Nghiên cứu tri nhận về ẩn dụ dựa trên các giác quan trong tiếng anh va tiếng việt

The thesis studies English and Vietnamese conceptual metaphors based on the five basic human senses namely vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste.. CD conceptual domain CL Cognitive Lin

TRẦN THỊ THÙY OANH

A COGNITIVE STUDY OF METAPHORS BASED

ON HUMAN SENSES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

DOCTORAL THESIS

IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

Danang - 2018

TRẦN THỊ THÙY OANH

A COGNITIVE STUDY OF METAPHORS BASED

ON HUMAN SENSES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

Major: English Linguistics Code: 62.22.02.01

DOCTORAL THESIS

IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

Supervisors: 1 Dr Trần Quang Hải

2 Prof Dr Nguyễn Văn Hiệp

Danang - 2018

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution

Danang, January 2018

Tran Thi Thuy Oanh

The thesis studies English and Vietnamese conceptual metaphors based on the five

basic human senses namely vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste The study uses the

descriptive, analytic, synthetic, qualitative, quantitative, comparative, contrastive, deductive and inductive methods The research finds out 19 conceptual metaphors from setting up the mappings or sets of correspondences between the source domains and target domains for each sense with the explanation in each situation At the same time, this work points out the similarities and differences between the two languages Most of conceptual metaphors can be found in both languages, but some are unique to Vietnamese or English The study also examines source domains sharing target domains Moreover, the “cross-expressions” between human senses in expressing language are also clarified The study suggests the implications for teaching, learning and translating English in the view of cognitive linguistics in general and conceptual metaphor theory in particular

CD conceptual domain

CL Cognitive Linguistics

CM conceptual metaphor CMs conceptual metaphors CMT conceptual metaphor theory HSs human senses

ME metaphorical expression

SD source domain OALD The Oxford Advanced Learning Dictionary

TD target domain

VD The Vietnamese Dictionary

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ABSTRACT ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES……….viii

LIST OF FIGURES x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Aims of the Study 3

