Ẩn dụ về mùa trong ca từ bài hát tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt: Nghiên cứu theo đướng hướng tri nhận

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

SỸ THỊ THƠM

SEASON METAPHORS IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE SONGS: A COGNITIVE STUDY

DOCTORAL THESIS
IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

DANANG - 2021


THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

SEASON METAPHORS IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE SONGS: A COGNITIVE STUDY
DOCTORAL THESIS
IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

Major: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
Code: 9220201
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics
SUPERVISORS: 1. Assoc.Prof., Dr. Nguyễn Văn Long
2. Dr. Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm

DANANG - 2021


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used
without due acknowledgement in the text of the dissertation.
This dissertation has not been submitted for the award of any degree of
diploma in any other tertiary institution.
Da Nang, December, 2021

2


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I am greatly indebted to my supervisors for their
continuous support and conscientious supervision. Namely, I wish to express my
deep indebtedness to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Văn Long for his kindness of giving
me useful feedback, advice, and his constant encouragement to help me to
overcome obstacles. I am extremely thankful to Dr. Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm for her
enlightening comments and discussions with our several-hour meetings for this
thesis. Thus, my supervisors fire up my confidence, determination in accomplishing
my dissertation.
I would like to express my great gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phan Văn Hòa,
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Trần Hữu Phúc, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Thị Quỳnh Hoa, Assoc. Prof.
Dr. Lưu Quý Khương, Dr. Ngũ Thiện Hùng, Dr. Lê Thị Giao Chi, Dr. Võ Thị Kim Anh
for their precious comments and encouragement throughout my process of writing this
dissertation. I am also grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Thị Thu Hiền, Assoc. Prof.
Dr. Nguyễn Ngọc Vũ, and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ngơ Hữu Hồng for their critical reviews,
comments, advice in the version of manuscript at the faculty board of doctoral
dissertation examiners, leading to the revision for this version of current manuscript.

Besides, I deeply thank Dr. Lý Ngọc Toàn for his help, especially for agreeing to code
the subset of data as an intercoder to ensure the reliability of study.
I would like to thank the personnel departments, administrators in the Arm of
Special Forces in general, in Military University of Special Forces in particular for
their generosity in creating all favorable conditions including time, financial
supports, and permission for me to conduct the research. I also wish to express my
sincere gratitude to the leaders of the Faculty of Fundamental Science, and
colleagues who have encouraged me to finish this study.
Last but not least, I am very grateful to my family: my parents, my brothers
and sisters, my two children, and my husband. Especially, this dissertation could not
have been completed without the immense support of my husband, who kept on
encouraging me to never quit, even when things seemed hopeless.

3


ABSTRACT
In the light of the conceptual metaphor theory (CMT), initiated by Lakoff
and Johnson (1980), this study aims at investigating the conceptualization of
season in English and Vietnamese songs. Accordingly, the study is intended to
identify the metaphors of SEASON in both languages. It is the viewpoint of
metaphors in pre-cognitive and cognitive periods that serves to build the
theoretical framework for this study.
Methodologically, the data are collected from English and Vietnamese song
lyrics written from the 20th century to present. Comparative method was mainly
employed in combination with descriptive method. Especially, the thesis employed the
procedure of the identifying of conceptual metaphors proposed by Steen (2007) and
Pragglejaz Group (2007). Thus, the two methods of metaphor analysis, namely
Metaphor Pattern Analysis (MPA, Stefanowitsch 2006) and the version of the
Metaphor Identification Procedure developed at Vrije Universiteit (MIPVU, Steen et al.

2011) were used to characterize how conceptual metaphor of season is expressed.
This comparative analysis of the conceptual metaphors of season in English
and Vietnamese revealed that the two languages show a very similar
conceptualization of season-related expressions. In detail, the research findings
disclose 58 metaphors in total. Regarding SEASON as the target domain of a
metaphorical mapping, 40 metaphors are found in both English and Vietnamese.
The songs in two languages share 28 metaphors, and there are 12 metaphors which
are unique to one language but not the other. In terms of SEASON considered as the
source domain, 10 shared metaphors of SEASON are found in the both corpora.
Simultaneously, 6 metaphors are existent in Vietnamese, but not present in English.
In contrast, there are 2 cases found in English data only. It can be concluded that
there are both similarities and differences in metaphorizing the entity SEASON in
between English and Vietnamese. The factors related to the phenomenon are given
based on the physical and socio-cultural environment.
The dissertation, as briefly described above, is hoped to make significant
contribution to the teaching, learning and English-Vietnamese translating practice.

