The first question that arises is in the context of „Metaphor and Culture“ is what metaphor actually has to do with culture. This question can be answered in the way that metaphor and culture are related in many ways. Metaphor can be viewed as the ornamental use of language, and a lot about metaphor and culture arises from what
we have heard or learned in school about it, such as for instance creative writers or poets who use metaphors. Since literature is a significant part of our culture, metaphor can be regarded as intimately linked to our socio-cultural field. So a possible way of relation between metaphor and culture would be literature, an
exemplary manifestation of culture. However, there are in fact much more fundamental relations between metaphor and culture, which become clear when we look at some currrent thinking in anthropology, which leads us to the fact that we can view culture as a set of shared understandings that characterize smaller or larger groups of people (cf. Shore 1996, Strauss & Quinn 1997). It has to be noted that this is obviously not an exhaustive view or definition of culture, considering the fact that it leaves out real artifacts, real objects, practices, institutions, actions and so on, which people participate in and use in various cultures. However, it integrates a large part of it, namely the shared understanding that human beings have in connection with all of these „things“.
Table of Contents
1. A cross-cultural study of animal metaphors: when owls are not wise
2. Causes of Variation in Metaphor: Differential Experience
2.1. Awareness of context
2.2. Physical environment
2.3. Social Context
2.4. Cultural context
2.5. Communicative situation
2.6. Differential memory and the role of history
2.7. Differential concerns and interests
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper explores the intricate relationship between metaphor and culture, specifically examining how metaphorical conceptualizations are shaped by and reflect cultural frameworks. The study focuses on the universality and cross-cultural variation of metaphors, with a detailed analysis of how personal and cultural experiences influence the way human beings construct meaning through metaphorical thought.
- The cognitive linguistic framework of metaphor as a fundamental component of thought.
- Cross-cultural analysis of animal metaphors comparing English and Persian conceptualizations.
- Factors contributing to metaphorical variation, including physical, social, and cultural environments.
- The impact of historical and personal experience on the selection of source domains.
- The "pressure of coherence" in communicative situations as a driver for metaphor production.
Excerpt from the Book
2.4. Cultural context
When Kovecses (2005) talks about the cultural context, he refers to the broader field that a culture or a subgroup provides in order to understand any of ist concepts, including all the values that characterize particular subgroups together with the governing key concepts and principles of a given culture or subgroup.
These governing principles and key factors are of great importance when it comes to metaphorical conceptualization because they permeate various domains of experience for a culture or a cultural subgroup. In order to illustrate this, Kovecses (2005) comes up with the example of the near-universal „Pressurized container“ metaphor, that stands in for „anger“ in a variety of cultures. Across many societies and cultures this metaphor is similar, and still, there are certain differences to be noticed in certain cultures. The question that arises in this context is why and how do these differences arise?
Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995) state that in the Euro-American tradition the classical-medieval notion of the four humors is responsible for the derivation of the Euro-American conceptualization of anger. Furthermore, they note that the application of the humoral doctrine is not limited to anger or the emotions in general. The humoral view states that the four fluids, which are phlegm, black bile, yellow bile, and blood, are responsible for the vital processes of the human body, determine
Summary of Chapters
1. A cross-cultural study of animal metaphors: when owls are not wise: This chapter investigates animal metaphors in English and Persian to demonstrate how cross-cultural differences in conceptualization arise despite some universal patterns.
2. Causes of Variation in Metaphor: Differential Experience: This section categorizes the factors leading to metaphor variation, emphasizing how physical, social, and cultural contexts shape the way individuals map source domains to abstract concepts.
2.1. Awareness of context: This chapter outlines how humans unconsciously monitor details of their environment, which subsequently influences the selection and variation of metaphors.
2.2. Physical environment: This chapter examines how geographic and environmental conditions, such as fauna and flora, lead to the development of unique metaphorical patterns in different language communities.
2.3. Social Context: This chapter explores how social structures, including power dynamics and societal pressures, impact the usage of metaphorical thought within a community.
2.4. Cultural context: This chapter analyzes how governing cultural principles and beliefs, such as the humoral doctrine or the concept of qi, permeate and influence metaphorical representations of emotions like anger.
2.5. Communicative situation: This chapter discusses the "pressure of coherence," explaining how specific communication settings and audiences drive the production of creative and situation-specific metaphors.
2.6. Differential memory and the role of history: This chapter addresses how collective and personal histories shape the current metaphorical landscape, as language reflects the past experiences of a society.
2.7. Differential concerns and interests: This final chapter suggests that intense professional or personal interests can cause individuals to habitually view abstract domains through specific, experience-based source domains.
Keywords
Metaphor, Culture, Cognitive Linguistics, Animal Metaphors, Cross-cultural Comparison, Differential Experience, Conceptual Mapping, Cultural Schema, Language Variation, Pressurized Container, Source Domains, Communicative Situation, Historical Context, Anthropomorphization, Cognitive Preferences.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental thesis of this work?
The work argues that metaphor is not merely an ornamental use of language but a vital component of human thought that is intrinsically linked to and culturally motivated by our experiences and social environments.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The core themes include the cognitive framework of metaphor, cross-cultural comparison of animal metaphors, the classification of causes for metaphorical variation, and the role of history and personal interest in shaping conceptualization.
What is the primary objective of the research?
The primary goal is to examine why and how metaphors vary across different cultures, specifically analyzing the "differential experience" as a main driver for these variations.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The paper utilizes a comparative analysis approach, drawing upon existing cognitive linguistic theories, such as those by George Lakoff and Zoltán Kövecses, and reviewing specific empirical studies like those of Talebinejad & Dastjerdi.
What is discussed in the main part of the document?
The main part delves into the "Great Chain of Being" metaphor, provides a comparative study of English and Persian animal metaphors, and explores variables such as social, physical, and cultural contexts that influence metaphorical production.
Which keywords best characterize the research?
Key terms include "Conceptual Metaphor," "Cultural Schema," "Differential Experience," "Cross-cultural Variation," and "Cognitive Linguistic Framework."
How does the "Great Chain of Being" function in the study?
It acts as a conceptual framework that helps explain how human characteristics can be understood through animal attributes and vice-versa, providing a coherent structure for animal metaphors.
What is the "pressure of coherence"?
This is a term used to describe the tendency of speakers to adjust their metaphorical expressions to be consistent with the specific elements of a communicative situation, such as the topic, the audience, and the setting.
How does Persian culture differ from English in its animal metaphors?
The study highlights specific differences, such as the Persian view of the owl as inauspicious and "not wise," which contrasts directly with the English association of the owl with wisdom.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Bachelor Katharina Eder (Autor:in), 2009, Metaphor and Culture, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/171958