1.3 Objectives of the Study 4

1.4 Research Questions 4

1.5 Scope of the Study 4

1.6 Significance of the Study 6

1.7 Organization of the Study 6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1 Cognitive Linguistics 8

2.1.1 The concepts of Cognitive Linguistics 8

2.1.2 Main tenets in Cognitive Linguistics 10

2.2 Conceptual Metaphor 11

2.2.1 The views of Conceptual Metaphor 11

2.2.2 Related concepts 15

2.2.2.1 Conceptual domain 15

2.2.2.2 Source domain 16

2.2.2.3 Target domain 16

2.2.2.4 Mappings 16

2.2.2.5 Conceptualization 18

2.3 Human senses 19

2.3.1 The concepts of human senses 19

2.3.2 Vision 20

2.3.5 Smell 23

2.3.6 Taste 23

2.4 Metaphor in literature 24

2.5 Related research 25

2.5.1 A general review 25

2.5.2 The typical related works in English 28

2.5.2.1 The work of Lakoff and Johnson 28

2.5.2.2 The work of Sweetser 29

2.5.2.3 The work of Ibarretxe-Antuñano 30

2.5.2.4 The work of Kövecses 31

2.5.3 The typical related works in Vietnamese 33

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 36

3.1 Data collection and analysis 36

3.1.1 Data collection 36

3.1.2 Data analysis 41

3.2 Metaphor identification……… ………43

3.3 Methods of the Study 45

3.3.1 Descriptive method 45

3.3.2 Analytic and synthetic methods 45

3.3.3 Qualitative and quantitative methods 46

3.3.4 Comparative and contrastive methods 46

3.3.5 Deductive and inductive methods 46

3.4 Summary 47

CHAPTER 4 CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS BASED ON HUMAN SENSES IN ENGLISH 49

4.1 Conceptual metaphors based on vision 49

4.1.1 AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS VISION 49

4.1.2 HUMAN EMOTION IS VISION 53

4.1.3 MEETING IS VISION 56

4.2.2 GETTING INFORMATION IS HEARING 62

4.2.3 HUMAN EMOTION IS HEARING 63

4.3 Conceptual metaphors based on touch 65

4.3.1 AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS TOUCH 65

4.3.2 HUMAN EMOTION IS TOUCH 67

4.4 Conceptual metaphors based on smell 69

4.4.1 AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS SMELL 69

4.4.2 INTEREST IS SMELL 71

4.4.3 EXPERIENCE IS SMELL 73

4.5 Conceptual metaphors based on taste 74

4.5.1 LANGUAGE IS TASTE 75

4.5.2 EXPERIENCE IS TASTE 75

4.6 Summary 76

CHAPTER 5 CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS BASED ON HUMAN SENSES IN VIETNAMESE 79

5.1 Conceptual metaphors based on vision 79

5.1.1 AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS VISION 80

5.1.2 HUMAN EMOTION IS VISION 86

5.1.3 MEETING IS VISION 91

5.1.4 JUDGMENT IS VISION 92

5.2 Conceptual metaphors based on hearing 94

5.2.1 AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS HEARING 95

5.2.2 GETTING INFORMATION IS HEARING 97

5.2.3 HUMAN EMOTION IS HEARING 99

5.3 Conceptual metaphors based on touch 101

5.3.1 AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS TOUCH 101

5.3.2 HUMAN EMOTION IS TOUCH 104

5.4 Conceptual metaphors based on smell 105

5.4.1 AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS SMELL 105

5.4.2 EXPERIENCE IS SMELL 106

5.5 Conceptual metaphors based on taste 109

5.5.1 LANGUAGE IS TASTE 110

5.5.2 EXPERIENCE IS TASTE 111

5.5.3 HUMAN EMOTION IS TASTE 111

5.5.4 THING IS TASTE 113

5.5.5 HUMAN IS TASTE 113

5.6 Summary 115

CHAPTER 6 A CROSS-LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS 118

6.1 Comparison and contrast between conceptual metaphors based on human senses in English and Vietnamese 118

6.1.1 Vision 118

6.1.2 Hearing 120

6.1.3 Touch 121

6.1.4 Smell 122

6.1.5 Taste 123

6.1.6 “Cross-expressions” between human senses 124

6.1.7 Summary 126

6.2 Source domains sharing target domains.……… ……… 128

6.2.1 Vision, Hearing, Touch, Smell - An Intellectual Activity 128

6.2.2 Vision, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Taste - Human Emotion 131

6.2.3 Vision, Hearing - Judgment 133

6.2.4 Summary 134

6.3 Chapter summary 134

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION 141

7.1 Concluding remarks 141

7.2 Implications from the results 143

7.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research 144

REFERENCES

SOURCES OF DATA

Table 1.1: The entities and sensory activities of the five basic HSs in English and

Vietnamese 5

Table 2.1: Mappings for the LIFE IS A JOURNEY metaphor 17

Table 2.2: Extremities of the five basic human senses 19

Table 4.1: Mappings for the AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS VISION conceptual metaphor 49

Table 4.2: Mappings for the HUMAN EMOTION IS VISION conceptual metaphor 54

Table 4.3: Mappings for the MEETING IS VISION conceptual metaphor 56

Table 4.4: Mappings for the JUDGMENT IS VISION conceptual metaphor 57

Table 4.5: Distribution of CMs based on vision in English 58

Table 4.6: Mappings for the AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS HEARING conceptual metaphor……… 60

Table 4.7: Mappings for the GETTING INFORMATION IS HEARING conceptual metaphor 62

Table 4.8: Mappings for the HUMAN EMOTION IS HEARING conceptual metaphor 63 Table 4.9: Distribution of CMs based on hearing in English 64

Table 4.10: Mappings for the AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS TOUCH conceptual metaphor 65

Table 4.11: Mapping for the HUMAN EMOTION IS TOUCH conceptual metaphor 68

Table 4.12: Distribution of CMs based on touch in English 69

Table 4.13: Mappings for the AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY IS SMELL conceptual metaphor 70