4


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CALD

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

CBA

Corpus-based Approach

CD

Cambridge Dictionary

CIC

Context-Induced Creativity

CL

Cognitive Linguistics

CMA

Critical Metaphors Analysis

CMT

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

CS

Cognitive Semantics

DM

Domain Matrix

FR

Frames

FSM

Five-Step Method

IS

Image Schema

LDE

Longman Dictionary English

MIP

Metaphor Identification Procedures

MS

Mental Space

MWD

Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary

VD

Vietnamese Dictionary

5

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. The traditional explanation of metaphor................................................19
Figure 2.2. Schematicity hierarchy for four conceptual structures...........................31
Figure 2.3. Schematicity as inclusion (Kövecses, 2020, p.52).................................31
Figure 2.4. Schematic model of a minimal conceptual integration network............36
Figure 2.5. Generalized Integration Network for the concept of Time as Space......37
Figure 2.6. The combined effect of factors on metaphor use (2010, p.299).............38
Figure 2.7. Framework for metaphor explanation...................................................39
Figure 3.1. The procedure of SEASON conceptual metaphor identification...........58
Figure 3.2. Analytical framework of conceptual metaphor of SEASON.................59
Figure 3.3. Analysis procedure of conceptual metaphor of season..........................60
Figure 4.1. The distribution of animate and inanimate entities mapped onto
SEASON in English and Vietnamese......................................................................64
Figure 4.2. The distribution of the source domains in terms of object in space for
SEASON in English and Vietnamese......................................................................65
Figure 4.3. SEASON as a temporal cycle..............................................................101
Figure 4.4. The distribution of source domains in terms of inanimate entities
mapping onto season in English and Vietnamese..................................................116
Figure 4.5. The distribution of animate entities as source domains mapping onto
Season in English and Vietnamese.........................................................................117
Figure 5.1. The distribution of natural state domains mapped through SEASON in
English and Vietnamese.........................................................................................132
Figure 5.2. The distribution of social domains mapped through SEASON in English
and Vietnamese......................................................................................................141

6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Examples of conceptual structures in schematicity hierarchy.................33
Table 2.2. Conceptual metaphor TIME IS MOVING OBJECT by Evans (2005)....42
Table 2.3. Frequently-occurring linguistic expressions which are associated with
TIME IS MONEY, TIME IS A RESOURCE and TIME IS A COMMODITY in the
BoE (Li, 2014, p.84)................................................................................................44
Table 2.4. Frequently-occurring linguistic expressions which are associated with
TIME IS MOTION in the BoE (Li, 2014, p.85)......................................................44
Table 2.5. Conceptual metaphors of time in English and Vietnamese.....................46
Table 3.1. The work can be done by Qualitative and Quantitative in the study.......52
Table 3.2. Metaphor identification procedure of the Pragglejaz Group (2007)........55
Table 3.3. The procedure of linguistic metaphor identification of season................56
Table 4.1. The lexemes of motion verbs used for conceptualization of SEASON as a
moving object in English and Vietnamese...............................................................66
Table 4.2. The lexemes of adverbs and adjectives used for conceptualization of
SEASON as a moving object in English and Vietnamese........................................68
Table 4.3. Domains of physical entities used for SEASON in English and Vietnamese....73
Table 4.4. The distribution of natural substance and phenomenon domains mapped
onto SEASON in English and Vietnamese..............................................................91
Table 4.5. The lexemes denoting coldness used to map onto SEASON in English
and Vietnamese........................................................................................................97
Table 4.6. The distribution of natural characteristic domains mapped onto SEASON
in English and Vietnamese.....................................................................................108
Table 4.7. The lexemes used for conceptualization of SEASON as A PERSON. . .119
Table 4.8. Conceptual Metaphors of SEASON in English and Vietnamese in terms
of SEASON as target domain................................................................................129
Table 5.1. Emotional domains mapped through SEASON in English and Vietnamese 153
Table 5.2. LOVE AS SEASON (Ho, 2018, p.120)................................................156
Table 5.3. Abstract domains mapped through SEASON in English and Vietnamese. .164

7


Table 5.4. Conceptual Metaphors of SEASON in English and Vietnamese in terms
of SEASON as source domain...............................................................................164
Table 6.1. Map of domains SEASON mapping onto and mapped through............169
Table 6.2. The distribution of some source domains mapping onto four seasons
(spring, summer, autumn, winter) in English and Vietnamese...............................170

TABLE OF CONTENT

8


THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG.........................................................................i
THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG.........................................................................i
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP..........................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................1
1.1.Rationale.............................................................................................................1
1.2.Aims and Objectives of the Study.......................................................................3
1.3.Research Questions.............................................................................................4
1.4.Scope of the Study...............................................................................................4
1.5.Significance of the Study....................................................................................5
1.6.Organization of the Study....................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE

