A study on metaphor marriage is a unity in english vietnamese=nghiên cứu ẩn dụ hôn nhân là một thể thống nhất trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt

VINH UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
__________________________

TRẦN THỊ THU HIỀN

A STUDY ON METAPHOR MARRIAGE IS A UNITY
IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
(NGHIÊN CỨU ẨN DỤ HÔN NHÂN LÀ MỘT THỂ THỐNG NHẤT
TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

GRADUATION THESIS
FIELD: LINGUISTICS

NGHÊ AN – 2014


VINH UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
__________________________

A STUDY ON METAPHOR MARRIAGE IS A UNITY
IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
(NGHIÊN CỨU ẨN DỤ HÔN NHÂN LÀ MỘT THỂ THỐNG NHẤT
TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

GRADUATION THESIS
FIELD: LINGUISTICS

Student: TRẦN THỊ THU HIỀN, 51A_ENGLISH
Supervisor: LÊ ĐÌNH TƯỜNG, ASSOC. PROF

NGHÊ AN – 2014


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study has been accomplished with the support and encouragement of many
people to whom I am grateful.
I would particularly like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor,
Assoc. prof. Le Dinh Tuong who has been a wonderful help to me with his profound
knowledge and critical comments. Thanks to his useful and very arresting lectures, I
was inspired to enter conceptual metaphor in cognitive linguistics, an interesting but
challenging field.
A further acknowledgement goes to my classmates for their useful ideas,
materials and encouragement.
The final credit must go to my family, who supported me with love and gentle
pushing.
Without all that support, I could not have finished the Thesis.

Nghe An, May 28, 2014
Tran Thi Thu Hien

i


ABSTRACT
This study presents an investigation into metaphor MARRIAGE IS A UNITY
in English and Vietnamese. A discussion and comments on the three main concepts of
this metaphor have been made very clearly in English and Vietnamese. In the process
of the study, marriage is cognized as a unity which includes two parts whose elements
are opposite but share the same purpose. Noticeably enough, the concept “Unity” bears

an abstract meaning. For example: LOVE IS A UNITY, FAMILY IS A UNITY, etc.
There are some similarities and differences of Unity metaphor in “Marriage” in
particular and between English and Vietnamese in general. Accordingly, the analysis
on metaphor MARRIAGE has been made in turn so as to lead to the conclusion and
implications at the end of the Study. It also suggests some further studies on a larger
population of data and the cultural aspects of Unity metaphor in English and
Vietnamese so that teachers as well as students can gain a deeper insight into areas of
conceptual metaphors.

ii


APPROVED

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................

i

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................

ii

APPROVED.......................................................................................................

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................

iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................

vi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................

1

1.1.

Rationale ................................................................................................

1

1.2.

Purposes of the study .............................................................................

2

1.3.

Scope of the study .................................................................................

2

1.4.

Design of the study.................................................................................

2

CHAPTER

2

LITERATURE

REVIEW

AND

THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................

4

2.1.

Literature review ....................................................................................

4

2.1.1. Metaphor and culture .............................................................................

4

2.1.2. Dimensions of metaphor variation .........................................................

4

2.1.3. Variation in metaphorical linguistic expressions ...................................

5

2.1.4. Metaphor and socio-cultural experience ................................................

5

2.2.

Theoretical background ..........................................................................

6

2.2.1. The Theoretical Framework of Cognitive Linguistics ...........................

6

2.2.2. Concept ..................................................................................................

11

2.2.3. Metaphor ................................................................................................

13

2.2.4. Conceptual metaphor .............................................................................

15

CHAPTER 3: METHOD AND PROCEDURE ...........................................

17

3.1.

Aims and objectives of the study ...........................................................

17

3.2.

Research methodology ...........................................................................

17

3.3.

Research questions .................................................................................

17

3.4.

Description of population and sample ...................................................

18

iv


3.5.

Data collection .......................................................................................

18

3.6.

Data analysis ..........................................................................................

18

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ................................................

20

4.1.

Marriage is a unity of two complementary parts ...................................

20

4.1.1. Unity in cognitive linguistics .................................................................

20

4.1.2. Data analysis ..........................................................................................

22

4.2.

Being in marriage is being physically close...........................................

26

4.3.

Being in marriage is being mentally close ............................................

31

4.4.

Concluding remarks ...............................................................................

34

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION ........................................................................ .

37

5.1.

A Summary of the study ........................................................................

37

5.2.

