Tải bản đầy đủ (.docx) (224 trang)

Ẩn dụ về mùa trong ca từ bài hát tiếng anh và tiếng việt nghiên cứu theo đướng hướng tri nhận

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (1.44 MB, 224 trang )

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

i


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

4


or 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
Figurative
The second
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


Metaphor is much more than just a poetic device—it is essential and pervasive in our
everyday language, communication, thoughts, and actions. Metaphor is seen as a
conceptual process for people using it to understand and categorize the world around them.
It exists everywhere and plays an important role in our daily life.


Moreover, in CL, metaphor is considered as a matter of thought when
cognitive linguists argue that metaphor is a matter of thinking: human beings use
metaphors to conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another. In fact, in
precognitive context, Black recognizes that metaphors act as “cognitive
instruments” (1962, p.37). In other words, metaphors are not just a stylistically
attractive way of expressing ideas by means of language, but a way of thinking
about things (as cited in Ungerer and Schmid, 2006, p.118). Similarly, Tendahl
claims “metaphor is not primarily a phenomenon of language, but rather a
phenomenon of thought” (2009, p.4). Kövecses (2010) also argues “the wordings do
not literally materialize in language and only indicate the underlying concept”
(p.21). In the same vein, Lakoff and Johnson (2003) assert that:
We do not just exploit the metaphor TIME IS MONEY linguistically, but we actually think,
or conceptualize, what they call target concept TIME vie the source concept MONEY. In other
words, when we use the following English phrases we establish links between two concepts that we
do not seem to belong together by their very nature. (p.7)

You’re wasting my time.
Can you give me a few minutes?
How do you spend your time?
We are running out of time.
Is that worth your while? (as cited in Ungerer & Schmid, 2006, p.118)

Lakoff and Johnson, whose most influential book Metaphors We Live By
(1980) emerged from the CL tradition, initiated the concept “conceptual metaphor”.
Then he and his colleagues continue discussing it (Lakoff and Turner 1989; Lakoff
1987, 1993). They used evidence from everyday conventional linguistic expressions
to infer the existence of metaphorical relations or mappings between conceptual
domains in the human mind. More specifically, in CL, metaphors are understood as
conventional correspondences across conceptual domains in which generally more
abstract concepts are understood through generally more concretely structured

14


concepts. Sharing the same viewpoint, Kövecses, following Lakoff and Johnson,
states that “metaphor is defined as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of
another conceptual domain” (2010, p.4). Thus, it can be inferred that metaphor is
both central to the enterprise of linguistics and absolutely fundamental to all
thinking that goes beyond expressing thoughts about our direct experiences of
physical space and sensation, etc. As Lakoff’s statement with fairly direct and
strong terms: “Metaphor is the main mechanism through which we comprehend
abstract concepts and perform abstract reasoning” (1993, p.244).
In addition, Lakoff and Johnson (2003, p.248) show the distinction between
linguistic metaphor and conceptual metaphor when they view that conceptual
metaphor as “a natural part of human thought”, meanwhile, linguistic metaphor as
“a natural part of human language.” In other words, conceptual metaphors are
general mental mappings from a (typically concrete) source domain to a (typically
abstract) target domain, while metaphorical expressions are individual linguistic
items instantiating these mappings. The basis for the distinction between the notions
of metaphor and metaphorical expression is summarized as follows:
‘metaphor’ . . . has come to mean ‘a cross-domain mapping in the conceptual system’. The
term ‘metaphorical expression’ refers to a linguistic expression (a word, phrase or sentence) that is
the surface realization of such a cross-domain mapping. (Lakoff 1993, p.203)

Similarly, Kövecses emphasizes metaphor can be conceptual and linguistic.
Specifically, conceptual metaphors involve two concepts and have the form A is B,
where concept A is understood in terms of concept B. Whereas, linguistic
metaphors, or metaphorical expressions, are linguistic manifestations of conceptual
metaphor (2010, p.45). Sharing the same viewpoint for these differences, Littlemore
and Low argue:
It is difficult to identify the exact nature of the relationship between linguistic and

conceptual metaphor. When faced with a linguistic metaphor in oral or written discourse,
we may look for an underlying conceptual metaphor as a means of understanding it and/or
working out connections with other parts of the discourse. (2006, p.14)

As mentioned above, the concept of metaphor in CL is understood
conceptual metaphor. And it is probably the best-known aspect of CL as Geeraerts
(2006, p.11) claims:
15


If you’ve heard only vaguely about Cognitive Linguistics, conceptual metaphor is likely to
be the notion that you’ve come across. You will have learnt by now that there is much more
to Cognitive Linguistics, but still, Conceptual Metaphor Theory occupies a major place in
the cognitive linguistic research program.

