
complicated way in which they interact to structure our experience of reality.
Metaphors of plants were also mentioned in Metaphor: A Practical Introduction by
Kovecses (2010). The author analyzed some simple metaphors such as social
organizations are plants. In this case, constituent elements of plants correspond
systematically to constituent elements of social organizations, such as companies,
and the words that are used about plants employed systematically in connection
with organizations. Authors like Lakoff, & Johnson (1980, 2003), Kovecses (2010),
Talmy (2000), Taylor (2003) and the others studied some theories, new concepts like

embodiment, cognitive frames, conceptual metaphor, mapping, conceptual domain,
metal space, conceptual blending.
The practical application of the conceptual metaphor in term of the cognitive
objects like emotion, the relationship between space and time, thought, etc. obtained
the results on the different fields such as the poetry, education, economy, articles,
cinema, politics and especially in everyday language. In addition, the researchers
have found a closed relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture, in the
binds among human - language – social. The conceptual metaphor is regarded a door
to understand the mind, human thinking and social characteristics.
In Vietnam, Cognitive linguistics was officially named in Vietnam in “Ngôn ngữ

6


học tri nhận nhìn từ lý thuyết đại cương đến thực tiễn tiếng Việt” (cognitive
linguistics from general theories to Vietnamese practices) of Lý Toàn Thắng (2005).
The author not only draws out the historical background and typical works of
cognitive linguistics but also applies cognitive semantics theory into Vietnamese
language and focused on such issues such cognitive models, figure/ground
relationships, prototypes, and categorization. The great contribution of his book lies
under the result of detailed examination about the model of spatial cognition used
in Vietnam determined by many scholars Trần Văn Cơ (2007), Nguyễn Đức Tồn
(2008), Nguyễn Lai (2009), etc.
Besides, the subfield plant metaphor has been explored with some journals of
science by Phạm Thị Hương Quỳnh (2014), Sylwia Filipczuk-Rosińska (2016), etc.
In those studies, the authors make a brief account of metaphorical expressions
using plants as human being. Of all previous studies I have read, there has hardly
been any one conducting on plants as a source domain with a contrast between
English and Vietnamese under the analyzed source of data as newspapers. That
inspired me to pay a particular attention to metaphorical expressions of plants in

English and Vietnamese newspapers with the hope to give the reader the
fascinating experience through the metaphoric images in newspapers and make a
significant contribution to studying English in reading and writing skills for
learners, teachers and translators.
2.2. Theoretical background
2.2.1. Cognitive linguistics
Cognitive linguistics is a scientific discipline which has formed as a branch of
cognitive psychology. It is sharply related with not only psychology and philosophy
but also new approach towards metaphor. The main interest studied by cognitive
linguists is conceptual systems combining the study of mind, brain, behaviour and
language. Human thoughts and actions are fundamentally shaped by a small set of
cognitive categories, such as possession, space or time.
Over the past twenty years, it is the cognitive linguistic movement which gave a
rich and satisfying point of view of language. Cognitive linguistics also provides
linguists, language acquisition and pedagogy with a powerful theoretical material.
According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:270), cognitive linguistics seeks to provide
explanatory foundations for conceptual systems and language in the general
research of the brain and the mind. With reference to this idea, it could be
7


discovered that cognitive linguistics treats language as a reflection of not only
human thought but also helps to reveal it. The other task of cognitive linguistics is
to determine the most important principles of conceptual system and what role it
plays in people‟s minds.
In “Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction”, Evans and Green (2006:50) define that
“Cognitive linguistics is the study of language in a way that is compatible with what
is known about the human mind, treating language as reflecting and revealing the
mind”. Cognitive linguistics can be divided into two main areas of research:
cognitive semantics and cognitive approaches to grammar. The first one is