A brief re-statement of the study............................................................

37

5.3.

Implications for practical solutions ........................................................

38

5.3.1. Some suggested activities for using metaphor MARRIAGE IS A
UNITY in teaching and learning English ..............................................

38

5.3.2. Some suggested exercises for using metaphor MARRIAGE IS A
UNITY in teaching and learning English ..............................................

42

5.4.

Limitations .............................................................................................

45

5.5.

Suggestions for further research ............................................................

45

REFERENCES .................................................................................................

46

LITERATURE USED IN THE THESIS .......................................................

47

v


LIST OF FIGURES AND PICTURES
1. Figure 1 Mapping in metaphor MARRIAGE IS A UNITY in English .........

15

2. Figure 2 Mapping in metaphor MARRIAGE IS A UNITY in Vietnamese ...

16

3. Picture 1 Image of a Unity ...............................................................................

20

vi


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1. RATIONALE
First and foremost, language is universally acknowledged as the most powerful
means of communication. In modern society, English is an international language
which plays an important role in our life. It is the bridge to connect us to the global
world. We can have a deeper insight into the culture, education, science, etc of foreign
countries thanks to our English proficiency.
In addition, Marriage is an eternal and immortal topic of human beings, no
matter which community people belong to, which language they are speaking and
which epoch they are living in. It is considered to be one of the most important things
in human life.
Noticeably enough, there are a lot of song lyrics and Vietnamese verses indicate
very strongly the metaphor MARRIAGE IS A UNITY which puts an impression on
readers. For example, in ancient China, a tyrannical emperor named Qin Shihuang
burned The Book of Songs, one of the five classics of Chinese literature, to control
people‟s minds. However the section in it with the title Guan! Guan! Cry the Fish
Hawks survives and wins a universal praise, especially the following two lines, “a
mile-mannered good girl, fine match for the gentleman” (Waley,1960). That is the
appeal of song l yrics in old times.
Recently, many cognitive linguistic studies have shown that metaphor plays an

important role in the human conceptual system. Metaphors are often grounded in
culture and can hence serve as a good resource for the investigation of cultural beliefs
expressed in language. As a person who is very interested in metaphor and its effect on
cultural beliefs I decide to choose the topic “A Study on Metaphor MARRIAGE IS A
UNITY in English and Vietnamese” as the study of my graduation thesis.
Hopefully, the study, to some extent, can help Vietnamese learners of English
understand conceptual metaphors more deeply so that they can use them more
efficiently.

1


1.2. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY
This study has the purpose for analyzing metaphorical marriage expressions in
song lyrics and Vietnamese verses and folklores to demonstrate how the conceptual
metaphor MARRIAGE IS A UNITY works. Another important thing is, the author
would like to find out how MARRIAGE IS A UNITY is reflected in song lyrics and
Vietnamese verses and folklores, and to investigate different categories of the
MARRIAGE IS A UNITY metaphor found in them.
By comparing marriage metaphors in Vietnamese and English, this paper
aims at analyzing how these metaphors reflect the differences in Vietnamese and
English marriage beliefs.
Moreover, studying about MARRIAGE IS A UNITY metaphor is a difficult
and complex work. In the trend of international integration, teaching folklores and
proverbs is very important for the research and pedagogical workers. To do this task
well, we cannot deny the indispensable role of theory and research findings of
cognitive linguistics.
Last but not least, the author does this thesis with the hope of improving the
quality in teaching and learning literature in general and metaphors in particular.
1.3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

To study about metaphor MARRIAGE IS A UNITY in English and
Vietnamese, various activities can be used, and a number of things should be
done. However, due to the limitation of time and knowledge, it is impossible to
cover all kinds of MARRIAGE IS A UNITY metaphors. I only focus on some
common MARRIAGE IS A UNITY metaphors in English and Vietnamese.
1.4. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The study is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 “INTRODUCTION”
consists of the author‟s reasons for choosing the study, scope and design of the study.
Chapter 2 entitled “Literature Review and Theoretical Background”
provides some background knowledge about literature review, cognitive linguistics,
concept, metaphor and conceptual metaphor. Chapter 3 named “Method and
Procedure” tells us about aims and objectives, research methodology, research
questions, description of population and sample, data collection and data analysis.
Chapter 4 entitled “Discussion of Findings”. In this chapter, the author mentions

2


about interpretation and discussion of findings of the research. In Chapter 5
“Conclusion”, the author summarizes the main points in the study, gives a brief restatement of the findings, implications for practical solutions, limitations and suggests
some topics for further studies.
The study ends with the “REFERENCES”, which lists all the materials and
sources of information used in this study.

