Mentor: doc. dr.

Sanja Berberović

Rad ima () stranica

Redni broj diplomskog rada:

Sažetak

Cilj ovog diplomskog rada jeste predstavljanje procesa konceptualizacije metafora kao i
analiza metaforičkih lingvističkih izraza koji su nalaze u svakodnevnoj upotrebi u domenu
ekonomije.

U uvodnom dijelu diplomskog rada teorijski dio vezan za konceptualizaciju metafora i ostali
aspekti bitni za metafore će biti predstavljeni. Teorijski dio će sadržavati definiciju, upotrebu
konceptualnih metafora, tipove konceptualnih metafora, kulturološke varijacije kao i
savremene poglede na analizu metafora. Pored toga, ostali konceptualni mehanizmi koji su
usko povezani će biti predstavljeni.

Glavni dio diplomskog rada je baziran na analizi primjera metaforičkih lingvističkih izraza i
konceptualnih metafora u domenu ekonomije u engleskom i bosanskom jeziku. Primjeri su
uzeti iz novinskih članaka i tekstova preuzetih sa interneta.

Ključne riječi: konceptualne metafore, metaforički lingvistički izrazi, ciljna domena,

izvorišna domena, konceptualni mehanizmi.
Summary

The aim of the paper is to present the process of conceptualization of metaphors as well as the
analysis of metaphorical linguistic expressions found in everyday use in the domain of
economy.

In the introductory part of the paper, the theoretical framework regarding the
conceptualization of metaphors and other important aspects of metaphors will be presented.
The theoretical framework will contain definitions regarding the types of conceptual
metaphors, their usage, cultural variations as well as contemporary views of metaphor
analysis. In addition, other conceptual mechanisms closely related to metaphors will be
presented.

The main part of the paper is based on the analysis of examples of metaphorical linguistic
expressions and conceptual metaphors in the domain of economy in English and Bosnian
language. Examples provided are taken from news articles and texts downloaded from the
internet.

Key words: conceptual metaphors, metaphorical linguistic expressions, target domain, source
domain, conceptual mechanisms.
1. Introduction

1.1. Aim of the Paper

The aim of the paper is to present the process of conceptualization of metaphors as well as the
analysis of metaphorical linguistic expressions found in everyday use in the domain of
economy.

In the introductory part of the paper, the theoretical framework regarding the
conceptualization of metaphors and other important aspects of metaphors will be presented.
The theoretical framework will contain definitions regarding the types of conceptual
metaphors, their usage, cultural variations as well as contemporary views of metaphor
analysis. One more important aspect that this part of the paper will touch upon is the cognitive
theory of metaphors. In addition, other conceptual mechanisms closely related to metaphors
will be presented.

The main part of the paper is based on the analysis of examples of metaphorical linguistic
expressions and conceptual metaphors in the domain of economy in English and Bosnian
language. Everyday usage of the conceptual metaphors will be demonstrated. Analysis will
have ECONOMY as a target domain. Source domains that will be the subject of analysis are
HUMAN and VEHICLE. Examples provided are taken from news articles and texts downloaded
from the internet.
2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Introduction

For hundreds of years, metaphors have been reserved for intellectual geniuses with poetical
prowess and extraordinary proficiency in communication. Some of the most famous orators of
all time were famous for their use of metaphors, adding depth to the aforementioned opinion.
Ancient philosopher, Aristotle, was one of the first to have made such a claim that survived
for centuries. Aristotle clearly stated that only a true genius can use metaphors and that this
ability cannot be attained (Kövacses 2002: vii). Metaphors were, therefore, considered artistic
and rhetorical devices that were completely obsolete in everyday language of ordinary people.
In addition, the perception of metaphor was that of a language constituent and its
characteristics were linked to language alone (Lakoff 1980: 4).

