This paper will discuss the definition of metaphor with respect to different approaches. To provide a vaster background for such a discussion objectivity and subjectivity will necessarily be explained. This discussion will be accompanied by a contrastive examination of the concept LOVE in several languages, namely German, Italian, and Japanese. An explanation of differences and similarities of these concepts will conclude the discussion part. Based on the results of my examples, I will show the necessity of supporting the experientialist approach.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Overview
2. Metaphors
2.1 Definition of Metaphor
2.2 Literal
2.3 Figurative
3. Conceptual System
3.1. Definition of Conceptual System
3.2 Objectivity vs. Subjectivity
4. Experientialist Approach
5. Intercultural Metaphor examples of LOVE
5.1 Sexuality
5.2 Background and Causes
6. Conclusion
7. References
Objective and Research Focus
This paper examines the structure and function of metaphors, challenging traditional views by advocating for the experientialist approach. The research investigates how conceptual metaphors shape our understanding of reality, with a specific focus on cross-linguistic metaphors related to the concept of LOVE.
- Analysis of the definition of metaphor across different linguistic approaches.
- Evaluation of the false dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity.
- Exploration of the experientialist approach as a framework for cognitive linguistics.
- Contrastive examination of metaphors for LOVE and sexuality in German, Italian, and Japanese.
- Investigation into the potential universality of conceptual metaphors.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Definition of Metaphor
The definition of metaphor goes further back than to Chomsky. Aristotle brought up the definition by the so called substitution theory. In this case of metaphor a word is substituted by another one. The literal word and the metaphorical expression are linked by similarity or analogy. In the Aristotelian sense metaphor is seen out of any context. A metaphor is the replacement of a word by another word which actually does not fit in the new position. This is the traditional view which is valid until today. An important point, however, is the fact that metaphorical or literal are not properties of a word. These are properties of utterances. Furthermore to decide if an utterance is metaphorical or literal one has to see it in the context the utterance took place. Context means under which circumstances was the utterance meant in which way. Although the Aristotelian view is so dominant, this simplifying approach includes the logical mistake to see metaphorical expression out of context.
The pragmatic theory developed in order to account for context of utterances. Here the situation and the intention of an utterance count. There does not exist an utterance with an independent neutral meaning. Since such a meaning is not clearly delineable, no clear rules for the formation of metaphorical expression can be set up. Too many factors, such as speaker, hearer, emotions, and many more influence the interpretation of an utterance. The speakers of a community decide where to use metaphorical expressions. Metaphorical expressions are not percept as mistaken utterances which become corrected later onwards. Furthermore we experience metaphors as an extraordinary usage, a divergence of the rule of usage and in the same moment as a reasonable and revealing divergence. The usage of a metaphor is obviously too wrong as to be wrong in a literal sense.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction and Overview: This chapter outlines the difficulty of second language acquisition and introduces the paper's goal of exploring the structure of metaphors beyond traditional Greek definitions.
2. Metaphors: This section investigates where metaphors occur, distinguishing between literal and figurative language and addressing the Aristotelian and pragmatic definitions of metaphor.
3. Conceptual System: This chapter introduces the radical view that metaphors are essential to human thought processes, defining conceptual systems through source and target domain mappings.
4. Experientialist Approach: This chapter presents the experientialist synthesis, arguing that interaction with the world and imaginative rationality are key to understanding metaphorical thought.
5. Intercultural Metaphor examples of LOVE: This section applies the theoretical framework to a contrastive analysis of LOVE and sexuality metaphors across German, Italian, and Japanese.
6. Conclusion: This final chapter synthesizes the findings, reinforcing that metaphors are necessary for describing the "indescribable" and calling for further research in cognitive linguistics.
7. References: A list of academic sources consulted throughout the research paper.
Keywords
Metaphor, Cognitive Linguistics, Experientialist Approach, Conceptual System, Objectivity, Subjectivity, Love, Sexuality, Cross-linguistic, Mapping, Source Domain, Target Domain, Figurative Language, Rationality, Interactional Approach.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper explores the definition and structure of metaphors, arguing that they are not merely ornamental rhetorical devices but are fundamental to the human conceptual system and thought processes.
What are the main thematic fields discussed?
The research covers metaphor theory, the cognitive science of language, the debate between objective and subjective truth, and the cross-linguistic analysis of emotional concepts like love.
What is the core research objective?
The primary objective is to demonstrate the necessity of the experientialist approach in linguistics, moving beyond traditional, insufficient views of metaphor by examining how language structures human experience.
Which scientific methods are employed in this work?
The author uses a theoretical analysis of existing linguistic models combined with a contrastive, qualitative examination of metaphorical examples in German, Italian, and Japanese.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers the definition of metaphors, the architecture of conceptual systems, the critique of the objectivity-subjectivity dichotomy, and practical applications in analyzing sexual and emotional metaphors.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Conceptual System, Experientialist Approach, Metaphorical Mapping, Cognitive Linguistics, and Cross-cultural Metaphor Analysis.
How does the author characterize the difference between 'Literal' and 'Figurative' language?
The author challenges the traditional view of literal language as neutral and objective, suggesting that both literal and figurative expressions are dependent on context and the speaker's conceptual framework.
Why does the author examine the concept of LOVE in different languages?
This cross-linguistic approach serves to test the interactional and experientialist theory, showing how cultures use different metaphorical source domains (like JOURNEY or WAR) to express the same abstract emotion.
- Quote paper
- Stephan Vierkant (Author), 2005, Metaphors we Love by, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/66597
