(Luận văn thạc sĩ) an investigation into conceptual metaphors denoting love in american and vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013 m a thesis linguistics

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
**********************

LÊ THỊ KHÁNH HÒA

AN INVESTIGATION INTO CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS
DENOTING “LOVE” IN AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE
ROMANTIC NOVELS FROM 2008 TO 2013

Nghiên cứu ẩn dụ ý niệm dùng để biểu đạt “tình yêu”
trong các tiểu thuyết lãng mạn Mỹ - Việt từ 2008 đến 2013

M. A. Major Program Thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201

HA NOI – 2015


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
**********************

LÊ THỊ KHÁNH HÒA

AN INVESTIGATION INTO CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS
DENOTING “LOVE” IN AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE

ROMANTIC NOVELS FROM 2008 TO 2013

Nghiên cứu ẩn dụ ý niệm dùng để biểu đạt “tình yêu”
trong các tiểu thuyết lãng mạn Mỹ - Việt từ 2008 đến 2013

M. A. Major Program Thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Huỳnh Anh Tuấn, Ph.D

HA NOI – 2015


DECLARATION
I hereby certify my authority of the research submitted entitled “An
investigation into conceptual metaphors denoting “love” in American and
Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013” in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.
Hanoi 2014
Lê Thị Khánh Hòa

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To fulfill this study, I own great debt to all my teachers, consultants, friends, and
family.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn,
whose wisdom and interesting lectures inspires me to conduct this thesis. His

encouragement guidance, patience, and support of material from the very initial
stage to the final stage in accomplishing this graduation thesis have been invaluable.
I am greatly indebted to all my lecturers at University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, for their endless
enthusiasm and undeniable helpful lectures. I would be very grateful to the staff of
the Post-graduate Department for their support during the time of studying.
I would like to send special thank to two consultants Mr. Cesar Villanueva, working
in California and Mr. Myron Baker, studying in Texas for their candid suggestions
and encouragement. I also want to express my appreciation to my friends, who are
always ready to help me whenever I have difficulties.
Last but not least, my warmest thanks are due to my family, especially my mother
and my uncle Phạm Văn Hải, for their unconditional love, support, and forbearance.
To all of them, I dedicate this study.
Hanoi, September 2014
Lê Thị Khánh Hòa

ii


ABSTRACT
This study aims at investigating how the abstract concept love is conceptualized in
American and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013. The theory of
conceptual metaphor suggested by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Kovecses (1986)
is adopted as the analytical framework in this study. 200 samples of metaphorical
expressions denoting love were found in American and Vietnamese romantic
novels, which were written by native speakers. The results show that love can be
conceptualized as war, madness/ insanity, magic, physical forces, pains, fire/
heat, a journey, and a nutrient in both languages. However, it is easier to find
the metaphorical expressions Love is a container in American than in
Vietnamese. In addition, the results show that there are many expressions

conceptualized Love as revenge in American, but it is not the case in
Vietnamese. The results express the significant of cognitive semantics, which can
be applied in teaching, learning, and translating.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Declaration ……………………………………………………………………….. i
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………… ii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………. iii
Table of contents ………………………………………………………………… iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1
1. Rationale of the study .................................................................................. 1
2. Significance of the study .............................................................................. 2
3. Aims, research questions, and scope of the study .......................................... 2
4. Method and Procedures ................................................................................ 4
5. Organization of the study ............................................................................. 5
PART B: DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 7
CHAPTER I: Theotical Background and Literature Review ........................ 7
1. Cognitive Linguistics ................................................................................... 7
2. Cognitive Semantics .................................................................................... 8
2.1. Cognitive approaches to grammar and cognitive semantics ..................... 8
2.2. Cognitive semantics: Guiding principles ................................................ 9
2.2.1. Conceptual structure is embodied .................................................. 10
2.2.2. Semantic structure is conceptual structure ...................................... 11
2.2.3. Meaning representation is encyclopaedic ....................................... 12
2.2.4. Meaning construction is conceptualization ..................................... 13
3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory .................................................................. 13