REVIEW.................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.Theoretical Background......................................................................................7
2.1.1. Traditional Metaphor Theories...............................................................7
2.1.2. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics........................................................13
2.1.3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory................................................................16
2.1.4. Other Related Concepts.........................................................................30
2.2. Review of Related Studies................................................................................41
2.3.Summary...........................................................................................................48
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................49
3.1. Research Questions Revisited...........................................................................49
3.2. Research Design...............................................................................................49
3.2.1. Descriptive Method...............................................................................50
3.2.2. Comparative Method.............................................................................50
9


3.2.3. Research Techniques.............................................................................51
3.3. Data Collecting Procedure................................................................................53
3.3.1. Sources of Data.....................................................................................53
3.3.2. Conceptual Metaphor Identification......................................................53
3.4.Data Analysis....................................................................................................58
3.4.1. Analytical Framework...........................................................................58
3.4.2. Data Analysis Procedure.......................................................................59
3.5.Reliability and Validity......................................................................................61
3.6. Summary..........................................................................................................63
CHAPTER 4. THE ENTITY SEASON MAPPED THROUGH THE
CONCRETE DOMAINS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE SONG
LYRICS.................................................................................................................. 64
4.1. Inanimate Domain............................................................................................65
4.1.1. Entity in Space.....................................................................................65

4.1.2. Concrete entity......................................................................................72
4.1.3. Space.....................................................................................................80
4.1.4. Force.....................................................................................................86
4.1.5. Landscape.............................................................................................89
4.1.6. Natural Substance and Phenomenon.....................................................91
4.1.7. Social Entity........................................................................................102
4.1.8. Social Activity.....................................................................................106
4.1.9. Characteristic of Nature......................................................................108
4.2. Animate Domain.............................................................................................117
4.2.1. Living Entity.......................................................................................117
4.2.2. Person..................................................................................................118
4.2.3. Animal and Plant.................................................................................124
4.3. Concluding Remarks......................................................................................128
CHAPTER 5. THE ENTITY SEASON MAPPING ONTO THE ABSTRACT
DOMAINS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE SONG LYRICS...................132
5.1. Natural State Domain.....................................................................................132

10


5.1.1. Vitality................................................................................................132
5.1.2. Decline...............................................................................................135
5.1.3. Perpetuation.......................................................................................137
5.1.4. Life.....................................................................................................138
5.1.5. Beauty................................................................................................140
5.1.6. Youth..................................................................................................140
5.2.Social Domains...............................................................................................141
5.2.1. Reunion..............................................................................................142
5.2.2. Separation..........................................................................................143
5.2.3. Memory..............................................................................................146

5.2.4. Hope...................................................................................................147
5.2.5. Difficulty............................................................................................148
5.2.6. Victory, Freedom, Peace....................................................................149
5.3.Emotional Domain..........................................................................................152
5.3.1. Love....................................................................................................153
5.3.1. Happiness...........................................................................................157
5.3.2. Sadness..............................................................................................160
5.3.3. Loneliness..........................................................................................162
5.4. Concluding Remarks......................................................................................164
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION.........................................167
6.1. Recapitulation.................................................................................................167
6.2.1. Degree of Four- SEASON Exploitation..............................................170
6.2.2. Degree of Conceptual Metaphor Type Exploitation............................171
6.2.3. Bases for Metaphor Explanations........................................................172
6.3. Implications...................................................................................................176
6.4. Limitation and Suggestions for Further Studies..............................................177
REFERENCES....................................................................................................179
THESIS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS..............................................................196
APPENDIX .........................................................................................................197

11


CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
Cognitive linguistics (CL) is a modern school of linguistic thought and
practice that originally emerged in the early 1970s and has been increasingly active
since the 1980s out of dissatisfaction with formal approaches to language (Evans
and Green 2006; Croft and Cruse, 2004). However, in the exploration of the
relationship between in the relationship between language and thought, CL has been

followed and developed by a variety of linguists, i.e., Evans and Green (2006),
Fillmore (1988), Langacker (1990, 2008), Talmy (1983, 2000), Geeraerts (2006),
Fauconnier (1997, 2007, 2009), etc.
It is noticeable that Lakoff and John mark a revolution for CL by their
grounding-breaking Metaphor We Live By (1980) when they present metaphor from
the cognitive perspective. The idea that metaphor needs viewing as a conceptual
phenomenon and not just as a linguistic one has been argued at length by Lakoff
and his fellow researchers (notably Kövecses, 2002, 2010; Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980a, 1999; Lakoff & Turner, 1989). Consequently, their theory has
become a foundation for good research by other authors. In Vietnam, based on
Lakoff and Johnson’s theory, a number of scholars have formulated a variety of
reviews, overviews, research related to conceptual metaphor, for example, Khảo
luận ẩn dụ tri nhận (Treatise of cognitive metaphor) (Trần Văn Cơ, 2009), Suy nghĩ
về ẩn dụ khái niệm trong thế giới thi ca từ góc nhìn của ngơn ngữ học tri nhận
(Thinking of

conceptual metaphor in poetry in terms of cognitive linguistics)