For brevity, Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), which is first proposed by
Lakoff and Johnson (1980a) and further described in Lakoff (1993), Lakoff and
Johnson (2003) and Kövecses (2010); and in terms of which metaphor in essence is
proposed to be “understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of
another” (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p.5), will be discussed in detail in the
following section as the theoretical framework for this study. In other words,
metaphor (related to season) examined in this paper is henceforth conceptual
metaphor based mainly on CMT initiated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980a, 1980b).
2.1.3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), proposing that metaphor is not a type
of stylistic use of language but primarily a systematic cognitive model of concepts,
has given rise to a major revolution in the study of metaphor. Consequently, CMT
has been widely applied to metaphor analysis by a great number of cognitive
linguists (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980a; Lakoff, 1993; Kövecses, 2010; Gibbs, 2011).
CMT not only highlights the pervasive nature of metaphor in everyday life but also

suggests that metaphor influences how people think, speak and act (Lakoff &
Johnson, 2003; Deignan, 2005; Littlemore 2009; Kövecses, 2010). More important
for linguists is that CMT can be considered to be a conceptual explanation for the
metaphorical part of language use.
2.1.3.1. Definition of Conceptual Metaphor
As a matter of fact, an early definition of the concept of metaphor is given by
Richards (1963, p.93) defining a metaphor as two interacting thoughts. He calls the first
thought the tenor and the second thought the vehicle. Hereby, the tenor represents the
original meaning of the word or phrase while the vehicle represents the intended
meaning. However, the meaning is not explicated, but rather constructed in the course
of the metaphor interpretation as Reinhart (1976, p.385) ever criticizes that the meaning
of tenor and vehicle as well as their relationship is not clearly and precisely defined.

16


In the light of CL, metaphor is primarily an issue of conceptualization.
According to Orwell (1946), metaphor is defined as “mappings across conceptual
domains” in which “the image-schemata structure of the source domain is projected
onto the target domain in a way that is consistent with inherent target domain
structure”. In this view, the image-schemata structure of domains is focused via
conceptual mapping. Similarly, Simpson (1981) defines metaphor as follows:
A metaphor is a process of mapping between two different conceptual domains. The different
domains are known as the target domain and the source domain. The target domain is the topic
or concept that you want to describe through the metaphor while the source domain refers to the
concept that you draw upon in order to create the metaphorical construction. (p.41)

In the light of CMT, as mentioned above, metaphor in essence is
“understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (Lakoff &
Johnson 2003, p.5). The ‘thing’ that is to be understood is often an abstract concept

which is referred to in CMT as the target domain; the other concrete ‘thing’ which is
used to understand the abstract concept is referred to as the source domain; and
according to Kövecses (2010) this phenomenon of conceptualizing one domain in
terms of another is called conceptual metaphor. For example, the conceptual
metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR. The usual format of conceptual metaphor is ‘A IS
B’, in which A is the target domain and B is the source domain. Both the conceptual
metaphor and domains are written in capitals.
ARGUM ENT IS WAR
Your claims are indefensible.
He attacked every weak point in my argument.
His criticisms were right on target.
I demolished his argument.
I’ve never won an argument with him. (Lakoff and Johnson 2003, p.4)

As argued by Lakoff and Johnson (1980a; 2003), the existence of this
conceptual metaphor is demonstrated by the uses of a large number of relevant
linguistic examples (as shown above). Those italicized lexical items such as
indefensible, attack and won associated with the WAR domain are systematically
employed in connection with the ARGUMENT domain (2003, p.7). These linguistic
expressions thus lexically realize the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR
17


and they are referred to as linguistic metaphors. The set of “systematic
correspondences” across the two domains, namely, the way elements in the WAR
domain corresponding to elements in the ARGUMENT domain (the physical attack
in a war corresponds to the verbal attack in an argument, and win a war
corresponds to win an argument) is called metaphorical mapping or conceptual
mapping (ibid, p.246).
Another typical example is the metaphor TIME IS A MOVING OBJECT