3


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND

Chapter 2 briefly presents some general knowledge about literature review,
cognitive linguistics, concept, metaphor and conceptual metaphor.
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.1. Metaphor and culture
Conceptual metaphor theory sees the connections between conceptual domains
in terms of correspondences or mappings between elements within source and target
domains. The source domain is the conceptual domain from which the metaphor is
drawn, and the target domain is the conceptual domain to which the metaphor is
applied. [cf. Knowles & Rosamund 2006: 33]. In this essay, the target domain of
all the metaphors is MARRIAGE.
One of the most influential works in contemporary metaphor theory is
Metaphor we live by, written by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, first published in
1980. According to Lakoff and Johnson [2003: 3], “[…] metaphor is pervasive in
everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action”, and “our ordinary
conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally
metaphorical in nature”. They believe that metaphor is not only a linguistic
phenomenon but instead a conceptual and experiential process which reflects our
way of thinking and reasoning and structure the way we perceive the world.
Metaphor is common to all languages and cultures. Although the use of
metaphor is universal, the choice of metaphor for interpreting the world may be
cultural-specific. Other cultures may interpret the same matter with different
metaphors which may be poles apart. Therefore, conceptual metaphors expressed in
language can serve as an indicator of culture.
2.1.2. Dimensions of metaphor variation
There are two dimensions of metaphor variation: the cross-cultural dimension
and the within-culture dimension.

4

2.1.2.1 Cross-cultural dimension of metaphor variation
Kövecses believes that cross-cultural variation in metaphors is mainly caused
by the broader cultural context, which refers to “the governing principles and the key
concepts in a given culture” [Kövecses 2002: 186], and the natural and physical
environment in which a cultural is located.
One kind of the cross-cultural variation is called “congruence”. Congruent
metaphors are metaphors that are filled out in congruence with the generic schema
and when the generic schema is filled out, it receives unique cultural content at a
specific level. In other words, a generic-level conceptual metaphor is instantiated in
cultural-specific ways at a specific level. There are also alternative metaphors. When
one source domain is used for a particular target domain in one language and a
different source for the same target is used in another language, it can be said that
these mappings are is alternative metaphors.
2.1.2.2 Within-cultural dimension of metaphor variation
Languages are not monolithic but come in varieties that reflect divergences in
human experience. Metaphors vary not only across different cultures but also within
cultures. Several dimensions including social, regional, ethnic, stylistic, subcultural,
diachronic, developmental and individual dimensions cause the variation within
cultures.
2.1.3. Variation in metaphorical linguistic expressions
As mentioned above, metaphors can be found across different cultures and
different varieties of the same language. Metaphors also show variation in the
metaphorical linguistic expressions which are anchored in a respective metaphor. “If
two languages share the same conceptual metaphor, the linguistic expression of the
conceptual metaphor in the two languages may follow a variety of different
patterns” [Kövecses, 2000: 165].
2.1.4 Metaphor and socio-cultural experience
Socio-cultural experience also shapes our metaphors. Firstly, metaphors we
produce are influenced by the specific experiences provided by the environment, the
socio-cultural context and the communicative situation that are specific to certain

groups of people or individuals. Secondly, metaphors are shaped by the history of
context and/or the history of an individual. These variations in histories of context
and individuals across time bring variation in metaphors. Thirdly, the diverse concerns

5


and interests that govern our life also affect the metaphors we employ to understand
the world around us.
2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.2.1. The Theoretical Framework of Cognitive Linguistics
2.2.1.1. A prototype approach to categorization
Categorization is the process in which experiences and concepts are recognized
and understood. Categorization implies that concepts are divided into categories based
on commonalities and usually for some specific purpose. Categorization is
fundamental in decision making, in all kinds of interaction with the environment, and
in language. Categorization is central issue in Cognitive Linguistics in which it is
argued to be one of the primary principles of conceptual and linguistic organization.
Categorization is not a matter to be taken lightly. There is nothing more basic
than categorization to our thought, perception, action and speech. An understanding of
how we classify is central to any understanding of how we think and how we function,
and thus central to an understanding of what makes us human.
Categorization, in other words, matters to the linguist in at least two ways, i.e.
“both in its methodology and in its substance”. A linguist needs categories to describe
the object of investigation, and the things that linguists study also stand for categories.
In the wake of the Cognitive Revolution of the 1970s, studies by cognitive
scientists like Eleanor Rosch, Brent Berlin, Paul Kay, and George Lakoff, indicated
that there were several problems with the classical view:


Necessary conditions are inadequate: the idea of necessary and sufficient
conditions is rarely if ever met in categories of naturally occurring things or
in humans' categorization of experience.