(Nguyễn Lai, 2009), Ẩn dụ ý niệm (Conceptual metaphor) (Phan Thế Hưng, 2007),
Ẩn dụ dưới góc độ tri nhận (Metaphor from the perspective of cognition) (Phan Thế
Hưng, 2009); Ẩn dụ trong thơ (metaphor in poetry) (Nguyễn Thị Quyết, 2012) and
so on.
In addition to works related to conceptual metaphor as mentioned above, a
great number of studies have been conducted to examine conceptual metaphors of
both concrete and abstract concepts around human beings all over the world, as well

1


as in Vietnam. Particularly, significant attention has been paid to the abstract

concepts as target domains in investigating conceptual metaphors, which can be
easily understood because conceptual metaphor is a process of conceptualizing a
more abstract domain in terms of more concrete domains (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980a). Up to now, the abstract concepts which have been examined are various
such as life (Lakoff, 1980; Kövecses, 2010; Nguyễn Thị Quyết, 2012); emotion:
love (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980a; Kövecses, 1986, 1988, 2000; Schroder, 2009;
Tissari 2001, 2005, 2006, 2010; Zitu and Zhang, 2012; Nguyễn Hòa, 2010; Phan
Văn Hòa 2011; Ngũ Thiện Hùng and Trần Thị Thanh Thảo 2011; Hồ Trịnh Quỳnh
Thư, 2018 etc.), sadness (Kövecses, 2008, Csillag, 2017; Luo Luo, 2016; Nguyễn
Văn Trào, 2009, 2014; Nguyễn Thị Quyết, 2014); poverty (Dodge, 2016) and so
forth.
Similarly, time, an abstract concept, is also widely investigated by both
foreign and Vietnamese authors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Goatly, 1997; Evans,
2004; Kövecses, 2010; Shinohara & Pardeshi, 2011; Nguyễn Hòa, 2007; Nguyễn
Văn Trào, 2007; Võ Thị Mai Hoa, 2016; Phan Văn Hòa et al, 2018). Remarkably,
like the abstract domains mentioned earlier, time in these works is treated as a target
domain in a metaphorical mapping. In other words, there has been no research
conducted to investigate the concept time as a source domain which is exploited to
map onto other concepts.
Although being a concept denoting time, season has been limitedly
examined. As a matter of fact, few studies related to conceptual metaphor of season
can be found in English and other languages. Likewise, in Vietnam, only the thesis
carried out by Bạch (2015) to investigate SEASON metaphors. However, her
research examines only Spring from the perspective of structural metaphor. In short,
it can be concluded that there have not been any studies conducted to examine and
compare the conceptualization of SEASON in English and Vietnamese by
considering the concept of time as both target and source domain.
The reason inducing me to conduct the present research, whose corpora are
collected from song lyrics is the characteristic of the genre language. In fact, music

2


is significantly important and meaningful to human life. According to Rachiotis,
music is the greatest creation of man, which touches the soul and also helps man to
sympathetically manifest unspoken desire and humanity in him. Obviously, the
success of a song depends significantly partly on its lyric beside its melody like
such idiomatic expressions. As a matter of fact, Lakoff and Johnson (1980a) suggest
that the metaphoric language in poetry and speech is in fact a by-product of
metaphoric thought. In fact, the lyric of song is poetic; even a great number of song
lyrics originate from poems. It can be inferred that song lyrics contain copious
metaphoric expressions. As a song lover, though not a good singer, the researcher of
this study finds song lyrics a source of immense emotion and feelings. Therefore, the
author of this paper wishes to investigate metaphors of season from the song lyrics. In
fact, the genre of language is chosen as data for a great number of studies.
Particularly, many Vietnamese researchers investigate metaphors via lyrics of songs
(Nguyễn Thị Thanh Huyền 2009; Trần Nữ Thảo Quỳnh 2013; Lương Thị Tâm, 2014;
Ngơ Hữu Hồng, 2013; Nguyễn Thị Khánh Ly, 2015; Huỳnh Thị Mỹ Dung 2015).
In short, this topic is not adequately investigated in Vietnam although it is
interesting and meaningful. Hence, this study entitled “Season metaphor in English
and Vietnamese songs: a cognitive study” is carried out to fill the literature gap and
to provide useful implications to the practice of teaching, learning, and translating
English in Vietnam. Moreover, it helps to promote metaphor competence for users
of Vietnamese as a foreign language.
1.2. Aims and Objectives of the Study
The thesis aims at examining the metaphors of season in English and
Vietnamese songs in the light of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT).
Subsequently, a comparison is made to find out the similarities and differences
between the conceptual metaphors of season in English and Vietnamese song lyrics
when SEASON is treated as a target domain as well as a source domain.