ascertained as the study of the relationship between experience, embodied cognition
and language whereas the latter is explained as the study of the symbolic linguistic
units that comprise language (Ibid.). As cognitive linguistics is a very wide
academic discipline that also relates to conceptual system and as it was stated before
it is divided into two main areas, it is essentially to discuss it in greater detail.
2.2.2. Cognitive semantics
2.2.2.1. Definition of cognitive semantics
Cognitive semantics which is part of cognitive linguistics stated to develop in the
1980s. For Evans (2006), cognitive semantics is concerned with the investigating
the relationship between human experience, the conceptual system in human mind,
and the semantic structure encoded by language. To put it simply, scholars studying
in cognitive semantics investigate knowledge representation (conceptual structure),
and meaning construction (conceptualization). Besides, meaning conventionally
associated with words and other linguistic units as semantic structure.
2.2.2.2. Main tenets of cognitive semantics
According to Evans and Green (2006: 157), there are four following main
principles of cognitive semantics.
a. Conceptual structure is embodied
In the view of Evans and Green (2006), we are aware of the world from our
independent perspectives. Every human being has his or her own ways of looking
at the world, which is elementally based on his or her own bodily experience. In
this respect, conceptual is a result of the nature of our embodiment and any theory
of conceptual structure should be accordant with the ways which we experience the
external world.
b. Semantic structure is conceptual structure
8


The second principle affirms that language refers to concepts in the mind of the
speaker about the real world rather than entities which inhere in an external world.

In the other words, semantic structure (the meaning conventionally associated with
words and other linguistic units) can be equated with conceptual structure (Rosch,
1973). However, the claim that semantic structure is conceptual structure does not
mean that the two above are identical. Instead, cognitive semanticists claim that the
semantic structure (meanings associated with linguistic units) such as words, for
example, form only a subset of possible concepts in the mind of speakers and
hearers.
c. Meaning representation is encyclopedic.
The third major principle shows that semantic structure is comprehensive in nature.
Lexical concepts do not embody a bundle of meaning, but access to repositories of
knowledge relating to a particular concept (Ibid.: 160).
d. Meaning construction is conceptualization
Last but not least, the fourth principle confirms that “Meaning construction is
equated with conceptualization, a process whereby linguistic units serve as prompts
for an array of conceptual operations and the recruitment of background
knowledge” (Evan and Green, 2006:162). In this respect, the meaning of linguistic
expressions does not relate directly or objectively to the real world, but rather it is
based on our ways of experiencing or conceptualizing the real world.
2.2.3. Conceptual metaphor Theory
2.2.3.1. Metaphor
Metaphor is a fascinating linguistic phenomenon which has drawn the attention of
many researchers. It has been subject to a great deal of investigation. The different
linguists proposed various definitions about metaphor as it has been viewed
differently from various perspectives. In this chapter, the author attempts to have a
brief view of metaphor from traditional views as compared to that in the light of
cognitive linguistics.
Ever since Aristotle (and earlier), metaphors have been used (Gibbs, 1994: 122).
And as a historical analysis shows, long before 300 years ago, American authors
began to use a significant number of metaphors to express different ideas, such as
emotions, life, rationality, death and so on (ibid.: 123). Generally, in order to study

metaphors, there are two main approaches. On one hand, the traditional approach
includes many different theories but shares some fundamental presumptions, and on
9


the other hand metaphor on the light of cognitive linguistics, despite being very
recent, has become the most influential theory of metaphor.
2.2.3.1.1. Traditional view on metaphor
In traditional metaphor theory, metaphors are just „adorning‟ of language because it
has been seen as a stylistic tool used only in literature.
For Aristotle (1992:49) who was first to provide a scholarly treatment of metaphors,
metaphor is giving something a name that belongs to another thing. This
substitution theory describes metaphor as an expression, which can be paraphrased
by a literal expression.
Lakoff has a brief discussion of the traditional view towards metaphor, in which
metaphors had been regarded as decorations in language, and people had conceived
of such a viewpoint as the truth over the centuries (Lakoff, 1993: 202).
As it is stated by Đỗ Hữu Châu (1966:54), metaphor is a way of naming an object in
terms of the name of another, based on the similar relationship between them.
This point of view is shared by Nguyễn Hòa (2001: 106) who confirmed that
“metaphor is the transference of meaning (name) from one object to another based
on similar relationship between these two objects, i.e. we call one object by the
name of another because we compare these objects and find some common features
between them.”
To sum up, from classical theory, metaphor indicates a certain kind of comparison
and the transference of names of one thing to another basing on similar relationship
between them. In addition, it is understood as the matter of language but not
thought and used for artistic or rhetorical purposes and not accidentally.
2.2.3.1.2. Metaphor in the light of cognitive linguistics
Cognitive linguistics which stems from cognitive science and is regarded to start in