There are degrees of membership: humans tend to regard some members of
categories as better members than others.



Boundaries between categories are not clear cut: natural categories tend to
be fuzzy at their boundaries and inconsistent in the status of their
constituent members.
With these observations in mind, cognitive scientists argue that categorization
the process of grouping things based on prototypes. It has also been suggested that
categorization based on prototypes is the basis for human development, and that this

6


learning relies on learning about the world via embodiment. Systems of categories are
not objectively "out there" in the world but are rooted in people's experience.
In the Prototype Approach to categorization, concepts are categories comprising
prototypical members (be they local or global), as well as more peripheral members,
which constitute diverse kinds of motivated extensions from that prototype. Two such
motivating mechanisms are conceptual metonymy [the mechanism of mentally
accessing one entity via another (salient) entity co-occurring within the same
conceptual domain – cf. e.g. Lakoff and Johnson 1980, Ch. 8, Langacker 1993] and
conceptual metaphor [partially understanding one – typically more abstract – domain

of experience via another – typically more concrete – domain of experience – cf. e.g.
Lakoff and Johnson 1980, Lakoff 1990, Lakoff and Johnson 1999].
Often, category members are linked, e.g. if member A is the prototype, member
B will be similar to A, and member C will be similar to B, but A and C are not
necessarily similar to each other. The link that lies between members in a radial
category does not need to reflect any objective relatedness between the entities in
reality. Instead, their conceptual relatedness is a reflection of what the human
conceptualizer experiences as a result of his biological and cognitive make-up, as well
as his bodily, social, and cultural baggage. Members of a linguistic category, e.g.
interrelated senses, are linked to each other by categorizing relationships such as
instantiation and extension [Langacker: 101-103, quoted from Loan]; both include an
act of comparison in which a standard is matched against a target. Instantiation is a
limiting case of extension that arises when the discrepancy is zero. Extension
constitutes recognition accomplished only with a certain amount of “strain”. Extension
does not occur at random, however, it implies some abstract commonality. “[T]he
„outward‟ growth of a lexical network by extension from prototypes is inherently
associated with its „upward‟ growth by extraction of schemas” [Langacker: 373,
quoted from Loan]. Perceived similarities among sub-groups of members of a
conceptual category are captured by schemas at various levels of abstraction, a schema
being an abstract characterization that is fully compatible with all the members of the
category it defines. Noticeably enough, in the schematic network model low-level
schemas are stated to be conceptually more salient than higher-level ones, and it is not
necessary to postulate the existence of the highest-level schema capturing what is
common to all category members for each conceptual category. Hence, it is the norm
(rather than a deviation from the norm) that there are conceptual categories with not
even a single property shared by all category members.

7

Linguistic categories can also have a prototype structure. Categories form part
of a hierarchical taxonomic structure organized in accordance with at least three
structural principles: radial structure, inheritance, and levels of categorization:
 Radial structure
The notion of radial structure with introduced by Lakoff [1987], and implies
that categories do not have symmetric structures. A radial structure is a taxonomy that
has a center-periphery structure, such that the center of the category provides the
schema of prototypical properties. The center is itself an idealization over what the
members of the category have, or should have, in common.
The more in common a member has with the prototypical center, the closer to
the center it is located. That is, those members that do not share a lot of features with
the center are peripherally located. Thus categories display graded centrality and
degree of membership, with good members towards the center and bad members
towards the boundary.
 Inheritance
Members of categories, which are also called instances of categories, are said to
inherit properties from the schema - the more they inherit, the better members, they
are. However, sometimes members of a category are categories themselves, in which
case they are called subsets or subcategories. Subcategories are considered extensions
of the schema, because they provide a set of properties themselves, only some of
which are inherited from the schema.
 Levels of categorization
Taxonimies of categories are organized into levels of categorization. There are
three levels:
The first is Superordinate level: Superordinate categories are the most general
ones. They are the ones that are at the top of a folk taxonomy).
The second is Basic, or generic, level: categories at the basic, or middle, level
are perceptually and conceptually the more salient. The generic level of a category
tends to elicit the most responses and richest images, providing a basic gestalt, and
seems to be the psychologically basic level. Basic level categories are members of

superordinate level categories.
The last is Subordinate level: Subordinate level categories are the most specific
ones. They are the members of the basic level categories. They have clearly
identifiable gestalts and many individuating specific features.