Simultaneously, several explanations are given as causes for these similarities and
differences. In addition, to obtain these aims, this study is to pursue the following
objectives:

3


-

To describe how season is mapped through concrete entities in English
and Vietnamese song lyrics.

-

To describe how season maps onto abstract entities in English and
Vietnamese song lyrics.

-

To identify the similarities and differences between conceptual metaphors
of season in English and those in Vietnamese song lyrics.

-

To provide possible explanations to these similarities and differences
through physical embodiment from both physical environment and sociocultural environment.

1.3. Research Questions
In order to achieve the aim and objectives of the study, the following
overarching research question need to be answered:

What are the similarities and the differences between conceptual
metaphors of season expressed in English and Vietnamese song lyrics?
In details, conceptual metaphors of SEASON are examined with SEASON as
both the target and the source domains. Therefore, this overarching research
question is broken into two sub-questions as below:
1. What are the similarities and the differences between conceptual
metaphors of season expressed in English and Vietnamese song lyrics regarding
SEASON as a target domain?
2. What are the similarities and the differences between conceptual
metaphors of season expressed in English and Vietnamese song lyrics regarding
SEASON as a source domain?
1.4. Scope of the Study
The thesis is conducted to examine the metaphors of SEASON in English and
Vietnamese songs. The scope of the study is identified as regards the theory, the object
of study, and data. Firstly, in terms of theory, metaphors of season are investigated in
the light of CMT fathered by Lakoff and Johnson (1980a). In other words, metaphor,
an object of study, is hereby understood as conceptual metaphor. Secondly, SEASON is
originally considered as a physical concept, meaning that it is a concept of time from or

4


onto which other concepts are mapped or map. Thirdly, in terms of data, the corpora of
the dissertation are compiled from English and Vietnamese songs which are composed
only from the 20th century onward. Additionally, the data analysis is only focus on
lyrics of songs, not their melodies because the thesis studies metaphors of season
expressed through written language.
1.5. Significance of the Study
The present thesis is to examine how people in the English -speaking
countries involved in the Inner Circle (Kachru, 1985), and Vietnamese people

conceptualize the entity of season. Accordingly, the study has both theoretical and
practical significance. Theoretically, it contributes to the effectiveness of CMT,
which is continuously updated, by combining blending theory and the conceptual
structure with four levels in schematicity hierarchies via four terms, including
image schema, domain, frame and mental space (Kövecses, 2020) in the analysis
and understanding of conceptual metaphors. It is also hoped that the study will
contribute to the understanding of the nature of human language in general,
motivate our investigation of conceptual metaphors and their characteristics in
particular, and encourage further research in the cognitive linguistic field as well.
Methodologically, the thesis suggests a novel approach to metaphor for
investigating metaphors as a cross-linguistic comparison, namely between English
and Vietnamese. Practically, the study could provide useful implications to the
practice of teaching and learning languages. Specifically, the study contributes to
improving language competence of Vietnamese learners and users of English as
well as foreign learners of Vietnamese.
1.6. Organization of the Study
The dissertation consists of six chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 (Introduction) introduces the study including the rationale, aims
and objectives, research questions, scope, significance, methodology, and
organization of the study.
Chapter 2 (Literature review) extensively reviews the theoretical background
and previous studies related to conceptual metaphors in general, and conceptual

5


metaphors in particular. In detail, this chapter consists of four main parts: Metaphor
theories in pre- cognitive period, metaphor in cognitive linguistics, conceptual
metaphor theory, and the previous studies related to the entity of TIME and
SEASON.

Chapter 3 (Methodology) identifies the research methodology of the study. It
contains research questions; research design including descriptive method,
comparative method, research techniques; data collecting procedure via sources of
data, conceptual metaphor identification; data analysis with the analytical
framework and data analysis procedure, and reliability and validity of the study.
Chapter 4, the entity SEASON mapped through the concrete domains in
English and Vietnamese song lyrics, describes and compares the metaphors of
season regard with SEASON as a target domain which is projected via concrete
entities.
Chapter 5, the entity SEASON mapping onto the abstract domains in English
and Vietnamese song lyrics, describes and compares the metaphors of season regard
with SEASON as a source domain mapping onto abstract entities.
Chapter 6 (Conclusions and discussion) summarizes the significant findings,
gives discussion, and proposes implications of the study. In addition, limitations of
the study as well as suggestions for further research are put forward afterwards.