Table 4.14: Mapping for the INTEREST IS SMELL conceptual metaphor 72

Table 4.15: Mapping for the EXPERIENCE IS SMELL conceptual metaphor 73

Table 4.16: Distribution of CMs based on smell in English 74

Table 4.17: Mappings for the LANGUAGE IS TASTE conceptual metaphor 75

Table 4.18: Mappings for the EXPERIENCE IS TASTE conceptual metaphor 76

Table 4.19: Distribution of CMs based on taste in English 76

Table 5.3: Distribution of conceptual metaphors based on touch in Vietnamese 104

Table 5.4: Mapping for the HUMAN EMOTION IS SMELL conceptual metaphor 107

Table 5.5: Mapping for the JUDGMENT IS SMELL conceptual metaphor 108

Table 5.6: Distribution of CMs based on smell in Vietnamese 109

Table 5.7: Mapping for the HUMAN EMOTION IS TASTE conceptual metaphor 112

Table 5.8: Mapping for the THING IS TASTE conceptual metaphor 113

Table 5.9: Mapping for the HUMAN IS TASTE conceptual metaphor 113

Table 5.10: Distribution of CMs based on taste in Vietnamese 114

Table 5.11: Distribution of CMs based on HSs in Vietnamese 115

Table 6.1: Comparison and contrast between CMs based on vision in English and Vietnamese 119

Table 6.2: Comparison and contrast between CMs based on hearing in English and Vietnamese 120

Table 6.3: Comparison and contrast between CMs based on touch in English and Vietnamese 121

Table 6.4: Comparison and contrast between CMs based on smell in English and Vietnamese 122

Table 6.5: Comparison and contrast between CMs based on taste in English and Vietnamese 123

Table 6.6: Comparison and contrast between CMs based on HSs in English and Vietnamese……… 127

Table 6.7: Source domains share the target domain AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY 130

Table 6.8: Source domains share the target domain HUMAN EMOTION 133

Table 6.9: Source domains share the target domain JUDGMENT 134

Table 6.10: Comparison and contrast between CM based on HSs in English and Vietnamese 137

Figure 2.1: The structure of perception metaphors 30

Figure 2.2: A new model for perception verbs 31

Figure 3.1: Accounting the expressions by the function of the excel software 40

Figure 3.2: The folder of expressions based on vision 41

Figure 3.3: Extract of the OALD for the word ‘see’ 41

Figure 3.4: Extract of the VD for the word ‘ngọt ngào’ 62

Figure 6.1: “Cross-expressions” between human senses in Vietnamese 126

Figure 6.2: Source domains share the target domain AN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY 128

Figure 6.3: Source domains share the target domain HUMAN EMOTION 131

Figure 6.4: Source domains share the target domain JUDGMENT 133

Figure 6.5: Distribution of ME based on HSs in English 135

Figure 6.6: Distribution of ME based on HSs in Vietnamese 135

Figure 6.7: Distribution of CM based on HSs in English and Vietnamese 136

Figure 6.8: Distribution of similarity and difference of CMs of HSs in English and Vietnamese 139

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

According to the cognitive approach, linguistic knowledge is considered cognition and thinking Human beings use knowledge and experience of things and events they have and know well to transfer to those other ones in so unfamiliar or abstract concepts, especially in the case of metaphors Notably, in 1980, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson first extensively explored this theory by atypical work

Metaphors We Live By (revised in 2003) which has become popular with linguistic

works around the world in recent years It is said that the human conceptual system

is “fundamentally metaphorical in nature” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p 3)

In the view of traditional concepts, metaphor is a linguistic phenomenon with artistic and rhetoric purpose, based the similarities between two objects, used

by talented people or for special effects (Kövecses, 2010) However, it has been challenged deeply in the light of CL According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980),

“metaphor is a property of concepts, and not of words; the function of metaphor is

to better understand certain concepts, and not just some artistic or esthetic purpose” (cited in Kövecses, 2010, p 10) Lakoff and Johnson (1980) also defined that