8


2.2.1.2 A conceptual and imagistic approach to meaning
The preceding paragraph suggests that meaning in a cognitivist framework is no
longer defined in terms of outside-world entities to which the expressions in question
might refer, but rather in terms of conceptualizations they evoke in the minds of
language users. Conceptualization, in turn, should be understood as both the
conceptual content and the specific construal imposed on that content by the
conceptualizer.
A conceptualist approach to meaning facilitates a systematic recognition and
principled treatment of the subjective language dimension: when human beings
conceptualize aspects of the world around them they often pay attention to the
conceptualization process and their own relation to the entities they conceptualize. In
other words, human beings often do not merely conceive of outside entities, but rather
of themselves conceptualizing the entities in question. This peculiarity discovers
important reflections in language: linguistic expressions that speakers employ in
discourse are used not only to comment on states of affairs in the outside world, but
also to convey the speakers‟ epistemic evaluation of what they are talking about, their
assessment of their relation with their interlocutors, comments pertaining to the
development of the current discourse itself, etc. It is a very clear conceptualist view of
meaning that facilitates analysis of subjectivity in language as a systematic and
specific way as the phenomenon in question deserves.
Furthermore, a truly conceptualist view of meaning permits us to build up a
comprehensive, principled framework for all instances of language use in which

conflicting characterizations are assigned to the “same” aspects of the universe of
discourse (e.g. the traditional problems associated with an analysis of the semantic
behavior of expressions in the context of predicates of propositional attitudes).
Cognitive linguistics has developed mental space theory which conceived situations in
the universe of discourse may be conceptualized from multiple vantage points. A
change in vantage point may bring about a change in how the observed parts of the
universe of discourse appear to the conceptualizing subject. As the growing body of
work in cognitive linguistics demonstrates [cf. e.g. Cutrer 1994, Dancygier 1998,
Dancygier and Sweetser 2005, Fauconnier 1997, Sweetser 1990, Ch.5], the theoretical
constructs postulated within mental space theory are of fundamental importance for a
unified analysis with respect to tense, aspect, and mood, to name but a few categories.
An important aspect of the conceptualistic view of meaning is the recognition of
the imagistic component of semantics, that is of the fundamental role construal plays in
meaning. A precise characterization of its dimensions allows the analyst to offer

9


detailed and rigorous characterizations of meaning contrasts among linguistic
structures which are equivalent in truth-conditional terms, but nevertheless exhibit
subtle yet important differences in meaning, resulting in otherwise unexplainable
differences in discourse behavior. A principled account of construal is a necessary
prerequisite for developing a full-fledged symbolic approach to grammar: grammatical
meaning is by necessity abstract and can hardly be characterized in terms of specific
conceptual content. It may, nevertheless, be insightfully analyzed in terms of the type
of construal it imposes on conceived scenes.
2.2.1.3. A usage-based approach to language
Another theoretical assumption emphasized here is the motivation of linguistic
phenomena. By obmitting the “autonomy of language” principle, cognitive linguists
abandoned any notice of formulating generalizations with absolute predictability.

Human behavior is not governed by deterministic laws, and language cannot be
separated from other cognitive abilities, so absolute predictability cannot be achieved.
This turns out to be an advantage. The cognitive linguist is liberated from the task of
looking for deterministic rules, and is thus able to find cognitive motivations behind
linguistic facts and to discover that these facts “make sense” within a pattern larger
than language itself which indicates that intelligent creatures cognized the world
around them and communicate their insights to others of their kind.
Nevertheless, if there are no hypothetic regulations to explore and learn, then
how do children acquire language and what are linguists searching for? In the usagebased approach propounded by cognitive linguists, knowledge of a language originates
from actual usage, i.e. as the result of the entrenchment and abstraction of patterns that
recur in multiple usage events. A usage-based view of language structure offers a
promising framework for a cognitive approach to first language acquisition [cf. e.g.
Dąbrowska 2004, Tomasello 2003]. At the same time, a usage-based view provides the
right perspective for the full appreciation of corpus studies in linguistic research that
no longer asks whether a certain phenomenon is possible or impossible, but instead
focuses on how likely or unlikely the pattern is to occur [see Gries and Stefanowisch
2006]. Finally, the adoption of the usage-based model plays an important part in the
study of language change, as it lays the evidence for realizing the role that is played in
linguistic historical evolution by factors such as frequency and mechanisms such as
context-bound pragmatic inferencing.
2.2.2. Concept