However, this predominant opinion has been challenged in recent years. A

contemporary point of view in cognitive linguistics has emerged, supporting the idea of
abundance of metaphors in everyday language. This new idea is based on claims of prevalent
metaphors that are present not only in language but in everyday life as well (Lakoff 1980: 4).
According to the new theory, the presence of metaphors was not restricted to language alone
but has spread to everyday life, thoughts and actions. One of the first linguists to have made
such a claim were Georg Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their work Metaphors We Live By
(1980). Their claim conveyed the following metaphor characteristics:

1. “Metaphor is a property of concepts, not of words;”

2. “The function of metaphor is to better understand certain concepts, and not just
some artistic or esthetic purpose;

3. “Metaphor is often not based on similarity;”

4. “Metaphor is used effortlessly in everyday life by ordinary people, not just special
talented people; and”

5. “Metaphor, far from being a superfluous though pleasing ornament is an inevitable

process of human thought and reasoning.” (Kövacses 2002: viii).

As it can be seen from the metaphor characteristics above, cognitive linguists have set new
standards for defining metaphors. This groundbreaking theory supports the claim
metaphorical linguistic expressions are not literary and are rather common in everyday
language and life. This, namely, implies that metaphors are used frequently with most people
being unaware of such metaphorical presence. For this purpose, cognitive linguists
constructed a new term denoting metaphors that are quite common and conventional – dead
metaphors (Kövacses 2002: ix). The term was coined due to the assumption that frequent
usage of metaphors is indicative of their losing linguistic value and poetic effect. In other
words, dead metaphors were considered to have ceased being metaphors at all. However,
what seems to be the focus of majority of linguists is the predominant opinion that dead
metaphors continue to subsist in everyday thoughts and actions. According to Kövacses
(2002: ix), dead metaphors affect our perception of certain abstract notions i.e. “they govern
our thought“.

In order to comprehend other important characteristics, it is crucial to consider the

contemporary approach to the study of metaphor. The fact of the matter lies in the assumption
that metaphor refers to a cognitive process (Charteris-Black 2004: 3). In addition, the theory
asserts that thoughts and actions are governed by metaphors. The focus of this study relies on
the connection between conceptual metaphor and human conceptual system. Lakoff (1980: 5)
clearly states that “the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of
thing in terms of another”. This statement further implies that human cognitive processes are
primarily metaphorical. Finally, it can be concluded that the ordinary conceptual system tends
to be metaphorical in nature (Lakoff 1980: 4).

Metaphorical conceptualization, in fact, denotes a universal phenomenon that operates

between concepts while being culturally specific. The essential point of conceptual metaphor
lies in comparison of semantic elements and features that are transferred from one concept to
another. Traditional approaches regard metaphors as individual utterances that indicate
“something other than the logical literal ‘truth’ of that utterance“ (Moon 2004: 197). On the
other hand, cognitive approaches regard metaphors as concepts that involve abstract level of
thought. The following sections will rely on the cognitive approach in order to provide a
contemporary point of view to conceptual metaphor analysis.

2.2. Various definitions of metaphor

There are various definitions of metaphor in use by linguists today. One of the definitions,
found in Cambridge Advanced Learner`s Dictionary, states that metaphor is “figure of speech
in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order
to suggest a resemblance”. Other prominent sources define metaphor as “a figure of speech in
which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to
suggest a similarity”. However, it is generally agreed that metaphor denotes “an implicit
comparison that is literally untrue” (Moon 2004; 197). In order to fully grasp the idea of
metaphor definition, we need to take a look at some examples:

1. “Let’s hope he can keep the team on the road to success.“

2. “Her career was in ruins.”
3. “He was an animal on Saturday afternoon and is a disgrace to British football.”
4. “How could any man ever understand the workings of a woman’s mind?”
5. “There is no painless way to get inflation down. We now have an excellent
foundation on which to build.“ (Lakoff 1980: viii)