(Lakoff, 1994, pp.56–58), which illustrates that conceptual metaphor is defined “as
understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain”
(Kövecses, 2002, p.21). Simultaneously, it gives explanation for that the
metaphorical process generally goes “from the more concrete to the more abstract
but not the other way around” (ibid, p.6). Here, the concept of time is
conceptualized by concepts of space. Specifically, particular times are considered as
objects and passing of time is considered as the motion of these objects. This
consideration becomes apparent in expressions like the time has come, the time has
arrived, or the coming week. In fact, week is not coming and time does not arrive at
least not in a physical sense. But there are correspondences between the concepts of
space and time that enable an understanding of the concepts of the one domain by
the concepts of the other domain. Here, the person experiencing time corresponds to
the observer with a fixed location and time corresponds to the object that moves
towards the observer. This similarity between a moving object and time is important
here and allows a conceptualization of time by the concept of space (cited in Jahns,
2012, p.234).
However, CMT shows its limitations in interpreting and reasoning metaphors
under a variety of aspects within cognitive science indeed. As a result, there have
been other approaches defining the concept of metaphor to the current
understanding of the metaphor. Specifically, means of the concepts of frame and
focus (Reinhart, 1976, p.388), have been proposed, or the course of this
development the understanding of metaphor has evolved over time (Fludernik,
Freeman, & Freeman, 1999, pp.384-387), and so forth. Despite its shortcomings,

18


the CMT is still regarded as an effective approach to structuring and comprehending
metaphors now.
In short, the term metaphor used in this study refers to conceptual metaphor,

which one conceptual domain is understood in terms of another conceptual domain.
Conceptual metaphors can be given by means of the formula A is B or A as B.
Specifically, A denotes the target domain and B the source domain as in the
metaphor time passing as a moving object mentioned above, where the concept of
moving object is mapped to the concept of time passing. (Lakoff & John, 1980a;
Lakoff, 1993, 2003; Kövecses, 2010).
Source domain
Source domain is demonstrated by a great number of linguists in their works
(e.g., Kövecses 1991, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010; Kövecses & Szabo 1996; Lakoff
1993; Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 2003; Lascaratou 2007; Lee 2001; McGlone 2007,
etc.,). In fact, in CL, it is used with term VEHICLE (Richards, 1936), e.g., in Figure
below:

Figure 2.1. The traditional explanation of metaphor
(as cited in Ungerer & Schmid 2006, p.116)
The conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions to
understand another conceptual domain is called source domain (Kövecses, 2010).
Accordingly, source domains are typically more concrete or physical and more
clearly delineated or more highly structured concepts than the targets, which tends
to be relatively abstract and less-delineated ones (Lakoff and Johnson 1980a, 2003;
Kövecses 2010). According to Kövecses (2010), the source domain is more familiar
to the speakers than the target domain. Particularly, the source domain is the source
concept which is accessible via direct experience, since, and really embodied. For
example, metaphor TIME IS MONEY, in which MONEY is the source domain, the
19


concept and structure from MONEY domain is used to structure the TIME domain.
Basing on Collins Cobuild metaphor dictionary, Kövecses provides the most
common source domains, such as the human body, health and illness, animal, plans,

buildings and construction, machines and tools, games and sport, money and
economic transactions, cooking and food, heat and cold, light and darkness, forces,
and movement and direction.
Target domain
Similar to source domains (mentioned above), target domain is focused
widely in CS in general, as well as in the realm of conceptual metaphor in
particular. In terms of the traditional explanation of metaphor, it is regarded as
TENOR (or explained elements). And it can be seen in Figure 2 again. (cited in
Ungerer and Schmid 2006, pp.116-118).
Kövecses (2010) and Lakoff (1993) define that a relatively abstract, less
well-delineated, less familiar, or inherently unstructured concept is called target
domain. Thus, a target domain is a semantic domain which is structured and
understood metaphorically in terms of another domain (i.e., source domain). It
means that a target domain is the conceptual domain showing the output of the
mapping that people try to understand. In other words, target domains are abstract,
diffuse, and lack clear delineation; accordingly, they cry out for metaphorical
conceptualization (Kövecses 2002, p.20). Let see the metaphor TIME IS A
MOVING OBJECT. In fact, time is a notoriously difficult concept to understand.
The major metaphor for the comprehension of time is one according to which time
is an object that moves. Many common everyday expressions demonstrate this:
The time will come when . . .
Christmas is coming up soon.
Time flies.
in the following week
Time goes by fast. (ibid, p.26)

As consequence, target domain TIME is understood in terms of source
domain MOVING OBJECT based on a set of conceptual correspondences between
their elements.