6


CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
REVIEW
The aims of the literature review chapter are to describe relevant theories,
and to review previous related studies. Accordingly, this chapter is divided into two
main sections. Section 1 - Theoretical background presents the theory of metaphor
in the pre-cognitive period, and in cognitive linguistics. Moreover, this part also
gives some related concepts, such as conceptualization, conceptual blending, image
schema, domain, frame, metal space, etc. Section 2 - Review of related studies
provides an overview of previous research related to this study. Specifically, the
theme of conceptual metaphors in these researches is related to the concept of
TIME, containing SEASON-the domain investigated in the thesis.

2.1. Theoretical Background
2.1.1. Traditional Metaphor Theories
It is known that metaphor has been discussed in different views by a great
number of linguists. One of the pioneers is Aristotle, whose views have had
significant influences on theories of metaphor later on. Numerous scholars claim
Aristotle’s pivotal role in metaphor research with works titled Poetics, Rhetoric. For
example, Ortony asserts "any serious study of metaphor is almost obliged to start
with the works of Aristotle" (1993, p.3). Similarly, Gordon argues that the study of
metaphor can be considered as a footnote to Aristotle (1990, p.83). Aristotle defines
metaphor as “the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to
species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is,
proportion” (as cited in Bucher, 1950, p.28). Metaphor can be referred to as
transference of a linguistic item, and is exceptional because it is a deviation from
the normal way of speaking; that is, from the literal way which involves no
transference. As a result, Aristotle's views have influenced most of the traditional
approaches to metaphor (as cited in Al-Harrasi, 2001, p.36).
Next, two influential theories of metaphor developed after Aristotle’s are
substitution theory and the comparison (similarity) theory, which both belong to one

7


of two approaches to metaphor within the traditional paradigms (objectivist
Paradigms). The first linguistic approach views metaphor as an exclusively
linguistic issue. In terms of substitution theory, a metaphor is a linguistic expression
that involves an internal contradiction. Take the expression war is a contagion (as
cited in Al-Harrasi, 2001, p.38) as an example. It is clear that war belongs to the
domain of politics, while contagion belongs to the field of diseases in real life.
Thus, there is a logical contradiction: a political phenomenon cannot be a bodily
disease that can be transmitted. It can be interpreted via simile (as in a war is like a

contagion) or in a paraphrase (as in wars can spread and dangerously affect people).
Leech (1969), a typical linguist for this approach to metaphor, gives concepts:
Tenor, and Vehicle (later mentioned by Richard) for the basement of grounding.
Solving the riddle of semantic contradiction requires a procedure of
‘literalizing’ the metaphor. In the case of the example above, in terms of Leech’s
three-stage procedure (1969, p.153), the metaphor war is a contagion can be
analyzed. The first stage involves separating the literal from the figurative use like
in (Al-Harrasi, 2001, p.38):
Literal

war

Figurative

is a contagion

The second stage requires constructing tenor and vehicle by postulating
semantic elements to fill in the gaps of the literal and figurative uses. According to
Leech, the blanks are replaced by a "rough indication of what elements of meaning
might reasonably fill the gaps" (1969, p.154) revealing literal sense:
Tenor

a war

[is uncontrollable and is dangerous]

Vehicle

a disease

[is transmitted and affects human bodies]

The third stage involves stating the metaphor's ground of the comparison
between the tenor and vehicle isolated in stage 2. Consequently, in war is a
contagion, the basis for comparison is that wars spread and have disastrous effects on
communities, just like the transmission of diseases and their harmful effects on
bodies. In short, Leech proposes the procedure of identifying a metaphor showing an
extreme version of the substitution approach to metaphor, where metaphor is to be

