Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Anglistisches Seminar

Hauptseminar Cognitive Linguistics

Sommersemester 2007

Metaphor or the war on words ­

a critical analysis of the theory of

conceptual metaphor

Tempe, Arizona, den 31.03.2008

Vorgelegt von:

Markus Bulgrin

Anglistik/Beifach

3. Fachsemester

0 | P a g e

---

Contents

1

Introduction 2

2

Conceptual metaphors: target & source, mapping and the systematicity

of

metaphorical

concepts 5

3

Problems in reasoning: LOVE IS A JOURNEY 9

4

Coherence and consistency 16

5

Problem of multiple metaphors 18

6

Conclusion and outlook 20

7

Bibliography 22

1 | P a g e

---

"Had L[akoff] & J[ohnson] left for a while
speculations based on English and concerned
themselves with the problem of cross-cultural
communication and with the kind of
lexicography which is needed to build bridges
across language and culture boundaries, they
would have noticed that linguists can′t always
live by metaphors" (Wierzbicka 1986: 308).

1

Introduction

Language is versatile. Language is complex. Language can be a mystery. For example,

why do we say

chair leg

although legs are usually thought of being a part of the human body

or an animal? Why do we refer to the ground where a river runs through as a

river bed

? Is a

bed not usually an object that we use to sleep in? And why is it that we can say

I′m surfing

the web

although surfing typically means to ride one′s board on ocean waves? The news

report says,

The Iraq democracy is in its infancy

. Would we not typically use infancy when

we talk about children, or refer to a person′s childhood? If we consider the above examples,

we can easily draw the conclusion that these words ­ besides their original meaning ­ can be

used "outside of their natural environment". Words and their meaning can be transferred to a

different domain. The name for such a transfer is metaphor. Lakoff and Johnson define

metaphor as follows:

"The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of

another." (5)

It was not until the publication of the groundbreaking work of Lakoff & Johnson in

1980 that metaphors had widely been thought of as a device for poets and writers who desire

to enrich their literary works and evoke rich images in their readership. These devices are

known as figures of speech, which were established by antique poets and philosophers such as

Aristotle and have been used in poetry ever since. For example,

Love is a fragile flower

opening to the warmth of spring,

is just the kind of expression we would think of when

talking about metaphors. It is a very flowery language used to make thoughts more vivid and

interesting. We typically find them in novels or, even more likely, in poetry. However, as

Lakoff and Johnson point out, one does not have to be a distinguished poet or writer to

produce and use such a figure like metaphor. According to Lakoff and Johnson, our everyday

language is pervaded by metaphors (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 1). In addition to the

2 | P a g e

---

examples above, here are a few more examples, which are very common and used in everyday

language:

He saw a light at the end of the tunnel

;

your aunt is a pearl

;

Peter is running out of

money.

Such expressions are obviously metaphoric, in that they do not convey a literal

meaning. When hearing or uttering such sentences, we are, of course, intuitively aware of the

fact that there is no one walking through an actual tunnel, that a person cannot turn into a

pearl, and that Peter is not really running out of a huge pile of dollar bills. However, most of

the metaphors we use every day are so familiar and conventionalized that we do not usually

recognize them as such, but use them subconsciously. Lakoff and Johnson also suggest that

much of our thought and perception is based on the fact that "there are metaphors in a

person′s conceptual system" (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 6). They refer to this phenomenon as

metaphorical concepts, according to which metaphor is a conceptual, rather than a mere

linguistic construction. Lakoff and Johnson argue that metaphors define our reality, the way

we think and what we experience. Indeed, it seems very difficult to think and talk about

certain concepts without using a metaphor.

Time

, for example, can hardly be talked about

without referring to expressions relating to space or motion:

a. Christmas is

approaching

.

b. We′re

moving towards

Christmas.

c. Christmas is not very

far away

.1

d. Time

flies

.

This paper will highlight Lakoff′s and Johnson′s major claim that metaphor is not

only a poetic device, or simply a (linguistic) matter of spoken words, but that "our ordinary

conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in

nature" (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 3). I shall explain some of the most important devices of

their theory, such as target, source, and mapping and briefly elucidate the systematicity that

underlies metaphorical conceptualization. The analysis of the conceptual metaphor, LOVE IS A

JOURNEY, will reveal some ambiguities about Lakoff′s and Johnson′s theory. By doing this, I

will consider some of the major critiques and analyze whether there

is

an underlying

conceptual metaphoric system in our everyday language.

The revolutionary work of Lakoff and Johnson,

Metaphors We Live By,

will obviously

serve as a main reference to this paper. In order to fully understand the whole extent of their

1 Examples adopted from Evans & Green (2006: 290).

3 | P a g e

---

theory, and the critiques that Lakoff and Johnson have had to face ever since their publication,

I consider it crucial to clarify in what way their findings "shattered" the understanding of

metaphor and its role in language and mind. Thus, I will cite a small excerpt from their

"afterword" published later in 2003:

"In spite of the massive and growing evidence for them, our basic claims have
nonetheless met resistance for an obvious reason: they are inconsistent with
assumptions that many people in the academic world and elsewhere first learned and
that shaped the research agendas they still pursue. Many mainstream philosophers,
linguists, and psychologists either have vehemently denied these claims or have
preferred to ignore them and to go about their ordinary business as if the claims were
false. The reason is clear ­ our claims strike at the heart of centuries-old assumptions
about the nature of meaning, thought, and language. If the new empirical results are
taken seriously, then people throughout our culture have to rethink some of their most
cherished beliefs about what science and philosophy are and reconsider their values
from a new perspective" (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 273).

It seems comprehensible why people might have difficulties agreeing with these still

relatively new findings. Lakoff and Johnson and many other (cognitive) linguists believe,

however, that the basic concept, namely the way we think and talk, is grounded in conceptual

metaphors.

I must admit ­ and this is part of the reason why I chose to write about it in this paper

­ that I was not fully aware of the metaphorical dimension omnipresent in the way we think

and conceptualize. The fact that much of our thought, language and action may be

conceptualized and governed by metaphors raised my interest in this subject matter and

seemed to be an exciting hypothesis to myself.

4 | P a g e

---