10


2.2.2.1. Definition
In metaphysics, and especially ontology, a concept is a fundamental category of
existence. In contemporary philosophy, there are at least three prevailing ways to
understand what a concept is:


Concepts as mental representations where concepts are entities that exist


in the brain.
Concepts as abilities, where concepts are abilities peculiar to cognitive
agents.



Concepts as abstract objects, where objects are the constituents of

propositions that mediate between thought, language, and referents.
In a physical theory of mind, a concept is a mental representation, which the
brain uses to denote a class of things in the world. This is to say that it is literally, a
symbol or group of symbols together made from the physical material of the brain.
Concepts are mental representations that allow us to draw appropriate inferences about
the type of entities we encounter in our everyday lives. Concepts do not encompass all
mental representations, but are merely a subset of them. The use of concepts is
necessary to cognitive processes such as categorization, memory, decision making,
learning and inference.
In a platonic theory of mind, concepts are construed as abstract objects. This
debate concerns the ontological status of concepts - what they are really like.
There is debate as to the relationship between concepts and natural
language. However, it is necessary at least to begin by understanding that the concept
"dog" is philosophically distinct from the things in the world grouped by this concept or the reference class or extension. Concepts that can be equated to a single word are
called "lexical concepts". The Study of concepts and conceptual structure falls into the
disciplines of philosophy, psychology and cognitive science.
2.2.2.2. Notable theories on the structure of concepts
a. Classical theory
The classical theory of concepts, also referred to as the empiricist theory of

concepts, is the oldest theory about the structure of concepts (it can be traced back to
Aristotle), and was prominently held until the 1970s. The classical theory of concepts
says that concepts have a definitional structure. Adequate definitions of the kind
required by this theory usually take the form of a list of features. These features must
have two important qualities to provide a comprehensive definition. Features entailed
by the definition of a concept must be both necessary and sufficient for membership

11


in the class of things covered by a particular concept. A feature is considered
necessary if every member of the denoted class has that feature. A feature is
considered sufficient if something has all the parts required by the definition. For
example, the classic example bachelor is said to be defined by unmarried and man.
An entity is a bachelor (by this definition) if and only if it is both unmarried and a
man. To check whether something is a member of the class, you compare its qualities
to the features in the definition. Another key part of this theory is that it obeys
the law of the excluded middle, which means that there are no partial members of a
class, you are either in or out.
The classical theory persisted for so long unquestioned because it seemed
intuitively correct and has great explanatory power. It can explain how concepts would
be acquired, how we use them to categorize and how we use the structure of a concept
to determine its referent class. In fact, for many years it was one of the major activities
in philosophy -concept analysis. Concept analysis is the act of trying to articulate the
necessary and sufficient conditions for the membership in the referent class of a
concept.
b. Prototype theory
Prototype theory came out of problems with the classical view of conceptual
structure. Prototype theory says that concepts specify properties that members of a
class tend to possess, rather than must possess. Wittgenstein, Rosch, Mervis, Berlin,

Anglin, and Posner are a few of the key proponents and creators of this theory.
Wittgenstein describes the relationship between members of a class as family
resemblances. There are not necessarily any conditions for membership, a dog can still
be a dog with only three legs. This view is particularly supported by psychological
experimental evidence for prototypical effects. Participants willingly and consistently
rate objects in categories like 'vegetable' or 'furniture' as more or less typical of that
class. It seems that our categories are fuzzy psychologically, and so this structure has
explanatory power. We can judge an item's membership to the referent class of a
concept by comparing it to the typical member - the most central member of the
concept. If it is similar enough in the relevant ways, it will be cognitively admitted as a
member of the relevant class of entities. Rosch suggests that every category is
represented by a central exemplar which embodies all or the maximum possible
number of features of a given category.
c. Theory-theory
Theory-theory is a reaction to the previous two theories and develops them
further. This theory postulates that categorization by concepts is something like