It can be said that although there are different variations in defining metaphor, the general
idea basically remains constant. There are minor deviations, while most sources define
metaphors in a similar fashion.
Besides dictionary definitions, it is important to consider the cognitive theory that
deals with conceptual metaphors. Unlike traditional views of the metaphor, cognitive linguists
tend to approach this issue in a different manner. Rather than comparing entities in a literary
fashion, cognitive theory relies on a more abstract perspective. Cognitive linguistic view
includes human experience and perception of the world that surrounds us in order to define
metaphor. Kövacses (2002: 4) introduces conceptual metaphor and defines it as
“understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain“. Other
linguists offer their view on this matter as well with minor variations and modifications. If we
were to consult Charteris-Black (2004: 9), we would find out that conceptual metaphor
“represents the conceptual basis, idea or image that underlies a set of metaphors”.
Since it has already been established that human conceptual system is metaphorical, it
is necessary to exemplify this claim further. In order to introduce the terms “conceptual
metaphor” and “conceptual domain”, we shall inspect the concept of ARGUMENT and
conceptual metaphor related to that particular concept i.e. ARGUMENT IS WAR:
1. “Your claims are indefensible.”
2. “He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target.”
3. “I demolished his argument.”
4. “I've never won an argument with him.”
 5. “You disagree? Okay, shoot!” (Lakoff 1980: 5)
What we see in the examples above is the perception of an argument. Participants of an
argument see each other as opponents which are at war. Every aspect of an argument is
governed by the principles of war: attack, defence, counterattack, winning, losing etc.
Although there is no sign of a physical attack, participants of an argument engage in a verbal
warfare that resembles an actual military action (Lakoff 1980: 5).
Another aspect that requires clarification from the examples above is the use of
domains. According to Kövacses (2002: 4), conceptual metaphor is to be viewed as following:
CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (A) IS CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (B). This means that one domain is used
in order to interpret another domain. As it can be seen from the sentences above, it is evident
that in order to understand a domain of arguments we use expressions related to the domain of
war. In other words, the use of a more concrete domain is required in order to assist the
interpretation of an abstract domain.
Since the initial elaboration has been made, it is pertinent to discuss the following
terminology related to conceptual metaphors. Kövacses (2002: 4) implies it relevant to
distinguish the terms “conceptual metaphor” and “metaphorical linguistic expression”.
Metaphorical linguistic expressions are related to words or expressions that originate from the
concrete conceptual domain. In this instance, all the expressions related to the domain of war
are to be considered metaphorical linguistic expressions. Respectively, conceptual metaphor
would refer to the representation of these expressions found in this particular concept i.e.
ARGUMENT IS WAR.

There are other various examples that will assist in portraying the essence of
conceptual metaphors and domains. For instance, we can take a closer look of another
frequently used conceptual metaphor: TIME IS MONEY.
1. “You`re wasting my time.“
2. “You need to budget your time.”
3. “This gadget will save you hours.”
4. “I’ve invested a lot of time in her.” (Lakoff 1980: 8)
Here we can see that in order to conceptualize time, it is necessary to perceive it the way we
perceive any kind of commodity. One of the main reasons responsible for this
conceptualization, according to Lakoff (1980: 8), lies in the fact that Western culture
associates work with time. Since that is the case, TIME needed to be quantified in order to be
conceived as a more concrete concept. Everyday routines in a modern society consist of an
allotted timeframe in which certain activities are performed. Considering this claim, it is
understandable that TIME is regarded as commodity and the examples above illustrate that it is
being spent, wasted, budgeted etc. Additionally, it is said that this particular concept is not
culturally universal and is common in modern industrialized societies due to their distinct
structure (Lakoff 1980: 9).
Consequently, some of the characteristics of conceptual domains need to be discussed
in detail. Each conceptual metaphor consists of two conceptual domains that function
dependently. Moon (2004: 198) claims that the essence of conceptual metaphor lies in
comparison of elements and semantic features between two conceptual domains. In order to
comprehend the experience of one concept, it is necessary to extract metaphorical expressions
from a conceptual domain that linguists named as SOURCE DOMAIN. On the other hand,
TARGET DOMAIN is a conceptual domain that is understood by means of the former domain. In
other words, using WAR as SOURCE DOMAIN will result in understanding of WAR that is the
TARGET DOMAIN in this instance. It can be said that an abstract concept, such as ARGUMENT,