3.1. Metaphor ............................................................................................ 13

iv


3.1.1. Traditional theories of metaphors .................................................. 13
3.1.2. Contemporary theories of metaphors ............................................. 14
3.2. Conceptual Metaphors ......................................................................... 16
3.2.1. Definition ..................................................................................... 16
3.2.2. Classification of conceptual metaphors .......................................... 16
3.2.2.1. Structural metaphors .................................................................... 17
3.2.2.2. Ontological metaphors ................................................................. 18
3.2.2.3. Orientational metaphors .............................................................. 19
3.2.3. Conceptual metaphoric domains .................................................... 21
3.2.3.1. One-to-one domain mapping ....................................................... 22
3.2.3.2. One-to-many domain mapping .................................................... 23
3.2.3.3. Many-to-one domain mapping .................................................... 24
4. Romantic novels ........................................................................................ 26
4.1. Definition ........................................................................................... 26
4.2. Classification ...................................................................................... 26
4.2.1. Historical romance ........................................................................ 26
4.2.2. Contemporary romance ................................................................. 27
4.2.3. Paranormal romance ..................................................................... 27
5. Previous studies ......................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER II: Research Methodology ........................................................ 30
1. Research design and methodology .............................................................. 30
2. Data .......................................................................................................... 31
2.1. American romantic novels ................................................................... 31
2.1.1. The lucky one (2008) .................................................................... 31

v


2.1.2. Not another bad date (2008) .......................................................... 32
2.1.3. What I did for love (2009) ............................................................. 32
2.1.4. Last night at Chateau Marmont (2010) ........................................... 32
2.2. Vietnamese romantic novels ................................................................ 33
2.2.1. Cocktail cho tình yêu (2009) ......................................................... 33
2.2.2. Nhắm mắt thấy Paris (2010) .......................................................... 33
2.2.3. Nếu có một linh hồn yêu em (2012) ............................................... 33
2.2.4. Vẽ em bằng màu nỗi nhớ (2013) .................................................... 33
3. Data collection .......................................................................................... 34
4. Data analysis ............................................................................................. 35
5. Research procedures .................................................................................. 40
6. Reliability and Validity .............................................................................. 43
CHAPTER III: Findings and Discussion .................................................... 44
1. Quantitative analysis .................................................................................. 44
1.1. Structural metaphors ........................................................................... 46
1.2. Ontological metaphors......................................................................... 49
1.3. Orientational metaphors ...................................................................... 49
2. Qualitative analysis ................................................................................... 50
2.1. Conceptual metaphors denoting love in American romantic novels from
2008 to 2013 .............................................................................................. 50
2.1.1. Love is a container ........................................................................ 50
2.1.2. Love is war ................................................................................... 51
2.1.3. Love is madness or insanity .......................................................... 52
2.1.4. Love is magic ............................................................................... 53

vi

2.1.5. Love is physical forces .................................................................. 54
2.1.6. Love is pains ................................................................................ 55
2.1.7. Love is fire or heat ........................................................................ 56
2.1.8. Love is a journey .......................................................................... 57
2.1.9. Love is a nutrient .......................................................................... 58
2.1.10. Love is revenge........................................................................... 58
2.2. Conceptual metaphors denoting love in Vietnamese romantic novels from
2008 to 2013 .............................................................................................. 59
2.2.1. Love is a container ........................................................................ 59
2.2.2. Love is war ................................................................................... 60
2.2.3. Love is madness or insanity .......................................................... 61
2.2.4. Love is magic ............................................................................... 62
2.2.5. Love is physical forces .................................................................. 63
2.2.6. Love is pains ................................................................................ 64
2.2.7. Love is fire or heat ........................................................................ 64
2.2.8. Love is a journey .......................................................................... 65
2.2.9. Love is a nutrient .......................................................................... 66
2.2.10. Love is revenge........................................................................... 66
PART C: CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 67
1. Research findings ...................................................................................... 67
1.1. Similarities ............................................................................................. 67
1.2. Differences ............................................................................................. 69
2. Implications for the study........................................................................... 71
2.1. Implications for teachers ..................................................................... 72

vii


2.2. Implications for learners ...................................................................... 73

2.3. Implications for translators .................................................................. 73
3. Limitations and suggestions for further study .............................................. 74
References .................................................................................................... 76
Appendices………………………………………………………………………. I

