Linguistics
Mahsa Sadeghi
Abstract
Metaphors have a very essential role and importance in the system of the human mind and cognition. From the very beginning of the outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (Covid-19) to the present day, metaphors have played a significant role in the conceptualization of this illness and related issues. The ...
Read More
Metaphors have a very essential role and importance in the system of the human mind and cognition. From the very beginning of the outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (Covid-19) to the present day, metaphors have played a significant role in the conceptualization of this illness and related issues. The aim of the present research is to investigate the metaphorical conceptualizations of Corona in the news headlines of domestic Persian-language media. The research data include 220 metaphorical expressions in the headlines extracted from the websites of four news agencies including Fars, ISNA, Tasnim, and Mehr. The Data were analyzed within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff, 1987, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999) and the theory of image schemas (Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1987). The results show that the metaphors used to conceptualize the Corona can be divided into two main categories: Metaphors based on image schemas and metaphors separate from image schemas. In the formation of first metaphors, force schema plays a major role and can manifest as the schemas of war, natural forces, and football. In the formation of the second category of metaphors, the source domains of humans and animals as well as domains such as fire, shadow, and vehicle play a major role.
ُShayesteh Sadat Mousavi
Abstract
Among new achievements of cognitive linguistics some have resulted from returning to the concepts of literary traditions, from which one can mention the participation of metaphor, metonymy, and allegory in the process of cognition, and metaphor and metonymy have always had a place of significance. In ...
Read More
Among new achievements of cognitive linguistics some have resulted from returning to the concepts of literary traditions, from which one can mention the participation of metaphor, metonymy, and allegory in the process of cognition, and metaphor and metonymy have always had a place of significance. In the history of Western rhetorics the relation between these two was not at issue as they are disconnected in nature. In subsequent eras, they were even regarded as having a confrontational relation. Unlike Western rhetoricians, Muslim rhetoricians have always maintained a close relation between metonymy and metaphor. They considered metaphor as a type of metonymy. In this paper, we are going to show that the metonymic basis of metaphors, as the Muslim rhetoricians believe, is a provable matter of fact. For this purpose and as the first step, we deal with the evolution of approaches towards metonymy and metaphor in Western and Islamic rhetoric history. Then, we will discuss how the confrontation of these two concepts fades as cognitive studies come to work. Still, the cognitivists mostly do not believe that all types of metaphor rise from metonymy, while the Muslim rhetoricians firmly believe that all types of metaphor have a metonymic basis. We are going to show that not only some but all kinds of metaphors have a metonymic basis and all types of conceptual metaphors are constructed upon conceptual metonymy. The theory of Categorization which is one of the most significant ones in cognitive studies has been part of our argumentation framework.
Introduction
Among new achievements of cognitive linguistics, some have resulted from returning to the concepts of literary traditions and the roles that they play in the constituting of the process of thinking. From these achievements one can mention the participation of mechanisms like metaphor, metonymy, and allegory in the process of cognition, among those metaphor and metonymy have always had the place of power and significance. During the history of Western rhetoric, these two concepts have been for a long time regarded as two independent ornamental figures of speech and the correlation between them was not at issue. In subsequent eras, these two were even regarded as having a confrontational relation. Unlike Western rhetoricians,
Muslim rhetoricians have always maintained a close relation between metonymy and metaphor. They considered all types of metaphors derived from metonymy. Interestingly, in very recent linguistic research of metaphor, particularly Cognitive studies, the correlation between metaphor and metonymy was drawn forward. Still, not all but only parts of metaphors were acknowledged to be related to metonymies.
In this research, I am going to show if the metonymic basis of metaphors, as the Muslim rhetoricians believe, is a provable matter of fact.
Literature Review
Metaphor and its cognitive weight is discussed by a significant number of Western rhetoricians. In this regard, the metaphor-oriented ideas of Western rhetoricians from Aristotle (1987) to Vico (1968), Burke (1969), Lacan (1977), Foucault (1970), Vico (1968), White (1978), Jacobson (2002) and etc, are discussed. Then, the comments of cognitive rhetoricians like Lakeoff (1987), Lakeoff and Johnson (1980), and Kövecses (2013) show that the confrontation of metaphor and metonymy tends to fade in some part. Kövecses (2013) has the closest literature to this paper, since he precisely shows why some parts of metaphors are derived from metonymy. Jurjani (1991) and his followers also discuss how the metaphor must be regarded as a production of metonymy.
Methodology
Through applying cognitive linguistics approaches and by taking a deductive approach, I will show that not only some but, as Muslim rhetoricians maintain, all kinds of metaphors have a metonymic basis and all types of conceptual metaphors are constructed upon conceptual metonymy. The theory of Categorization which is from the most significant ones in cognitive and pre-cognitive studies has been part of our argumentation framework.
Discussion
While Linguists like Jacobson consider a confrontational relation between metaphor and metonymy, cognitive linguists believe that the metaphors based on resemblance are made of metonymy but those based on correlation are not metonymic. Muslim rhetoricians, following Jurjani (1991), assert that all types of metaphors are metonymic in basis. They believe that metaphor is not only a lexical replacement but a new conceptual production; So, when we use a word in metaphorical concept, we are transforming it from the previous domain (matter or Jins ـ جنس ـ in Islamic texts) to a new one. Indeed, the factor of resemblance permits us to correlate a concept with concepts of a new domain so that the concept becomes different in essence and evolves into a new meaning. As an example, when we call a brave person a "lion" it is not a mere simile or resemblance but for us the brave person is actually a lion. In this meaning, the brave person and lion are gathered in a new domain while in the previous meaning animals and humans do not belong to a unit domain or category. Here by referring to the cognitive function of "category", with special attention to the new concept of category in philosophies like Wittgenstein's (1953), we can deduce that all resemblances derive from the correlation of concepts in a new category. Contrary to classical approaches to categorization, such as Aristotle's, new ones do not take that categories are founded on common characteristics
among their members. Members of a category may be way different in appearance and quality, since categories are all lingual in the essence. So, we can apply a word in metaphorical concept just because it can state in a new category with adjacency of essences it did not use to be homogenous with. When the brave man states in the new category with adjacency/ correlation of warrior animals, we can use the word "lion" for him.