can be perceived by using a more concrete concept, such as WAR (Kövacses 2002: 4). Due to
the experience with physical world, it is only sensible and rather logical to use a more
concrete concept that is tangible and perceptible in order to comprehend an abstract concept.
However, this conceptualization only functions in a way described above. This metaphorical
process is performed in a predetermined manner which means that in most cases target and
source domains are not reversible. For example, it is not possible to form conceptual
metaphor like IDEAS AS FOOD and JOURNEY AS LOVE. This process is known as PRINCIPLE OF

UNDIRECTIONALITY (Kövacses 2002: 6).

What did not thwart the linguists’ attention is the relationship between concepts that
form a conceptual metaphor. There seems to exist an analogy between concepts; one that
enables the relation in which one concept is understood in terms of another. For this
conceptual process to occur, a set of systematic correspondences is necessary in order to
connect constituent elements of target and source domains. For example, let us consider a
relation where concept A is understood in terms of a concept B. The actual realization of this
relation implies that constituent elements of B correspond to constituent elements of A. The
aforementioned conceptual correspondences are addressed to as MAPPINGS (Kövacses 2002:
6). In order to clarify the term MAPPINGS we shall consider LOVE IS A JOURNEY conceptual
metaphor. Here we can observe the constituent elements of source domain being mapped onto
the constituent elements of target domain as portrayed by Kövacses (2002: 7).
1. “We aren`t going anywhere.”
2. “The relationship is foundering.”
 3. “It`s been a bumpy road.”
4. “We`ve made a lot of headway.”
5. “We`re at a crossroads.” (Kövacses 2002: 7).

The examples above illustrate the way we consider the concept of love and relationships.
Should we pay close attention to the expressions used to convey the manner in which the
concept of love is understood, we would notice constituent elements of journeys. Given the
appropriate context, the sentences above would be interpreted as statements about love and
relationships not about travelling, destinations etc. (Kövacses 2002: 6). Let us now examine
the constituent conceptual elements in details.

Source: JOURNEY Target: LOVE

the travellers
the vehicle
the journey
the distance covered
the obstacles encountered
decisions about which way to go
the destination of the journey
⇒ the lovers
⇒ the love relationship itself
⇒ events in the relationship
⇒ the progress made
⇒ the difficulties experienced
⇒ choices about what to do
⇒ the goal(s) of the relationship

The systematic correspondences stated above indicate the relations within LOVE IS A JOURNEY

conceptual metaphor. It is obvious that constituent elements of conceptual domain A

correspond to constituent element of conceptual domain B in a systematic manner.
Furthermore, it may seem that a number of assumptions as to how this conceptual metaphor
might have been structured exist. The first logical assumption might be that the similarity
between constituent elements of two domains existed beforehand. This would lead to a
conclusion that people noticed some of the similarities and structured a conceptual metaphor
that regards the concept of love in terms of a journey. However, this assumption appears to be
rather inaccurate. What seems to have structured the concept of love is the application of the
journey domain to the domain of love. In other words, it is the concept of journey that
composed the concept of love including all of the constituent elements (Kövacses 2002: 7).
Moreover, Kövacses (2002: 8) claims that the majority of elements in target domain actually
originate from the source domain and “are not pre-existing”.
2.3. Common Domains

So far we have mentioned several aspects regarding conceptual domains. It has been said that
conceptual metaphor consists of two conceptual domains that are understood in terms of one
another. Also, we have been familiarized with terms TARGET DOMAIN and SOURCE DOMAIN,

denoting abstract and concrete concepts respectively. Some of the domains were mentioned
and analyzed, as well. In order to conclude the section about domains, the following
paragraphs will refer to some of the most common target and source domains found in
everyday language and life.
Apart from the several characteristics of target domains that have already been stated,
there are a few additional pieces of information that needed to be mentioned. First of all, they
are abstract concepts that require metaphorical conceptualization due to their delineating
nature. In other words, they require further explanation and portrayal. Second, it has been
confirmed that target domains can have several corresponding source domains (Kövacses
2002: 20). This being said let us now take a look at some of the most common target domains:

EMOTION “She was deeply moved.”