viii


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
It is obvious that English has become an important part not only in communication
but also in many other aspects of life. Hence, one of the most important factors for
developing countries like Vietnam to increase the integration process is that the
teaching of English for the young generations should be much invested and become
the top policy. However, how to study it well and how to master it is still a difficult
question for many learners.
In recent years, cognitive linguistics has been considered as an increasingly
essential discipline in language studies. One of the most important branches of
cognitive linguistics is cognitive semantics which emphasizes the importance of
metaphor in language. Metaphor – a perceptual conceptualizing tool, involves
human cognitive processes, hence it helps men understand the changing world
around. In other words, conceptual metaphors help us to comprehend a relatively
abstract concept thanks to a more concrete concept.
Love is an eternal topic, whether in daily life or in literary works, or in films, which
are universal and complex. Due to certain cultural contexts or specific geography,
love has its own uniqueness. In other words, expressing love is not an easy task and
different languages may have different conventions. The description of conceptual
love is beyond practicality. However, it is undeniable that our emotions like
happiness, sadness, anger… especially love can turn to be metaphorical. Metaphor
arises when a familiar, well-understood concept (the source) is used to explain or

structure another less-familiar one (the target). How love can be conceptualized in
romantic novels and how conceptual representations vary across language and
cultures have inspired me to carry out a research entitled: “An investigation into
conceptual metaphors denoting “love” in American and Vietnamese romantic
novels from 2008 to 2013”. It is hoped that this investigation will contribute to the

1


understanding and interpretation of conceptual metaphors in American and
Vietnamese romantic novels.
2. Significance of the study
2.1. In terms of theory
This study is hoped to provide useful contributions to studies of linguistic units
from cognitive semantic approach, which in turn can shed light on researches in
other fields such as psychology, psycholinguistics, and applied cultural linguistics.
2.2. In terms of practice
This research is expected to help Vietnamese learners of English better understand
conceptual metaphors in American and Vietnamese literary works. Moreover, it can
contribute to the teaching of American literature in Vietnamese universities of
foreign languages.
3. Aims, research questions, and scope of the study
3.1. Aims of the study
The study aims at investigating conceptual metaphors denoting “love” in American
and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013 in the light of cognitive
semantics. Specifically, it aims at the following:
-

Investigating how the concept of love is metaphorically expressed in
American and Vietnamese romantic novels

-

Investigating the similarities and differences in expressions of conceptual
metaphors used for describing love in American and Vietnamese romantic
novels

-

Suggesting the implications for the teaching, learning and translating of
conceptual metaphors denoting love
2


3.2. Research questions
In order to achieve the aims of the study, the following research questions should
be taken into consideration:
-

How is the concept for love metaphorically expressed in American and
Vietnamese romantic novels?

-

What are the similarities and differences in expressions of conceptual
metaphors denoting love in American and Vietnamese romantic novels?

3.3. Scope of the study
Due to the limited time and ability, this research investigates only the similarities
and differences in expressions of conceptual metaphors denoting love in American

and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013 from cognitive linguistic
perspective. Eight romantic novels in both languages, four in American and four in
Vietnamese, will be chosen for the research aim as follows:
- Vietnamese romantic novels:
Cocktail cho tình yêu (Trần Thu Trang, 2009, 3rd edition)
Nhắm mắt thấy Paris (Dương Thụy, 2010)
Nếu có một linh hồn u em (Ngơ Hoàng Anh, 2012)
Vẽ em bằng màu nỗi nhớ (Tâm Phạm, 2013)
- American romantic novels:
The lucky one (Nicolas Sparks, 2008)
Not another bad day (Rachel Gibson, 2008)
What I did for love (Susan Elizabeth Phillips, 2009)
Last night at Chateau Marmont (Lauren Weisberger, 2010)
3