1980s indicated a whole new approach towards metaphor, its understanding and
meaning in daily language. On the contrary to traditional metaphor theory,
metaphor in the light of cognitive linguistics is not only used in literature but also
shows in everyday life language.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, two American linguists, are the most
outstanding researchers within this field. The innovative work Metaphor We
Live By contributed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) open a new horizon for
researchers on metaphor from the cognitive perspective. They both present that
metaphor is popular in our everyday language, not merely as a view of rhetorical

10


device but as a matter of human thought processes and it have existence in our
conceptual system. In daily speech, there can be found abundant metaphors whose
existence we are even unaware of.
To be more specific, we talk about things metaphorically because we conceive
them that way and we act by the way we conceive of things (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980:7). Having the same idea, Barcelona (2000:3) affirms that “metaphor is the
cognitive mechanism whereby one experiential domain is partially “mapped‟, i.e.
projected onto a different experiential domain so that the second domain is
partially understood in terms of another experiential domain”.
In general, metaphor in the light of cognitive linguistics is not simply a means of
communication but also a means of perception, a means in which people
comprehend and describe about the real world.
2.2.3.2. Conceptual metaphor
Over the past decades, the interest in metaphors has increasingly gained attention. It
is considered not only as an issue of language or just a meaningful means but also a
method to discover the world that surrounds people in the most recent scientific
inquiries. Consequently, various researchers are interested in metaphor, its origin,

usage and relation with other studies. New terms such as conceptual metaphor
theory and conceptual metaphor emerged.
In the cognitive linguistic view, metaphor is a conceptual phenomenon which
basically relates to what happens in the mind. The theory of conceptual metaphors
was flourished by Lakoff and Johnson in the1980's, and their collaboration resulted
in the book Metaphors We Live By where they defined and made a list of various
linguistic examples that their theory was based on. They argue that “The essence of
metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.”
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980:5), and that conceptual metaphors are mostly utilized to
describe rather abstract conceptual domains with conceptual domains that are
somewhat uncomplicated to comprehend.
The concept of metaphor is further explained by Kövecses. Conceptual metaphor
means that conceptual domain (A) is conceptual domain (B) (Kövecses, 2002: 4).
The two domains involve in conceptual metaphor are called source domain and
target domain respectively. Source domain refers to the conceptual domain used to
help understand another conceptual domain. Target domain refers to the conceptual
domain which we try to grasp it via source domain (Kövecses 2002: 12). Generally
11


speaking, an abstract concept is used as target, while a more concrete concept is
employed as its source.
People refer target domains like life, argument, love, ideas, social organization by
means of using journey, war, building, food and plants as their source domain. For
instance, the conceptual domain ARGUMENT can be described in terms of WAR;
as in “I won that argument” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 4), or TIME can be
described in terms of MONEY; in for example “You're wasting my time” (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980: 5). Another conceptual domain which is commonly depicted by
another is LOVE, and like the other conceptual domains mentioned the domain of
LOVE is not too difficult for people to understand when described in the terms of