“He was bursting with joy.” (Kövacses 2002: 21)

DESIRE “She is hungry for knowledge.”

“I am starved for affection.” (Kövacses 2002: 21)

ECONOMY “Germany built a strong economy.”

“They pruned the budget.” (Kövacses 2002: 22)

In addition to these examples, Kövacses (2002: 25) includes the following: “ MORALITY,
THOUGHT, SOCIETY, RELIGION, POLITICS, HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS, COMMUNICATION, EVENTS

AND ACTIONS, TIME, and LIFE AND DEATH”.

The second constituent of a conceptual metaphor is addressed to as source domain.
The basic definition of source domains includes the fact that they refer to more concrete or
physical concepts. In addition, they serve as a means of understanding of the target domains
(Kövacses 2002: 15). Some of the most common source domains include the following:

HUMAN BODY “the heart of the problem”

 “the head of the department” (Kövacses 2002: 16).

PLANTS “Exports flourished last year.”

“He cultivated his friendship with her.” (Kövacses 2002: 17)

FORCES “You`re driving me nuts.”

“Don`t push me!” (Kövacses 2002: 20)

Apart from listing the abovementioned examples, Kövacses (2002: 25) mentions the following:
“HUMAN BODY, HEALTH AND ILLNESS, ANIMALS, MACHINES AND TOOLS, BUILDINGS AND

CONSTRUCTION, PLANTS, GAMES AND SPORT, COOKING AND FOOD, ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS,

FORCES, LIGHT AND DARKNESS, HEAT AND COLD, and MOVEMENT AND DIRECTION.”

2.4. Various Types of Metaphor

So far we have discussed the various aspects and characteristics of conceptual metaphors.
However, what we failed to mention is the fact that cognitive linguistics` view recognizes
several other types of conceptual metaphors. In order to distinguish other kinds of metaphors,
we should pay attention to the following characteristics: conventionality, function, nature and
level of generality of metaphor. Apart from these characteristics, it is plausible to identify
conceptual metaphors in a different manner. However, this is the main division regarding
types of metaphor that is used in cognitive linguistics (Kövacses 2002: 29).
Conventionality is one of the main characteristics that can be used for classifying
metaphors. Unlike the way it is used in linguistics, the meaning of conventionality of
metaphor actually refers to the extent to which a certain metaphor is used in everyday
language. The degree of conventionality depends on how comfortably, frequently and
effortlessly metaphors are used. Furthermore, the aspect of conventionality refers not only to
conceptual but to linguistic metaphors as well. In other words, conventionality applies to
conceptual metaphors while at the same time influences their corresponding linguistic
expressions. Some of the concepts that possess a high degree of conventionality include the
following: argument, love, social organizations, life etc (Kövacses 2002: 30). In order to
clarify the notion of conventionality, let us consider some of the examples:

ARGUMENT IS WAR: “I defended my argument.”

 LOVE IS A JOURNEY: “We’ll just have to go our separate ways.”
THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS: “We have to construct a new theory.”
IDEAS ARE FOOD: “I can’t digest all these facts.” (Kövacses 2002: 30)

Here we can see some of the highly conventionalized conceptual metaphors. In fact, these
examples are used rather frequently and are not considered out of the ordinary. Native
speakers use the aforementioned expressions with such ease and fluency that the fact they are
using metaphors escapes their perception. However, there are some variations regarding
conceptual and metaphorical linguistic expressions. When understanding an abstract domain
conceptual metaphor such as ARGUMENT IS WAR, LOVE IS A JOURNEY etc. are used. In case
one needs to talk about abstract domains, metaphorical linguistic expressions are used. What
this confirms is the fact that conventionality actually applies to both conceptual and linguistic
metaphors (Kövacses 2002: 30).