4. Method and Procedures
4.1. Research Method
The study will be carried out through contrastive and comparative analysis in order
to investigate the similarities and differences in expressions of conceptual
metaphors denoting love in American and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008
to 2013 from cognitive semantic perspective.
4.2. Data collection
Metaphorical expressions denoting love will be collected from American and
Vietnamese romantic novels issued on the Internet and in publication printings
from 2008 to 2013.
4.3. Data analysis
The model as well as the instrument of the analysis and comparison of the two sets
of data collected in the two languages was adopted from Lakoff and Johnson as
introduced in their invaluable book of “Metaphor We Live By” (1980). In this

model, conceptual metaphors are classified into three different kinds, namely
structural metaphors, ontological metaphors and orientational metaphor.
In structural metaphor, one concept is “…metaphorically structured in term of
another”. The ontological metaphors are based on experiences with physical
objects, that is “…ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc as entities
and substances”. By this way, when the target domain is not discrete or bounded,
these can still be categorized and identified. In contrast, most of orientational
metaphors deal with “spatial orientation”. Therefore, a special relationship which
is normally based on experiences of the physical space is needed for this concept
The data will be both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. Quantitatively, the
data will be analyzed in terms of the frequencies of structural, ontological, and

4


orientational metaphors. Qualitatively, the data will be examined and evaluated
based on the set of expressions denoting love as follows:
Love is physical forces

Love is a journey

Love is madness or insanity

Love is fire or heat

Love is magic

Love is nutrient

Love is war

Love is pains

Love is container

Love is revenge

E.g.
LOVE IS PAINS
- His telephone message had ripped out her heart.
- Tơi nhìn trân trân vào gương mặt đang cúi gằm của Khả Di, cảm giác như ngàn
mũi dao đâm nát trái tim mình lần nữa. (Ngơ Hồng Anh, 2012)
LOVE IS MADNESS OR INSANITY
- Đan bật cười, cơ với anh nói chuyện như hai kẻ dở hơi. (Trần Thu Trang,
2009)
- Love is being crazy together. (Lauren Weisberger, 2010)
5. Organization of the study
This study will cover the four main parts:
Part A: “Introduction”. This part will present the rationale, the aims and the
methodology. It will also be discussed to the presentation of the scope, the
significance and the organization of the study.
Part B: “Development”. This part will consist of three chapters:
Chapter I: “Theoretical background and Literature review”. This chapter will
provide the fundamental knowledge of metaphors in general and conceptual
5


metaphors in particular. Theoretical matters related to the study such as
definition of cognitive semantics, guiding principles of cognitive semantics, the
theories of metaphor, the conceptual metaphors, the metaphoric mappings, and

the basic concepts of novels will be presented. Then, some related researches
about conceptual metaphors will also be discussed.
Chapter II: “Research Methodology”. This chapter will discuss the methods and
the procedures of the research. This chapter will also deal with the description of
samples and how the data are collected, described and analyzed.
Chapter III: “Findings and Discussion”. This chapter will mainly focus on
describing and analyzing the conceptual metaphor for American and Vietnamese
expressions of love in order to understand how conceptual metaphors use
similarly and differently in two languages.
Part C: “Conclusion”. This part will summarize the study’s results and presents
the suggested implications for learning, teaching and translating conceptual
metaphors in American and Vietnamese. It will also present some limitations and
suggestions for further research.

6


PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is a critical analysis of the relevant literature of nature of cognitive
aspects such as cognitive linguistics, cognitive semantics, metaphors, and
conceptual metaphors. The aim is to establish a theoretical background for the
comparative and contrastive study of conceptual metaphors denoting love in
American and Vietnamese romantic novels.
1. Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive linguistics is a modern school of linguistic thought and practice, which
Fauconnier and Turner (1998:133) refer as “a powerful approach to the study of
language, conceptual systems, human cognition, and general meaning

construction”. What makes cognitive linguistics differentiate from other
approaches to the study of language is that language is hypothesized to reflect
certain principle properties and design features of the human mind. In other
words, it fundamentally examines the interrelation of human languages, the mind
and socio-physical experience.
Lakoff (1991:53) argues that the cognitive linguistics enterprise is identified by
two key commitments. The first key commitment is the Generalization
Commitment which represents the characterization of general principles that are
responsible for all aspects of human language. Other approaches try to separate
the language into distinct aspects or modules such as phonology (sound),
semantics (word and sentence meaning), pragmatics (meaning in discourse
context), morphology (word structure), syntax (sentence structure), and so on.
As a result, the generalization across these aspects of language or the study of
their interrelations is incompletely recognized. Conversely, cognitive linguists,