12


scientific theorizing. Concepts are not learned in isolation, but rather are learned as a
part of our experiences with the world around us. In this sense, concepts' structure
relies on their relationships to other concepts as mandated by a particular mental theory
about the state of the world. How this is supposed to work is a little less clear than in
the previous two theories, but is still a prominent and notable theory. This is supposed
to explain some of the issues of ignorance and error that come up in prototype and
classical theories as concepts that are structured around each other seem to account for
errors such as whale as a fish (this misconception came from an incorrect theory about
what a whale is like, combining with our theory of what a fish is). When we learn that
a whale is not a fish, we are recognizing that whales don't in fact fit the theory we had

about what makes something a fish. In this sense, the Theory-Theory of concepts is
responding to some of the issues of prototype theory and classic theory.
2.2.3. Metaphor
2.2.3.1. Traditional view on metaphor
Metaphor has traditionally been viewed as one of the figures of speech, a
rhetorical device or a stylistic device used in literature to achieve as aesthetic effect
[Radden & Divren, Lakoff & Johnson]. According to Lakoff & Johnson [8], metaphor
has been thought to be “a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language”.
There has been proposed plentiful definitions of metaphor. [Nguyen, H: 106,
quoted from Loan] states that “Metaphor… is the transference of meaning (name) from
one object to another based on similarity between two these objects”. He interprets that
speaker of a language compare one object with another, and if they pick up some
common features between the two objects they will consider the second by the name of
the first.
Dinh, T.L. in Nhan, Đ.T.T. [11: 5-6] introduces a similar view that “metaphor is
the transference of meaning from one object to another based on similarity between
these two objects”.
For Do, H,C. in Nhan, Đ.T.T. [11: 6], metaphor is “the symbolic name of one
object, which is based on the similarity, realistic or imaginary, between the identified
object called “A” and the object called “B” of which the name is transferred to “A”.
To conclude, from traditional views, metaphor is tacit comparison and
transference of name of one thing for another, and it is a linguistic means used by
writers who aim at creating certain effects in their work.
2.2.3.2. Metaphor in the light of cognitive linguistics

13


Language is traditionally regarded as a means to make the surrounding world
open to us. However, according to Lakoff & Johnson [7], language is viewed by

cognitive linguistics as a product of cognition, “a means that helps reveal human being
mental world and secrets of cognitive processes”.
Metaphor in the light of cognitive linguistics is not only used in poems and prose
but also in daily life language. According to Lakoff & Johnson [8], metaphors are
common in everyday language. In everyday speech, there are numerous metaphors
whose existence we have not known yet. For instance, someone talking about marriage
of her friend may say, “I do not believe that his wife is always on his mind”. This exists
in this sentence a metaphor “Marriage is a Unity”. Someone talking with a partner about
their life may say, “To finish the moment, to find the journey‟s end in every step of the
road, to live the greatest number of good hours, is wisdom”. Life here is viewed as an
experience and thoughts about the most valuable thing for human beings.
Another noticeable viewpoint with regard to metaphor in cognitive linguistics is
that it emerges both in our use of language and our conceptual system. According to
Lakoff & Johnson [7] defines that “metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in
language but in thought and action”. They argue that metaphor is not only a matter of
language, not merely in the words we use but also a matter of human thought processes
and it exists in our conceptual system. More importantly, they say that what makes it
possible “for the appearance of metaphors as linguistic expressions is the fact that there
are metaphor in a person „s conceptual system”. Lakoff & Johnson [8] states that “We
talk about things metaphorically because we conceive them that way, and we act
according to the way we conceive of things”. This viewpoint is shared by Barcelona
who states that metaphor is the cognitive mechanism whereby one experiential domain
is partly mapped of projected onto a different experiential domain, the second domain
is then partially understood in terms of the first domain (in [Nguyen, H: 12, quoted
from Loan]).
In short, metaphor in cognitive linguistics is considered not merely a means of
cognition, reflecting the mechanism by which people understand and explain about the
real world. More specifically, Lakoff & Johnson [7] states metaphor is “understanding
and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another”. People often evoke in their
minds simple images or concepts to conceptualize complex meaning.