8


returned to an acceptable literal version after “reasonably filling the gaps” (1969,
p.154).
In addition to substitution theory, comparison theory viewing metaphor as a
decoration that covers literal reality was developed from the substitution view.
Black (1962) regards the comparison theory as an offspring of the substitution
theory. Similarly, according to Soskice, it is considered as a "slightly more
sophisticated version of the substitution theory" (1985, p.26). In the comparison
theory, metaphor is an elliptical or abbreviated simile. For example, metaphor
political opponents are poisonous plants (Miller, 1993) can be understood that
opponents are like poisonous plants in terms of that they are harmful to people
dealing with them. This metaphor can be interpreted like that because speakers can
see the shared properties, and relations between the two domains, namely people
and dangerous plants. Viewing comparison as the basement of metaphor, Miller
denotes “If an author says that x is y when we know in fact that x is not y, we must
try to imagine a world in which x is y. This act of imagination is facilitated if in the
real world, x is likely y in some respects, for then we can take their similarities as
the author’s grounds for saying that x is y” (ibid, p.367). Similarly, according to
Littlemore and Low, metaphor comprehension and similar comprehension are

similar (2006, p.42). In addition, Hoffman et al. regard metaphor as “saying one
thing while meaning another”, and “making implicit comparisons of different
things” (1990, p.176).
In Vietnam, a number of scholars share this point when they give the
definitions of metaphor in the theory of comparison and similarity (Nguyễn Văn Tu,
1960; Đỗ Hữu Châu, 1962; Đào Thản, 1988; Đinh Trọng Lạc, 1996; Nguyễn Thiện
Giáp, 1998; Nguyễn Hòa, 2004 and etc.). In details, Đỗ Hữu Châu states that “Ẩn
dụ là cách gọi tên một sự vật này bằng tên một sự vật khác, giữa chúng có mối quan
hệ tương đồng” (Metaphor is a way of naming an object in terms of the name of
another based on the similar relationship between them) (1966, p.54). In the same
vein, Đinh Trọng Lạc (1996, p.52) shares that “Ẩn dụ là sự định danh thứ hai mang
ý nghĩa hình tượng dựa trên sự tương đồng hay giống nhau (có tính chất hiện thực

9


hay tưởng tượng ra) giữa khách thể A được định danh với khách thể B có tên gọi
được chuyển sang dùng cho A. (metaphor is the second name based on the
similarity or likeness (in terms of fact or imagination) between A (the one named)
and B (the one naming)). Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (1998, p.162) also defines metaphor
as “sự chuyển đổi tên gọi dựa vào sự giống nhau giữa các sự vật hoặc hiện tượng
được so sánh với nhau” (the transference of names based on similarity between
them). Similarly, Nguyễn Hòa (2004, p.109) defines that “metaphor is hidden
comparison, i.e., if two objects or phenomena are compared and common features
are found we speak of metaphor.” In short, from comparison theory, metaphor is
treated as an assertion or judgment of similarity, as well as difference, between two
thoughts. Yet, similes only point out certain limited correspondences, while a
metaphor claims identity between two subjects (Frye, 1992). Thus, the comparison
theory reveals its weakness in uncovering the literal comparison as the basement of
metaphorical expressions.

Besides, metaphor that is viewed from pragmatic theory is the deviant use
of language in a certain context. According to Glucsberg and Keysar (1993), the
meanings between speaker and hearer are interpreted through two steps as the
authors state:
Deriving literal meaning is always the first step in determining intended speaker meanings,
including metaphorical meanings. The second step is to access whether sentence meaning
is plausible in context. (1993, p.403).

In other words, the hearer realizes the meaning as what the speaker intends to
convey in a conversation. If the meaning is not plausible, the message intended is
different from the sentence meaning. In this case, the hearer needs to decide which
is the best choice of meaning that is used. Supporting this theory, Grice (1975)
shares that people follow cooperative principles, and metaphor is the violation of
the maxims in conversation, especially those of quality one. However, there is also
the opposite viewpoint, for example, Glucksber and Keysar (1993) that several
sentences which are not literally defective are not metaphors at all. In spite of the
criticism, metaphors can be understood significantly deeply in a great number of
circumstances of language use under a pragmatic view.
10


Apart from these views above, metaphor is considered under another
theoretical framework known as the interaction theory, which is initiated by
Richards (1963), and then developed by Black (1993) who looks for more
convincing explanations for metaphor’s nature. The latter scholars are Reinhart
(1976), Kittay (1987) etc., who have made important contribution to metaphor
theory in terms of interaction one.
As mentioned above, the former theories reveal their limit when they regard
metaphor as a rhetoric; even Aristotle's view that metaphor shows similarities
between things is severely questioned. The romantic understanding of metaphor