7


when mention Generalization Commitment, disagree that “the ‘modules’ or
‘subsystems’ of language are organized in significantly divergent ways, or
indeed that distinct modules or subsystems even exist” (Evans & Green,
2006:28). Thus, Generalization Commitment extensively investigates the
abilities of linguistics knowledge emerge from a common set of human mind
upon which they draw, rather than assuming that they are produced in
encapsulated modules of the mind.
The second defining key feature of Cognitive linguistics is Cognitive
Commitment. While General Commitment concentrates on the research of the
common principles of all aspects of language, Cognitive Commitment helps
cognitive linguists recognize the principles of linguistic structure in which the
knowledge about human cognitive is reflected from other cognitive and brain

disciplines. Naturally, Cognitive Commitment is basically interdisciplinary such
as psychology, artificial intelligence, cognitive neuroscience, and philosophy.
(Evans, 2012:2)
In brief, how people can draw unconsciously on enormous cognitive and cultural
resources, call up models and frames to set up numerous connections, organize
large arrays of information, and use creative mappings, transfers, and
elaborations when human beings engage in any language activity are
undoubtedly recognized thanks to cognitive linguistics.
2. Cognitive Semantics
2.1. Cognitive approaches to grammar and cognitive semantics
Cognitive approaches to grammar and cognitive semantics are the two main
branches of cognitive linguistics. Evans & Green (2006:50) adopt the viewpoint
that cognitive approaches to grammar refer to “the study of the symbolic
linguistic units that comprise language”. This branch is concerned with

8


modeling the language system – the mental ‘grammar’ rather than the nature of
mind itself and commonly accepts one of two foci. According to these scholars,
some cognitive grammarians agree that the fundamental unit of grammar is a
form-meaning pairing or symbolic unit in which all linguistics forms contribute
to and express meaning, while some others follow the usage-based thesis which
aims to depict the complexity of language use and focuses on the
characterization of language and the motivation of its use. Langacker (1987:494)
states that the usage-based thesis constitutes a non-reductive approach to
linguistic structure.
Cognitive semantics – another essential branch of cognitive linguistics – is
concerned with modeling of meaning and attempts to recognize “the relationship
between experience, embodied cognition and language” (Evans & Green,

2006:50). More specifically, Evans, Bergen, and Zinken (2007:5) assume that
cognitive semanticists research into knowledge representation (conceptual
structure) and meaning construction (conceptualization). Linguistic meaning is
seen through the lens of cognitive semantics as a manifestation of conceptual
structure. Sharing the same viewpoint, Talmy (2004:4) describes cognitive
semantics as “research on conceptual content and its organization in language”.
The infrequent segregation between the study of cognitive approaches to
grammar and cognitive semantics in practice, note Evans et al. (2007:6), does
not necessarily lead to the independent exist of their domains of enquiry.
However, in the hope of finding the conceptual metaphors denoting “love”, this
research will primarily focus on cognitive semantics.
2.2. Cognitive semantics: Guiding principles
It can affirm that cognitive semantics is a multifaceted framework. Different
cognitive semanticists are certainly interested in different foci and aspects.
Nevertheless, Evans & Green (2006:157) suggest that four main guiding

9


principles collectively characterizing a cognitive semantics approach should be
taken consideration.
2.2.1. Conceptual structure is embodied
The interaction between human conceptual structure and the external world of
sensory experience is the central interest of cognitive semanticists. To put it
simply, cognitive semanticists try to explore the awareness and interaction of
human beings toward the external world and, then, connect a theory of
conceptual structure with which people have experienced in the world. Evans
and Green (2006:45) affirm that “…our construal of reality is likely to be
mediated in large measure by the nature of our bodies”. One idea that is
proposed to explain this interaction is the embodied cognition thesis by Lakoff

(1987, 1990, and 1993) and Johnson (1987). This thesis assumes that the nature
of conceptual organization arises from bodily experience. It means that human
can use effectively the linguistics expressions that carry the meaning to the
hearers due to the embodied experience which we can conceive and perceive in
the external world. Briefly, the embodied cognition thesis can be stated as a
general proposition: “[The] properties of certain categories are a consequence
of the nature of human biological capacities and of the experience of functioning
in a physical and social environment” (Lakoff, 1987:12).
Johnson (1987) proposes that image schemas are relatively abstract concepts
arising from embodied experience. In their book, Evans and Green (2006:157)
posit that image schematic conceptual structure can create more abstract kinds of
meaning, while one concept like CONTAINER is grounded in directly human
embodied experience of interacting with bounded landmark. Let consider the
following examples from Lakoff and Johnson (1980:32):
a. He’s in love.
b. We’re out of trouble now.