“metaphor is often not based on similarity; metaphor is used effortlessly in everyday life by ordinary people, not just by special talented people; and metaphor, far from being a superfluous though pleasing linguistic ornament, is an inevitable process of human thought and reasoning” (cited by Kövecses, 2010, p 10) In fact,

“metaphor is defined as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain” and called “conceptual metaphor” (Kövecses, 2010, p 4) Our conceptual system is highly metaphorical, “the way we think, what we experience, and what we do everyday is very much a matter of metaphor” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p 4) In other words, in the view of CL, “metaphor is fundamental

to language and cognition in that it represents and records how people conceptualize their experiences, attitudes and practices” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980,

p 3) Lakoff (1987) shows that metaphor is conceptual in nature, and its mappings are regarded as conventional mental mechanisms and experientially motivated It allows us to “understand ourselves and our world in ways that no other modes of thought can” (Lakoff & Turner, 1989, p xi) Our own bodies are used as an ideal reference point to describe or refer to something related Kövecses (2002) defines that “although our thoughts have to be done by systematic metaphorical mapping, a common target domain is the human mind and “being such an abstract concept, it is not surprising we employ metaphors for better comprehension” (p 21)

Generally speaking, there have been many cognitive linguistic researches on metaphors based on human body parts in the world This is understandable; because human body parts are very specific, very close to our lives and our understanding We take ourselves to imagine the world, reflect the development path of our awareness by expressing ideas from concrete to abstract By talking, working, and getting feelings with the changes we experience, we receive knowledge of parts of our body According to Kövecses (2010), “the human body

is an ideal source domain, since, for us, it is clearly delineated and (we believe) we know it well This does not mean that we make use of all aspects of this domain in metaphorically understanding abstract targets” (p 18) Thus, many researches focus on conceptual metaphors based on body parts such as the head, hands, stomach or conceptual metaphors of emotion, love and so on However, there are still not any works of conceptual metaphors based on human senses in detail, especially in English compared and contrasted with Vietnamese Actually, every

day we have to look with our eyes, hear with our ears, smell through our nose, taste with our tongue, and touch things around us by hand Through the five basic

human senses of vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste, we experience the world

surrounding us and express what we get with language For instance, the SEEING

IS TOUCHING metaphor, one of examples described in Kövecses’s (2010) work,

is based on the set of correspondences like ‘take someone’s eyes off of someone’,

‘avoiding eye contact’, ‘undressing someone with one’s eyes’ Obviously, these

expressions include a context For example, the expression ‘take someone’s eyes off

of someone’ in “He couldn’t take his eyes off of her” is expressed at work It

generates the social practice Thus, according to Kövecses’s (2010), this is “a conceptual metaphor “real” in everyday social practice” (p 71) Actually, using human senses for expressing language is extremely various that can cause the misunderstanding for language users, especially people using English as a second language in Vietnam

Consequently, we would like to conduct a study entitled “A cognitive study

of metaphors based on human senses in English and Vietnamese” by doing a

comparative and contrastive analysis with the aim of being an essential study and significance in linguistics

1.2 Aims of the Study

This thesis aims to extend the later semantic concepts of conceptual metaphors drawing from cognitive linguistic concepts that are relevant and viable

to the study through tracking its history and development Specifically, by analysing the metaphorical expressions based on the five basic human senses in English and Vietnamese, this thesis will find out the mappings between concrete domains and more abstract conceptual domains for setting up the conceptual metaphors The study will also be an examination of the cross-linguistic potential through comparing and contrasting them At the same time, the study has a goal to have a closer look on the universality of such models within the source domain of the five basic human senses of vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste as well as to

find which patterns are unique for conceptual metaphors in each language In particular, the study will point out which source domains share target domains and the “cross-expressions” between these senses

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are identifying conceptual metaphors based on the five basic human senses in English and Vietnamese in the view of conceptual metaphor theory to find out the similarities and differences between them through the data collected from the later novels and short stories in these two languages In addition, by approaching the concepts of human senses, the embodied experience

of individuals is expressed clearly Additionally, a wide range of metaphors, largely

of equivalent meanings are found in both languages

1.4 Research Questions

The study aims to answer the following research questions:

(1) Which conceptual metaphors based on the five basic human senses are constructed in English and Vietnamese?