2.2.4. Conceptual metaphor
Metaphor is a conceptual item which is broadly used in daily life. Kövecses [6:
4] believes that metaphor involves using one conceptual domain to understand another
conceptual domain. Similarly, Lakoff and Johnson [7: 5] define it as “understanding

14


and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another”. Grant and Oswick [3: 227]
state that „metaphor is a process that involves the “carrying over” or crossing of one
element of experience into another. This results in metaphors as images or words that
are used to create and express meaning‟. In the definition given by Kövecses, he uses
the term “conceptual domain”. It means the general field where a category, the
conceptualized collection of similar experiences, or a frame, the coherent knowledge
surrounding a category, can be found by Divren & Radden [1: 3-11]. A metaphor has
two conceptual domains. According to Kövecses [6: 4], one is the thing that is to be
understood, which is called the target domain, and the other is the thing that is used
to understand the first one, and it is called the source domain. Kövecses [6: 6]
states that the source domain and the target domain interact in “a set of systematic
correspondences between the source and the target” which “are often referred to as
mappings”. Divren and Radden [1: 12] also define mappings in a similar but more
vivid way. They consider mapping as a projection, namely to launch one set of
conceptual entities to another. Kövecses uses an example metaphor MARRIAGE IS A
UNITY to explain what mapping is in his work:
Source: UNITY

Target: MARRIAGE

1. The two physical parts

The married people

2. The physical joining of the parts

The union of the two people in marriage

3. The physical/ biological unity

The marriage union

4. The physical fit between the parts

The compatibility between the marriage
people

5. The physical functions of the parts in
the unity

The roles the married people play in the
relationship

6. The complementariness of the functions The complementariness of the roles of the
of the parts
married people
7. The whole physical object consisting of

The marriage relationship

the parts
8. The function of the whole object

The role or purpose of the marriage
relationship

Figure 1. Mapping in metaphor MARRIAGE IS A UNITY in English
What we have here is a source domain in which there are two parts that fit
each other and form a whole, in which the particular functions of the parts
complement each other and the parts make up a larger unity that has a function.

15


This source schema of a physical unity has parts that are additional to the basic
experience of baby and first caretaker. Unlike the infantile experience, here two
originally separate parts are joined, or put together; there is a preexisting fit
between the parts. Furthermore, the whole has a function that is larger than, or
extends beyond, the functions of the individual parts. What corresponds to these in
the target domain of marriage is that two separate people who are compatible join
each other in marriage with some life goals in mind. It is this structure that appears
in the way many people (in America and possibly elsewhere) think about marriage.
But this way of conceptualizing marriage is simply a special case of the larger
process whereby nonphysical unities in general are constituted on the analogy of
more physical ones. It is important to see that the UNITY METAPHOR
characterizes not just marriage but many other abstract concepts in which the issue
of NONPHYSICAL UNION arises, that is, abstract concepts that have UNION as
one of their dimensions, or aspects.
Likewise, in Vietnamese, people consider that in the two elements of
conceptual metaphors, the second one is the source domain (unity) because from
the source, we can give out new information in order to convey it to the target
domain (marriage):

Source: UNITY
1. Thuyền và bến
2. Đình và chợ
3. Rèm và chống
4. Nhẫn cưới
5. Gương và thủy

Target: MARRIAGE
1. Sự kết nối
2. Sự bổ trợ
3. Điều kiện
4. Sự kết duyên
5. Sự chung thủy, son sắt

Figure 2. Mapping in metaphor MARRIAGE IS A UNITY in Vietnamese

16


CHAPTER 3
METHOD AND PROCEDURE

3.1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The thesis mainly aims at finding out some common MARRIAGE IS A UNITY
metaphors which are used in English and Vietnamese, discovering the differences as
well as similarities of these metaphors in English and Vietnamese and providing some
suggested activities and exercises for using metaphor MARRIAGE IS A UNITY in
teaching and learning English.
To fully achieve these aims, the study has to answer two questions:
- What are the common metaphors of MARRIAGE IS A UNITY used in

English and Vietnamese?
- What are the similarities and differences of these metaphors in English and
Vietnamese?
3.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
When I start to do my Thesis, the first thing I need to think about is the research
methodology because it is the philosophy or the general principle which will guide my
Thesis. Also, it is the overall approach to studying my topic and includes issues I have
to think about such as the constraints, dilemmas, etc within my Thesis.
That is the reason why I choose Qualitative and Quantitative as my research
methods during the process of studying the title MARRIAGE IS A UNITY in English
and Vietnamese.
3.3. RESEARCH QUESTION
So as to accomplish my Thesis efficiently, the important thing is that I know
what the research question is and how to solve it. “MARRIAGE IS A UNITY in
English and Vietnamese” is a very big research question in my Thesis. It asks for my
intelligence to narrow down the topic in some main areas that makes the readers easily
reach the abstract meaning of this metaphor.

17