Conclusion
According to Kövecses (2013), correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Correlation metaphors are based on two connected concepts from a unit domain. They can be attached due to adjacency or coincidence. But he claims that resemblance metaphors are not based on metonymy because two attached concepts in this type of metaphor are not from the same domain, so adjacency can't be a matter of fact.
The late approaches to categorization prove the inaccuracy of Kövecses' hypothesis about resemblance metaphors. Recent linguistic studies argue that categories are not bonded to factual common characteristics of the members but they are all lingual/mental in nature, so they can collect non-homogenous objects. In this view, the resembled item, despite of its heterogeneity with other members, can stay on with them in the same category. Here one can see the accuracy of Jurjani's idea of the resembled word (metaphor) entering a new domain (Jins).
Being in a unit category provides the adjacency, even though mentally not factually. So, the resemblance metaphors are also based on metonymy. Kövecses and his followers considered metonymic basis only for correlated metaphors because they regarded
metonymies as confined to factual adjacency. But regarding the lingual/mental nature of categorization, we can determine that the resembled item is also in adjacency with the other items of the category i.e. domain. So, all types of metaphors must be regarded as metonymic in the basis.
Golnaz Ghafourisaleh; Foroogh Kazemi
Abstract
The use of metaphor as a linguistic strategy has long been considered by politicians around the world. The main purpose of the present study is to investigate the function of conceptual metaphor from the perspective of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) in the speeches of three members of the Government of prudence ...
Read More
The use of metaphor as a linguistic strategy has long been considered by politicians around the world. The main purpose of the present study is to investigate the function of conceptual metaphor from the perspective of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) in the speeches of three members of the Government of prudence and hope: Mr. Rouhani, Jahangiri and Zarif. The main issue of the research is to show how conceptual metaphors are expressed in the words of these political authorities and how their function in organizing political realities can be explained. For this purpose, we have collected the data in a library research method and examined it analytically. The results indicate that political metaphors are used in different source domains: route, personification (humans, animals and plants), war, sports, buildings and natural phenomena, among which, the route is the most And the natural phenomena has had the least use. The results show that metaphor has an important rhetorical and persuasive usage in political discourse and plays an important role in conveying the political messages of prudence and hope government’s members. What is clear is that metaphor, in addition to facilitating the analysis of political issues for the audience, has given these politicians the opportunity to more easily explain their issues in order to arouse the audience's emotions. With the help of metaphor, they try to highlight or hide some aspects of political discourse so that they can persuade the audience to apply their beliefs. It should be said that conceptual metaphors with different appearances have been manifested in line with the purposes of the government of Prudence and Hope discourse, called Moderation discourse. Thus, metaphors can be used by journalists, political analysts, and political discourse researchers as an effective and powerful tool to analyze the messages of political officials and facilitate the decoding of their words. Therefore, the results of this study can be useful for this group of experts and ultimately to measure the political pulse of the country.
Elham Esmaeilpour Aghdam; Masoud Dehghan
Abstract
As the conceptual system of the human mind, based on which human thought and action is formed, is metaphorical in its essence and rooted in the conceptual system of language, metaphor is considered as a salient category in linguistic studies. The present study investigates the embodiment pattern of conceptual ...
Read More
As the conceptual system of the human mind, based on which human thought and action is formed, is metaphorical in its essence and rooted in the conceptual system of language, metaphor is considered as a salient category in linguistic studies. The present study investigates the embodiment pattern of conceptual metaphors in the congenital blind in comparison with their vision counterparts from cognitive semantics perspective based on Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) conceptual metaphors. The present quantitative-qualitative study was comparatively done between two groups of blind people and their counterparts. A total of 48 male and female blind men and women with graduate and postgraduate education aged 18- 28 years were evaluated. The participants were asked to describe the 30 selected words based on Bitley and Peggy’s (1991) procedures. In so doing, the study initially investigated image schemas as the source domain in metaphorical mappings and then conceptual metaphors used by the participants. Results show that the blinds, due to lack of vision, use more lexical descriptions and far more image schemas than their counterparts. Moreover, postgraduate female blinds were reported as the most users of image schemas.
Raheleh Gandomkar
Abstract
Conceptual Metaphor Theory was first proposed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in 1980 as one of the earliest theoretical frameworks of the cognitive semantics. Although it is not a novel view of metaphor and its tradition goes back to the historical-philological semantics, Conceptual Metaphor Theory ...
Read More
Conceptual Metaphor Theory was first proposed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in 1980 as one of the earliest theoretical frameworks of the cognitive semantics. Although it is not a novel view of metaphor and its tradition goes back to the historical-philological semantics, Conceptual Metaphor Theory attempts to adduce different kinds of evidence for the conceptual nature of metaphors. According to this theory, metaphors are not just rhetorical, but human thought is metaphorical in nature and conceptual structures are organized according to cross-domain mappings or correspondences between these domains. However, conceptual metaphors are made based on embodied experiences and human interaction with the world. According to this view, conceptual metaphors are unidirectional and they cannot be bi-directional. The present study criticizes the methodology with which metaphor is studied emphasizing bi-directionality of mapping instead of unidirectionality based on examples of spoken Persian. Also, the study points to the fact that there is no constraint on forming the conceptual metaphors and that everybody can add new conceptual metaphors of special domains.