Since we have discussed the conventionalized metaphors, it is only natural that quite
the opposite type of metaphors exists. They are called unconventional or novel metaphors and
present contrast to conventional metaphors. The unconventionality aspect illustrates the lack
of usage of metaphors in everyday life. In other words, unconventional metaphors are
considered atypical and unfamiliar to majority of English speaking society. This type of
metaphor originates from poetry and literature (Kövacses 2002: 31). In order to exemplify
unconventional metaphors even further, let us examine the following:

LIFE IS A JOURNEY

(a) “He had a head start in life.”

(b) “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.” (Kövacses 2002: 31)

Although it can be said that both examples portray the same conceptual metaphor, there are
some differences that require explanation. First, we shall consider example (a). This is a
conventional metaphor that is well established in everyday communication. Most people are
able to use it with ease and find it to be rather self-explanatory. However, this is not the case
with example (b). It is quite uncommon and rather obscure when it comes to the everyday
usage. In fact, it is a verse in a poem by Robert Frost where we can see the use of
conventional metaphor in an unconventional way. The poet actually exploits linguistic
expressions pertaining to the domain of journey that are not conventionalized. The
conventional metaphor that is conceptualized remains conventional while the linguistic
metaphor is considered unconventional or novel. At first glance, it can be said that
unconventional metaphorical expressions are derived from poetry and literature only.
However, it is argued that many creative speakers including sports journalists, politicians etc.
are able to produce this type of metaphors (Kövacses 2002: 31).

Another important aspect that we are to consider is the cognitive function of a

metaphor. It is possible to classify conceptual metaphors according to the cognitive function
they actualize. This is the basis for distinguishing of three kinds of conceptual metaphors:
structural, ontological, and orientational (Kövacses 2002: 32). We shall discuss each of the
classification in detail:

1. Structural metaphors enable the speaker to understand target domains by means of

source domains. In other words, the speaker understands target A in terms of the
structure of source B. Conceptual mappings between elements is what enables this
process (Kövacses 2002: 33). Additionally, structural metaphors provide similarities
between concepts (Lakoff 1980:148). For example, let us consider the following
structural metaphor: IDEAS ARE FOOD. Here we can observe the similarities that are
portrayed between ideas and food. Taken into consideration that both ideas and food
can be digested, swallowed, devoured etc, it is clear that a certain correlation has been
established (Lakoff 1980:148).

2. Ontological metaphors rely on human experience and knowledge about objects,

substances and containers. The cognitive part of these metaphors consists of providing
of an ontological status to various categories of abstract target concepts (Kövacses
2002: 34). In addition, ontological metaphors serve as a means of identifying human
experiences as entities or substances in order to categorize, quantify and group it. It is
in human nature to establish artificial boundaries that will enable the understanding of
basic spatial orientations (Lakoff 1980:25). Another form of ontological metaphor
deserves to be mentioned. This form consists of giving human qualities to nonhuman
entities and is known as personification. Personification utilizes the absolute source
domain – ourselves (Kövacses 2002: 35).

3. Orientational metaphors create a “set of target concepts coherent in our conceptual

system (Kövacses 2002: 35). The very nature of this type of conceptual metaphor is
said to be marked by coherence. In other words, the conceptualization of certain target
 concepts is achieved in a uniform manner (Kövacses 2002: 36). One other aspect of
orientational metaphors reflects itself in a fact that they actually denote basic human
spatial orientations like up-down, centre - periphery etc (Kövacses 2002: 35). For
instance, Kövacses (2002: 36) offers the following examples:

Example (a) MORE IS UP: “Speak up, please!”

Example (b) LESS IS DOWN: “Keep your voice down, please!”

In example (a), we can notice the upward orientation that denotes positive
interpretation as opposed to example (b) where downward orientation indicates
negative interpretation (Kövacses 2002: 36).