(2) In what aspects do English and Vietnamese share the same or different conceptual metaphors based on the five basic human senses?

(3) Which source domains share target domains in English and Vietnamese? (4) What are the “cross-expressions” between the five basic human senses?

1.5 Scope of the Study

For the sake of the thesis, we deliberately limit the study to the basic and

primary senses of human: vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste through

metaphorical expressions which are derived from English and Vietnamese novels and short stories published during the year 2000 to the present Because of time, space as well as knowledge limitations, this analysis focuses on the semantic features in details in terms of these five basic human senses, which are considered

as source domains, with their entities and activities listed in the table 1.1 below

Table 1.1: The entities and sensory activities of the five basic HSs in English

and Vietnamese

Human

senses

In English In Vietnamese Entities Sensory activities Entities Sensory activities

Vision eyes seeing, looking,

To avoid misunderstanding source domains with their sensory words, in the view of CL, they are capitalized: VISION, HEARING, TOUCH, SMELL, TASTE and are discussed in the such same order in the analysis chapters four, five and six

1.6 Significance of the Study

Theoretically, the study supplements some more illustrative evidence from English and Vietnamese to the original theory of metaphors in the view of Cognitive Linguistics

Practically, the study provides a systematic description, analysis, comparison and contrast of the conceptual metaphors based on the five classical human senses

in English and Vietnamese in the light of Conceptual Metaphor Theory The study has found 19 conceptual metaphors constructed in both languages The study has also proved the share of the conceptual metaphors based on the five basic human senses between English and Vietnamese conclusively Notably, the thesis has found out the source domains which share the target domains in the conceptual metaphors

as well as the “cross-expressions” of the five basic human senses in expressing language In addition, the explanations for those situations have been given to make clear the determining elements of linguistics

Generally, the study surely assists teachers, students and translators of English and Vietnamese in teaching and learning languages as well as in their works

1.7 Organization of the Study

The thesis consists of seven chapters:

Chapter 1 – Introduction - briefly introduces what would be done in the

thesis, giving readers an overview of the study in stating the rationale, aims, objectives, scope, research questions, significance and organization of the study

Chapter 2 – Literature review - This chapter first presents the related

concepts about cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor and definitions of conceptual domain, source domain, target domain, mapping, conceptualization used

in the study Besides, the concepts of five human senses: vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste are also shown Next, the related research in English and Vietnamese will be reviewed to end the chapter

Chapter 3 – Research Methodology - This chapter presents the

methodology to study, to collect the data and explains the frame to analyse the data

as well the identification of metaphor

Chapter 4 – Conceptual metaphors based on human senses in English -

This chapter focuses on the present and analysis of conceptual metaphors based on five human senses in English from finding the mappings set up from these metaphorical expressions

Chapter 5 – Conceptual metaphors based on human senses in

Vietnamese - This chapter focuses on the present and analysis of conceptual

metaphors based on five human senses in Vietnamese from finding the mappings set up from these metaphorical expressions

Chapter 6 – A cross-linguistic analysis - This chapter focuses on the

comparative and contrastive analysis of conceptual metaphors based on the five basic human senses in English and Vietnamese It intends to formulate explanations for the similarities and differences found This chapter also clarifies the aspects in sharing the conceptual metaphors, the source domains sharing target domains, and the “cross-expressions” of these five senses

Chapter 7 – Conclusion - This part synthesizes the findings of the study,

gives implications for teaching, learning and translating English for Vietnamese teachers, learners and translators as well as a suggestion for further researches