10


c. He’s coming out of the coma.
d. I’m slowly getting into shape.
e. He entered a state of euphoria.
f. He fell into a depression.
In these examples, it is clear that the concept of CONTAINER is metaphorically
projected onto the abstract conceptual domain of STATES, which consists of other
concepts like LOVE, TROUBLE, and HEALTH. As a result, we have the base
conceptual metaphor STATES ARE CONTAINERS, and more specific LOVE IS
CONTAINER, TROUBLE IS CONTAINER, and HEALTH IS CONTAINER. The
key behind metaphorical projection is that concrete concepts like CONTAINER

derive from linguistics expressions in human daily experience and structure more
abstract conceptual domains like STATES. This is the way in which conceptual
structure is embodied.
2.2.2. Semantic structure is conceptual structure
This guiding principle asserts that language helps reflect the concepts in the mind
of the speaker rather than directly refer to the objects in the real external world
(Evans and Green, 2006:159). In other words, semantic structure, which allows the
conventional meanings to associate with words or other linguistic units, can be
equal to conceptual structure. However, the authors also add that the equality of
semantic structure and conceptual structure does not imply that these two are
interchangeable. Moreover, the meanings conventionally associated with linguistic
units can only form a subset of possible concepts. For example, from Langacker’s
observation (1987:103), we definitely have concept for the space on the face
between our nose and mouth where the hair grows called a moustache. However,
there is no English word which can be conventionally encoded this concept. As a
result, there are more thoughts, ideas, and feelings than the number of meanings
which can be encoded in language.
11


2.2.3. Meaning representation is encyclopaedic
It is proved that the conventional meanings associated with linguistic units, such as
words can help differentiate the utterances, as an example below:
a. James is sad

b. James is happy

The consequence of the conventional range of meanings associated with sad and
happy helps distinguish the meanings in examples (a) and (b). However, cognitive
semanticists affirm that the conventional meaning associated with a particular

linguistic units act only as a “prompt” to the appropriate selection for interpretation
in the particular context of the utterance. To illustrate this point, let consider the
word “safe” in the examples provided by Fauconnier and Turner (2002), with the
context of a child playing on the beach:
a. The child is safe.
b. The beach is safe.
c. The shovel is safe.
From this context, the interpretation of (a) is clearly that the child will not come to
any harm. However, the interpretations of (b) and (c) do not mean that the beach or
the shovel will not come to harm, but that neither beach nor shovel will cause any
harm to the child. Clearly, there is no fixed feature of the word “safe” which
attaches with specific word such as “child”, “beach”, or “shovel”. Yet, to
understand the meaning of the utterance, we extract and synthesize our
encyclopaedic knowledge relating to children, beach, and shovel, and the
knowledge relating to what it means to be safe. We will also select the proper
interpretation for the context of the utterance. In brief, this guiding principle
emphasizes that “semantic structure is encyclopaedic in nature” (Evans and Green,
2006:160). This means that all neatly packaged meanings of lexical concepts do not
be entirely represented. Instead, the lexical concepts are considered as “points of
access” to vast repositories of knowledge relating to a particular concept or
conceptual domain (e.g., Langacker, 1987).
12