An important aspect that needs to be discussed thoroughly is the nature of metaphor. It is

relevant that we first acknowledge the claim that metaphors could be based on both
knowledge and image in order to introduce the following pieces of information. So far we
have analyzed metaphors that are structured around basic human knowledge of concepts.
Moreover, the analysis resulted in a confirmation of the fact that the basic elements of source
domain were mapped onto target domain. However, there seems to be another type of
conceptual metaphors that are referred to as image – schema metaphors. This type of
metaphor is characterized by the fact that the conceptual elements of image – schemas are
mapped from a source domain to a target domain (Kövacses 2002: 36). In addition, it is said
that the basic image – schemas developed due to the human interaction with the world
(Kövacses 2002: 37). Some of the examples provided by Kövacses (2002: 37) are:

Image – schema Metaphorical expression

In – out I`m out of money.

Up – down I`m feeling low.

Contact Hold on, please! (“Wait”)

It is possible to distinguish metaphors according to their level of generality. This distinction

based on generality implies that there are two types of metaphors: generic - level and specific
– level ones (Kövacses 2002: 38). Generic - level metaphors consist of concepts that are
formed rather vaguely and with lack of property details. For example, EVENTS ARE ACTIONS

and GENERIC IS SPECIFIC are regarded as generic – level metaphors due to the small number of
properties that defines the concepts that they are consisted of (Kövacses 2002: 39). Specific –
level metaphors, however, are structured in a different manner with concepts rich in details.
Examples consist of metaphors that were mentioned so far like LIFE IS A JOURNEY, AN

ARGUMENT IS WAR etc (Kövacses 2002: 38).

2.5. Partial Nature of Metaphorical Mappings

Up to this point, it has been confirmed that conceptual metaphor is comprised of target
domain A and source domain B that are understood in terms of one another. However, this
argument lacks precision due to the fact that this actually means that concept A needs to be
exactly the same as concept B. Since we are familiar with the structure of conceptual
metaphors, it is necessary to shift focus on metaphorical mappings in order to clarify this
issue. Due to the fact that entire source domain cannot be the same as entire target domain, it
can be concluded that their mappings cannot be the same as well. This brings forth the claim
that mappings between domains could be partial. In other words, only a part of source domain
can be mapped onto target domain while only a part of target domain is included in the
mappings of source domain. (Kövacses 2002: 79).

The process of partial mapping affects both target and source domain and are
distinguished by this nature. Partial mapping that applies to target domains is known as
metaphorical highlighting. In this process, some of the aspects of a target concept are being
focussed onto i.e. highlighted. Since some aspects are being focussed on, other aspects remain
hidden. Therefore, the process of highlighting and the process of hiding are interdependent
(Kövacses 2002: 79-80). To illustrate these processes, we need to take a look at some
examples by Kövacses (2002: 80):

AN ARGUMENT IS A CONTAINER:

a) Your argument has a lot of content.

b) What is the core of his argument?

AN ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING:

a) She constructed a solid argument

b) We have got a good foundation for the argument

Here we can see how some of the aspects are highlighted while at the same time other aspects
are hidden. The first metaphor focuses on the content of an argument, hiding other aspects
such as construction, progress, strength. The second metaphor highlights the aspect of
construction while disregarding other aspects that are closely related (Kövacses 2002: 80).

In order to resolve the issue of partial metaphorical mappings, we need to discuss

metaphorical utilization. Kövacses (2002: 81) stated that this process is concerned with
utilization of “some aspects of a source domain in understanding a target”. Similar to
metaphorical highlighting, metaphorical utilization deals with partial utilization of the source
domain for the purposes of understanding of the target domain. To put it differently,
metaphorical utilization makes use of only part of the source domain in order to understand
the target domain (Kövacses 2002: 81). Here are some of the examples introduced by
Kövacses (2002: 81) that may demonstrate the process of metaphorical utilization:

AN ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING:

(a) We’ve got the framework for a solid argument.

