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. [...] 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.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Conceptual metaphors: target & source, mapping and the systematicity of metaphorical concepts
3 Problems in reasoning: LOVE IS A JOURNEY
4 Coherence and consistency
5 Problem of multiple metaphors
6 Conclusion and outlook
7 Bibliography
Objectives and Research Themes
This paper aims to critically evaluate the theory of conceptual metaphor developed by Lakoff and Johnson, specifically investigating the claim that human thought and language are fundamentally metaphorical. The analysis seeks to identify the linguistic and cognitive implications of conceptual mapping, while addressing critiques regarding the validity of such metaphorical systems in everyday language.
- Theoretical foundations of target and source domains
- Cognitive mechanisms of metaphorical mapping
- Critical examination of the "LOVE IS A JOURNEY" conceptual metaphor
- Coherence and consistency in metaphor usage
- Challenges regarding multiple and potentially conflicting metaphors
Excerpt from the Book
3 Problems in reasoning: LOVE IS A JOURNEY
Let us take a closer look at the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY. The following examples are taken from Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 44-45):
a. Look how far we’ve come.
b. We’re at a crossroads.
c. We’ll just have to go our separate ways.
d. We can’t turn back now.
e. I don’t think this relationship is going anywhere.
f. Where are we?
g. We’re stuck.
h. It’s been a long, bumpy road.
i. This relationship is a dead-end street.
j. We’re just spinning our wheels.
k. Our marriage is on the rocks.
l. This relationship is foundering.
The metaphorical concept used here is that the notion of love is structured in terms of a journey. What is salient about all these examples is that they are anything but unusual or construed. Lakoff and Johnson claim that they are normal ways in which people understand the concept love and talk about it. Moreover, all these examples share a distinct feature: not only do they describe different experiences of relationships, they are also based on expressions that are related to the conceptual domain JOURNEYS. The following table clarifies in what way the two different domains LOVE (here: the target) and JOURNEY (here: the source) interact with each other, based on the metaphorical concept LOVE IS A JOURNEY, and how the mapping functions in this conceptual metaphor:
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the role of metaphor in language and introduces Lakoff and Johnson’s theory that metaphorical thought is central to our conceptual system.
2 Conceptual metaphors: target & source, mapping and the systematicity of metaphorical concepts: Defines the cognitive mechanisms of "mapping" between source and target domains and explains how these create systematic metaphorical structures.
3 Problems in reasoning: LOVE IS A JOURNEY: Investigates the specific metaphor of love as a journey and presents critical perspectives questioning its universal applicability and accuracy.
4 Coherence and consistency: Examines how different metaphors within a conceptual system relate to each other, distinguishing between consistent images and coherent connections.
5 Problem of multiple metaphors: Discusses the theoretical challenges posed when a single target domain is structured by multiple, sometimes contradictory, source domains.
6 Conclusion and outlook: Summarizes the debate surrounding conceptual metaphor theory and proposes future directions for empirical research to bridge cultural and linguistic boundaries.
7 Bibliography: Lists the academic sources and references used throughout the study.
Keywords
Conceptual Metaphor, Cognitive Linguistics, Mapping, Target Domain, Source Domain, Lakoff and Johnson, LOVE IS A JOURNEY, Systematicity, Coherence, Consistency, Structural Similarity, Linguistic Expression, Abstract Thought, Cross-cultural communication, Metaphorical Concepts.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental thesis of the work?
The paper evaluates the claim by Lakoff and Johnson that our ordinary conceptual system, which dictates how we think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.
What are the central themes discussed?
Key themes include the structural mapping between source and target domains, the systematicity of metaphorical language, and the critical reception of these theories by other linguists.
What is the primary objective of this study?
The objective is to critically analyze Lakoff and Johnson’s theory by applying it to specific examples and identifying limitations regarding its cognitive validity and cross-cultural applicability.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The paper utilizes a qualitative, literature-based approach, analyzing seminal cognitive linguistic texts and evaluating them against critical responses and empirical counter-arguments.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body focuses on the mechanics of metaphorical mapping, specific case studies like "LOVE IS A JOURNEY," the coherence of metaphorical systems, and the problem of managing multiple overlapping metaphors.
Which keywords define this research?
Central keywords include Conceptual Metaphor, Mapping, Cognitive Linguistics, Target and Source Domains, and Metaphorical systematicity.
Why is the "LOVE IS A JOURNEY" metaphor problematic according to the author?
The author highlights that it does not represent all types of love—such as maternal love—and notes that it predominantly captures negative aspects of relationships, suggesting it might be better defined as "CHALLENGES IN A LOVE PARTNERSHIP ARE A JOURNEY."
How does the author propose resolving the conflict between multiple metaphors?
The author discusses the "structural similarity view" proposed by Murphy, suggesting that metaphors are based on relational structural similarities rather than just an intuitive conceptual mapping.
What is the author's stance on the cultural dimension of metaphors?
The author agrees with Wierzbicka that metaphorical concepts are deeply tied to specific cultural and experiential backgrounds, emphasizing that a more universal approach is needed to truly bridge cultural boundaries.
What is the difference between coherence and consistency in this context?
Consistency implies that a set of metaphors forms a single, unified image, whereas coherence refers to the condition where various metaphors simply fit together, even if they represent different facets of a concept.
- Citation du texte
- Markus Bulgrin (Auteur), 2007, Metaphor or the war on words – a critical analysis of the theory of conceptual metaphors, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/113676