20


Similar to source domain, target domain also has a number of sources.
Kövecses gives the most common and important target domains which are found in
the works he investigates (e.g., Collins Cobuild metaphor dictionary, the metaphor
section of Rodale’s Phrase Finder, the Metaphors Dictionary, the Dictionary of
Everyday English Metaphors, and Roget’s Thesaurus). They are emotion, desire,
morality, thought, society/ nation, politics, economy, human relationships,
communication, time, life and death, religion, and events and actions, most of which
are abstract concepts.
2.1.3.2. Components of Conceptual Metaphor
When discussing mentioning metaphor in culture, Kövecses (2005) notes that
‘metaphor is seen as being constituted by a variety of parts, aspects, or components
that interact with each other.’ (p.5). He also outlines 11 components of conceptual
metaphor, namely, (1) source domain, (2) target domain, (3) experiential basis, (4)
neural structures corresponding to (1) and (2) in the brain, (5) relationships between
the source and the target, (6) metaphorical linguistic expressions, (7) mappings, (8)
entailments, (9) blends, (10) nonlinguistic realizations, and (11) cultural models.
(ibid, p.5).
He gives brief explanation for each of these as follows:
1–2. Metaphor consists of a source and a target domain such that the source is a more physical and
the target a more abstract kind of domain.
3. The choice of a particular source to go with a particular target is motivated by an experiential
basis, that is, some embodied experience.
4. Embodied experience results in certain neural connections between areas of the brain (these
areas correspond to source and target).
5. The relationship of the source and the target is such that a source domain may apply to several
targets and a target may attach to several sources.
6. The particular pairings of source and target domains give rise to metaphorical linguistic

expressions; linguistic expressions thus are derived from the connecting of two conceptual
domains.
7. There are basic, and essential, conceptual correspondences, or mappings, between the source and
target domains.
8. Source domains often map ideas onto the target beyond the basic correspondences. These
additional mappings are called entailments, or inferences.

21


9. The joining of a source domain with a target domain often results in blends, that is, conceptual
materials that are new with respect to both the source and the target.
10. Conceptual metaphors often materialize, or are realized, in nonlinguistic ways, that is, not only
in language and thought but also in social–physical practice and reality.
11. Conceptual metaphors converge on, and often produce, cultural models that operate in thought.
These are structures that are simultaneously cultural and cognitive (hence, the term cultural
model, or cognitive model), in that they are culturally specific mental representations of aspects
of the world. (2005, pp.5-7)

Kövecses shows a sufficient number of the components formulating
metaphor in terms of cognitive linguistic view. However, some of them are
elaborated in the subsequent sections.
2.1.3.3. Cognitive Mechanism of Conceptual Metaphor
In the light of CMT, metaphor is the main mechanism through which one can
comprehend abstract concepts and perform abstract reasoning. Accordingly, the
metaphor system is central to one’s understanding of experience and to the way he
or she acts on that understanding (Lakoff, 1992). In other words, metaphor is a
conceptual mechanism, a ‘figure of thought’, by which specific and operational
knowledge about more concrete phenomena and experiences is projected onto a
wide range of more abstract ones, e.g., time is typically conceptualized as space

(Evans, 2004), love, or more generally emotions, as natural forces (e.g., Kövecses,
2000), thoughts as objects that can be manipulated (e.g., Lakoff and Johnson, 1999),
and so on. This projection from concrete to abstract knowledge structures works via
analogy, similarity, and comparison between elements of distinct conceptual
domains, and naturally contributes to the formation of many abstract categories.
Steen (2011, p.29) remarks that metaphor is one of the very few basic
mechanisms for abstract categorization, which in turn is fundamental for human
cognition communication, and language. For example, the conceptual metaphor
LOVE IS A JOURNEY with the following well-known linguistic expressions as
follows:
Look how far we’ve come.
It’s been a long, bumpy road.
We can’t turn back now.

22


×