for instance an JOURNEY; “We went our separate ways” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980:
45).
For Radden and Divren (2007:16), conceptual metaphor is viewed as "a means of
understanding abstract domains by relating them to better-known domains and
experiences in the physical world".
This viewpoint is shared by Trần Văn Cơ (2009: 86-87) who confirmed that
metaphor is meaning transference. It is viewed as when we think one object in
terms of another one. Metaphors are often related to the complicated and abstract
objects, but not the discrete ones. Therefore, in the process of perception, these
complex and abstract things, through metaphor, set up the correlation with more
concrete or perceptible ones.
To sum up, it should be noted that in the conceptual metaphor theory, the metaphor
on the contrary to traditional and contemporary theories of metaphor, is perceived
as a means of cognition. As a result, concepts that operate in human‟s mind
collaborate with one another. In addition, the conceptual metaphor theory treats
metaphor as a mapping between two concepts.
2.2.3.3. Classification of conceptual metaphor
Lakoff and Johnson (2003) classify conceptual metaphors into three different kinds,
namely structural metaphors, orientational metaphors and ontological metaphors.
Kovecses (2010), despite having three other criteria for categorizing conceptual
metaphors, has the same classification as Lakoff and Johnson, regarding cognitive
function of metaphors.
2.2.3.3.1. Structural metaphor
Structural conceptual metaphors are considered by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) as

12


the group with the highest number. In this kind of conceptual metaphor,
complicated and abstract experiences are conceptualized based on the experience of

simple and specific experiences. Following Kovecses (2010:37), in this type of
metaphor, “the source domain provides a relatively rich knowledge structure for the
target concept”. In other words, the cognitive function of these metaphors is to
enable speakers to understand target A by means of the structure of source B. This
understanding occurs by means of conceptual mappings between elements of A and
elements of B.
An example often used to demonstrate this kind is the conceptual metaphor
“ARGUMENT IS WAR” which is expressed through a series of the following
expressions in English:
 Your claims are indefensible.
 He attacked every weak point in my argument.
 I‟ve never won an argument with him.
 He shot down all of my arguments. (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980:4)

The above examples state that many actions that we perform when debating are
structured from the concept of war. We can win or lose in a debate. During the
dispute, we consider the one we argue with as the opponent. As a result, we “attack”
the opponent‟s point of view and “protect” our viewpoint. We can win or lose and
also use strategy to win. When we see the unfavorable situation making it difficult
to protect our opinions, we often “retreat” and “open the new attack route”. In this
case, even without a fight, causing casualties, obviously we have a war of words
through the words of war that we use.
Through these examples, Lakoff and Johnson explained that an abstract conceptual
domain “debate” is understood through a specific conceptual domain of “war”.
Therefore, the concepts used in the sample expressions above come conceptual
domain of “war”. This is the basic characteristics of the structural conceptual
metaphor.
2.2.3.3.2. Ontological Metaphor
Ontological metaphor is a type of metaphor in which something abstract, such as
activity, emotion or idea, is represented in something concrete. Ontological

metaphor is considered as a non-physical phenomenon. It is a human experience
that is treated as a concrete objects e.g. containers. When we handle them in such a
way we can “ refer to them, categorize them, group them, and quantify them - and,

13


by these means, reason about them.” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980:25). According to
Tran Van Co (2007), the semanticization of experience by terms allow us to extract
a part of experience and interpret them. Once we can conceptualize the experience
into a specific object or material, we can classify, group, quantify, etc. As a result
of this we can reason about the experience. For example, in English, human
thinking is seen as a particular object, can be a machine or a fragile character
shown by the following examples:
THE MIND IS A MACHINE
 My mind just isn‟t operating today.
 Boy, the wheels are turning now!
 I‟m a little rusty today.
 We‟ve been working on this problem all day and now we‟re running out

of steam.
The above ontological conceptual metaphors permit us to focus attention on
different aspects of thinking. The conceptual metaphor “thinking is a machine” tells
us that thinking can be seen as a machine operating under on-off mechanism. The
machine can work with high or low performance, can damage or rust and can use
the fuel. Kovecses (2010: 38) also reads “ontology is a branch of philosophy that
has to do with the nature of existence”.
2.2.3.3.3. Orientational Conceptual Metaphor
As the name suggests, in orientational conceptual metaphor, a system of ideas is
organized in the relation and interaction in space like up-down, inside- out, frontbehind, shallow-deep, center- periphery, etc. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) described

this group the orientational metaphor because they relate to the orientation in space.
The origin of this metaphor group is explained as follows by researcher Trần Văn
Cơ (2007):
“We are the physical entity limited in a certain space and separated from the rest
of the world by our skin; we perceive the rest of the world as the world outside us.
Each of us is contained in a limited space by the surface of the body, which is a
potentially orientation type of “inside-out”. This orientation makes us imagine
other physical objects also limited by the surface. At the same time we also see
them as containers with inner space and separated from the world outside.”
An example often cited to illustrate the orientational conceptual metaphor group is
“HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN” (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) illustrated in these

14


examples:
 I‟m feeling up.
 That boosted my spirits.
 My spirits rose.
 You„re in high spirits.
 I‟m feeling down.
 My spirits sank.