(b) If you don’t support your argument with solid facts, the whole thing will collapse.

It can be said that only some of the aspects of the BUILDING concept are used in understanding
of the ARGUMENT concept. The most typical aspects that tend to be utilized are construction,
structure and strength of a building. This conclusion implies that the other aspects like rooms,
corridors, chimneys etc. remain unused (Kövacses 2002: 81).

2.5. Universality of Metaphors

The notion of universality has been the topic of many discussions among linguists. The
assumption that there are metaphors in various different languages that are conceptualized in
the same manner has been questioned over the years. According to Kövacses (2002: 163), it is
possible to hypothesize about nearly identical metaphors that occur across typologically
different languages. In other words, if a certain conceptual metaphor is conceptualized in the
same manner in random languages that are not associated it is possible to confirm its
universality status. The following paragraphs will deal with the universality issue of certain
conceptual metaphors, providing arguments and examples in order to support the given
claims.
 One of the metaphors that may be identified as universal is related to the
conceptualization of happiness. The English language uses concepts like UP, LIGHT and A

FLUID IN A CONTAINER in order to portray the abstract nature of HAPPINESS. In order to

question the issue of universality regarding this metaphor, we shall examine the usage of these
concepts in other languages like Chinese and Hungarian. Needless to say, these three
languages are partly or totally unlike in nature and form. In addition, they represent three
distinct cultures and ways of conceptualization (Kövacses 2002: 163-165). Let us now inspect
what Kövacses (2002: 163-165) discovered in his study:

Conceptualization of happiness in Chinese:

HAPPY IS UP: “He is very high-spirited/happy.”
HAPPINESS IS LIGHT: “They`re all in high spirits and with a strong glow.”
HAPPINESS IS A FLUID IN A CONTAINER: “His heart is filled with happiness.”

Conceptualization of happiness in Hungarian:

HAPPY IS UP: “He/she is on cloud nine.”
HAPPINESS IS LIGHT: “His/her face brightened up.”
HAPPINESS IS A FLUID IN A CONTAINER: “His heart overflowed with joy.”

It is evident that the concepts regarding happiness are conceptualized similarly in three
different languages. Kövacses (2002: 165) offers three possibilities that may have occurred in
order to produce this similarity: coincidence, borrowing of metaphors, and universality. In
order to clarify this issue even further, we shall discuss the notion of ANGER

conceptualization.
Another metaphor that may be said to be universal is related to conceptualization of
ANGER. The concept that has been the topic of many linguistic studies regarding universality
of metaphors refers to the CONTAINER metaphor. In English, anger is usually portrayed by a
hot fluid in a container with the element of heat directly corresponding to anger. Hence the
discussion of ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER metaphor. Kövacses (2002: 165-170)
points out this extensive research involving feedback from a variety of languages including
English, Hungarian, Japanese, Chinese, Zulu, Polish, etc.

the container with the substance in it ⇒ the angry person`s body

 the substance (fluid, gas, objects)
in the pressurized container
the physical pressure in the container
the cause of the pressure
the control of the physical pressure
the inability to control the physical
pressure
⇒ the anger
⇒ the potentially dangerous social or
psycho-physiological force of the
anger
⇒ the cause of the dangerous force
⇒ the control of the social or psycho
– physiological force
⇒ the inability to control the
dangerous social or
psycho-physiological force

This research supports the claim of universality of certain metaphors. Across languages, this
particular concept of anger is conceptualized similarly. It seems that the human body is the
key component to this type of universality. Due to the perception of human body, people
conceptualize anger in the same manner. The mappings above support this claim and portray
the pattern of anger conceptualization across languages (Kövacses 2002: 170-171).

2.6. Cultural Variations of Metaphors

In the universality segment, we have discussed the similarities in metaphorical

conceptualization across languages. It is only natural to touch upon the subject of cultural
variations of metaphors, as a source of additional information.

2.7. Metonymy as a Closely Related Mechanism

Metonymy is one of the mechanisms that are closely related to metaphors.