2.2.4. Meaning construction is conceptualization
This principle implies that meaning cannot be encoded by language itself but can
be constructed at the conceptual level because words (and other linguistic units) are
only ‘prompts’ for the construction of meaning. In other words, meaning
construction is equated with conceptualization – a process whereby an array of
conceptual operations and the recruitment of background knowledge are prompted

by linguistic units. Consequently, meaning is a process rather than “a discrete
‘thing’ that can be ‘packaged’ by language”. (Evans and Green, 2006:162).
3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory
Cognitive linguists have admitted that Conceptual Metaphor Theory suggested by
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) was one of the earliest and the most influential
theoretical frameworks which contributed to the theoretical impetus of cognitive
semantic approach and of other neighboring disciplines like cognitive psychology
and anthropology. The basic premise of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, emphasize
Lakoff & Johnson (1980:3), is that metaphor is not simply a stylistic feature of
language but it is “fundamentally metaphorical in nature”. This theory also
suggests that the organization of conceptual structure is based on cross domain
mappings or correspondences between conceptual domains. Lakoff and Johnson,
along with their collaborators, connect the first two of the central principles of
cognitive semantics (2.2.1 & 2.2.2) and claim that some of these mappings are due
to pre-conceptual embodied experiences while others build on the experiences to
form more complex conceptual structures (cited in Evans & Green, 2006:287). In
order to clarify the term, metaphor and conceptual metaphors should be thoroughly
discussed.
3.1. Metaphor
3.1.1. Traditional theories of metaphors
Metaphor used to be simply defined as “…a figure of speech in which a word or
phrase is used to describe something it does not literally denote” (McGlone,
13


2007:109). The Greek rhetoricians considered metaphor one of the master devices
namely trope which is based on the implicitly marked comparison of two
categories. Up to the late 19th century, the study of metaphor was still considered
the main concern of literary scholars who were interested in the interpretation of
particular tropes in poetry and fiction. According to the Aristotelian “comparison

view” (1965), metaphor was characterized by the schematic form: X is Y, such as
this journal is a gem and could be explicitly interpreted in simile form: X is like Y
(this journal is like a gem) (cited in McGlone, 2007:110). Thus, the comparison
view, underlines Miller (1993: 186-188), treats metaphors as a species of a species
of analogy and asserts that the perception of similarity is the basis of metaphor use
and comprehension. However, many scholars reject that simplistic comparison
view about metaphor. Richards (1936:90) denies that metaphor is mere ornament
and a unique feature of language but “the omnipresent principle of all its free
action”. He also clarifies the metaphor form and provides a fairly standard
terminology of metaphor. The term used metaphorically is the “vehicle” (e.g. a
gem), the term to which it is applied is the “tenor” or “topic” (e.g. this journal), and
the meaning of the metaphor is the “ground”. Building on Richards’ work, Black
(1962) proposes his “interaction view” where metaphors reflect the process of
perceiving the topic concept ‘‘in terms of’’ the vehicle concept to produce a ground
that combines their conceptual attributes and transcends their literal denotations
(cited in McGlone, 2007:110). His theory, however, is criticized by many
contemporary metaphor theorists for its vague explanation of figurative
transcendence.
3.1.2. Contemporary theories of metaphors
A great number of treatises and models have been proposed to specify the
interaction of topic and vehicle concepts to yield metaphoric meanings. Let
consider the following expressions which commonly refer to particular experiences
of love relationships:
a. Look how far we’ve come.
14


b. We’re at a crossroads.
c. We can’t turn back now.
d. I don’t think this relationship is going anywhere.

e. Where are we?
f. We’re stuck.
g. It’s been a long, bumpy road.
h. We’re just spinning our wheels.
i. Our marriage is on the rocks.
j. We’ve gotten off the track.
k. This relationship is foundering
Lakoff and Johnson (1980:44-45)
Noticeably, these expressions are used to talk about relationships in ordinary daily
life, without stylistic and poetic features. Moreover, the linguistic formula X is Y is
not applied in these expressions. However, it cannot deny that these expressions are
apparently non-literal because a relationship cannot literally spin its wheels nor
stand at the crossroads. Black (1962) argues that metaphor does not merely deal
with the level of word meaning, but with the deeper level of conceptual structure.
Richardt (2005:19) also affirms that “conceptual metaphor” framework advanced
by Lakoff and his colleagues has undoubtedly become the most influential theory
of metaphor. Although most people may view metaphor as characteristic of
language alone, and also as “a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary
language”, Lakoff and Johnson (1980:3) again insist that metaphor takes part in
every aspects of our life and deeply roots in our conceptual system. It is not only a
matter of language, but also of thought and action. According to their proposal, one
cognitive domain can be understood, or even created, in terms of components more
15