Conceptual metaphor “HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN” is derived from the
human body posture while they are happy or sad. Normally, when people are
depressed or sad they often bow down and when they are happy they raise up their
head and straight up their back. Thus, we see that the orientational conceptual
metaphors are not arbitrary but based on culture and experiences.
2.2.3.4. Metaphorical mapping
2.2.3.4.1. Mapping principles

The most important notion of Cognitive Metaphor Theory is the mapping, in which
a metaphor can be understood as a mapping from a source domain to a target
domain. For instance, in the metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY, the source domain
JOURNEY is mapped onto the target domain LOVE. According to Lakoff (1993:
206-207), there are ontological correspondences in mapping, which the aspects in
LOVE (e.g. lovers, lovers‟ common goals, their difficulties, the love relationship,
etc.) correspond to the aspects in JOURNEY (e.g. travelers, vehicles, destinations,
etc.) As mechanism of conceptual metaphor, mappings help people understand how
conceptual metaphor works. Lakoff (1993:208) states that the mapping is a fixed
part of conceptual system.
This author illustrates that mapping is one of our conventional ways to
conceptualize things. Mappings are not arbitrary, but grounded in everyday
experience and knowledge. These mappings provide us with much meaning of the
metaphorical linguistic expressions, so they make a particular conceptual metaphor
understood easily. To know a conceptual metaphor is to know the set of mappings
that applies to a given source-target pairing, so mappings will be concentrated on
when metaphors are to be analyzed.
The definition of mapping is further improved by Kövecses. As he puts it, mappings
are a set of fixed conceptual correspondences that exist between constituent
elements of the source and the target domain (Kövecses, 2002: 12).
15


In short, it is mappings between a source and a target domain that help people
understand one domain in terms of another.
2.2.3.4.2. Image schema
Cross-domain mapping would not be able to be performed either, if there were not
for another cognitive tool which helps its realization – it is called image schema.
According to Gibbs (2005: 90-91), image schema stands for “dynamic analog
representations of spatial relations and movements in space. Although image

schemas are derived from perceptual and motor processes, they are not themselves
sensorimotor processes”. In fact, as Johnson (1987: 30) put it, image schemas are
“primary means by which we construct or constitute order and are not mere passive
receptacles into which experience is poured”
Some of the most prominent and universal examples of image schemas, as proposed
by Johnson (1987:126), are: container, blockage, balance, counterforce, restraint,
removal, enablement, path, center-periphery, cycle, near-far, part-whole, merging,
splitting, full-empty.
2.2.3.5. Source domain and target domain
To intensify the apprehension of the role of conceptual metaphor in cognitive
linguistics, it is of primary importance to get acquainted with cognitive models, that
is, source and target domains which conceptual mapping is the key in understanding
conceptual metaphor.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980:265) put stress on the structure of each conceptual
domain and explained that the target domain is constituted by the immediate subject
matter, and the source domain, in which significant metaphorical reasoning takes
place and that provides the source concepts used in that reasoning. Peter Stockwell
(2002:107) shows that “Cognitive linguistics models the process of metaphor as a
mapping of properties between the two spaces or domains”. These two conceptual
domains are the essence of conceptual metaphor. In cognitive linguistics, target
domains are also explained as having an abstract meaning that is, something not
concrete or related to particular human experience. Source domains on the contrary,
are related with sensory experience and reality. For example, in conceptual
metaphors AN ARGUMENT IS WAR and LOVE IS A JOURNEY, argument and
love are the target domains while war and journey represent source domains.
Kövecses (2010:4) gives such a definition for source and target domains, “The
conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand

16