holds that metaphor is not meant to be a decorative device behind which lies a
hidden literal meaning or implicit simile. Interaction theory appears and explains
the nature of metaphor more persuasively. In details, in the Book Philosophy of
Rhetoric published in 1936, Richard says that “in the simplest formulation, when
we use a metaphor we have two thoughts of different things active together and
supported by a single word, or phrase, whose meaning is a resultant of their
interaction.” (p.93). Clearly, when discussing metaphor, he focuses on human
thought of two things rather than the pure comparison between them. Moreover, he
adds that “the traditional theory noticed only a few of the modes of metaphor; and
limited its application of the term metaphor to a few of them only. And thereby it
made metaphor seem to be a verbal matter, a shifting and displacement of words,
whereas fundamentally it is a borrowing between and intercourse of thoughts, a
transaction between contexts. Thought is metaphoric, and proceeds by comparison,
and metaphors of language derive therefrom” (ibid, p.94) to clarify the differences
between his approach and the traditional stances.
It can be inferred that Richards (1963) presents an understanding of the
nature of metaphor running counter to the philosophical assumptions of the
objectivist paradigm and on which the views on metaphor are built. He presents an
approach giving a primary position to thought and cognition in acquiring
experience, a framework that attempts to integrate language and thought. He puts
human thought at the center of human life. Human cognition is no longer a

11


reflection of the external reality but a place where ideas and thoughts exist and
interact among each other, whereas the objectivist account recognizes only external
realities and sees language as a system of symbols and referents. Richards is the
pathfinder when he affirms that metaphor cannot be separated from human
cognitive experience and that metaphor is fundamentally a cognitive process.

As a consequence, unlike the previous traditional approaches, Richards
(1965) regards metaphor as a matter of "thoughts of different things." He also
suggests that cognition is a dynamic phenomenon which functions by processes of
interaction between concepts and thoughts. Furthermore, he states that meaning is
not a means to represent external realities, but is, rather, an interactive phenomenon.
Reality is thus not an external matter but is, to a large extent, influenced by human
understanding. Especially, he concludes that metaphor can create the similarity
rather than reflect an already existing similarity.
Characterizing the interactive nature of metaphors (Richard, 1963,1965), the
interaction theory is refined in a more developed theoretical framework by Black. In
detail, he distinguishes metaphors with three types: substitution metaphors
(mentioned above), comparison metaphors (mentioned above), and interaction
metaphors (Black, 1962; 1993). Black describes the substitution and the comparison
metaphors as trivial. Besides, he adds that the interaction metaphors are
fundamentally different. Specifically, this type of metaphor is characterized by a
pragmatic aspect, namely, its impact on its reader. It means that the reader reacts to
the new meaning resulting from the interaction of the two thoughts comprising the
metaphor as he shares “a good metaphor sometimes impresses, strikes, or seizes its
producer: we want to say we had a "flash of insight," not merely that we were
comparing A with B, or even that we were thinking of A as if it were B” (1993, p.
31). Thus, to comprehend the metaphor, both the producer and the receiver of the
metaphorical expression are expected to share the system (called the system of
associated commonplaces) that is the knowledge about the secondary subject (i.e.,
being exploited and oppressed) on the primary subject.

12


Beside the authors mentioned above, Kittay (1987), who followed and
widened the interaction theory, also emphasizes that metaphor has a creative role

with the statement "the linguistic means by which we bring together and fuse into
unity diverse thoughts and thereby re-form our perceptions of the world" (p.6). In
addition, he also argues that the major tenets of the interaction theory of metaphor
are that metaphors are sentences, not isolated words; that metaphor consists of two
components which are in constant tension; that the meaning of a metaphor arises
from an interplay of these components and that the meaning of a metaphor is
irreducible and cognitive (ibid, pp.22-23).
In short, metaphor has been a well-discussed object of study for a long time
in different views worldwide. Traditionally, the studying of metaphor has been
regarded as a figure of speech. Metaphor has been approached in various ways such
as Aristotle's methodologies study metaphors as transference names; traditional
linguistic methods approach metaphor is a linguistic deviance leading to incorrect
or illogical sentences; in terms of pragmatic approach, metaphor is considered as an
unusual speech act, from which a set of special principles are called for; and from
perspective of interactive approach, metaphor is understood as the interaction
between the two subjects. Hence, the method of interaction opens the recognition
for the value of metaphor in cognition. It creates the groundwork for the appearance
of cognitive theory, especially, with the classical well-known work Metaphors we
live by (1980) by Lakoff & Johnson that this study is mainly based on.
2.1.2. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics
The views presented from the perspective of interaction theory by typical
scholars like Richards and Black pave the way for the conceptual theory of
metaphor. The interaction theory moves metaphor from the realm of language into
cognition and give an important role to the human cognitive apparatus in explaining
the phenomenon of metaphor. In classical theories of language, metaphor is seen as
matter of language, not thought, and everyday language has no metaphor; metaphor
uses mechanism outside the realm of everyday conventional language (cited in
Geerearts, 2006). On the contrary, Lakoff and Johnson (1980a, p. 3) assert:

13