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

To give a theoretical context to the historical discussion as well as review related research to metaphors in the view of CL, this chapter first overviews Cognitive Linguistics and Conceptual Metaphor Theory for a relevant and viable basement forming the basis of the theoretical framework adopted in the present study The concepts of metaphors in the view of cognitive perspectives are presented, including concepts and definitions drawn from cognitive perspective and conceptual metaphor frameworks such as source domain, target domain, mapping, and conceptualization Next, we will make clear the concepts of the five basic human senses typically concentrating on vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste considered as five source domains in this study for emphasizing the various aspects

of sensory experience The chapter ends with the recent related research on conceptual metaphors, especially on conceptual metaphors based on body parts

2.1 Cognitive Linguistics

2.1.1 The concepts of Cognitive Linguistics

Having emerged in the early 1970s, “Cognitive linguistics (CL) is the school

of linguistics within cognitive science that conceives language creation, learning and usage as a part of a larger psychological theory of how humans understand the world” (Jackendoff, 2007 p 192) According to Evans and Green (2006), “CL is a modern school of linguistic thought with formal approaches to language” (p 5) It advocates three principal positions: It denies the existence of an autonomous linguistic faculty in the mind; It understands linguistic phenomena in terms of conceptualization; It claims that language knowledge arises out of language use (Evans, et al., 2007) CL also argues that storage and retrieval of linguistic knowledge does not have to be fundamentally different from the storage and retrieval of other knowledge It concentrates on the semantics in terms of mental spaces instead of in terms of models of the world as assumed by the objectivists

Language in CL is both embodied and situated in a specific environment so that language and cognition continually influence one another “CL is described as a

‘movement’ or an ‘enterprise’ because it is not a specific theory Instead, it is an approach that has adopted a common set of guiding principles, assumptions and perspectives” (Evans & Green, 2006, p 5) For cognitive linguists, language is not structured arbitrarily It is motivated and grounded more or less directly in experience, in our bodily, physical, social, and cultural experiences because after all, “we are beings of the flesh” (Johnson 1992, p 347)

Nesset (2008) suggests that “CL is a family of broadly compatible theoretical approaches sharing the fundamental assumption that language is an integral part of cognition” (p 9) The relationship between language and thought, of course, has been addressed by many scholars CL, however, strongly emphasizes specific features of this relation Evans (2007) identified a number of central aspects, such as

“the role of meaning, conceptual processes and embodied experience in the study of language and the mind and the way in which they intersect” (p 22) This point distinguishes cognitive linguistics different from other approaches to the study of language According to Evans (2007) that “language is assumed to reflect certain fundamental properties and design features of the human mind” (p 5) Geeraerts (1997) claimed that “the analysis of the conceptual and experiential basis of linguistic categories is of primary importance within cognitive linguistics” (p 7)

He places “all approaches in which natural language is studied as a mental phenomenon” (Geeraerts, 2006, p 3) under the umbrella of cognitive linguistic theory To make clear what is contained in CL, Evans and Green (2006) claimed:

CL is “the study of language in a way that is compatible with what is known about the human mind, treating language as reflecting and revealing the mind” (p 71)

According to Lakoff and Johnson (1999) there are two commitments of CL:

The first one is the generalization commitment, which shows its interest in

exploring general principles applied to all aspects of language use The second

commitment is the cognitive commitment, which represents a commitment to

providing a summary of the general guidelines for language in agreement with what

is known about the mind and brain from other areas of language use This is what makes this branch of language studies cognitive and, therefore, interdisciplinary in nature

In fact, CL contributes to extending the limitation of conceptual phenomena generated by cognitive scientists It could be the mappings in Conceptual Metaphor, Mental Space, and Conceptual Blending Theory which argue that language reveals the systematic processes working in the human mind, distinguishing itself by a focus on the human mind and the non-autonomy of language CL and Halliday’s Funtional Grammar both emphasize this concept against Chomsky’s viewpoint that language is autonomous

In the next part, we focus on the main ideas of Cognitive Linguistics

2.1.2 Main tenets in Cognitive Linguistics

According to Gibbs and Steen (1999), “the most fundamental tenet in this

model is embodiment” (p 29) In Barcelona’s work (1997), he defines “the design

features of languages and our ability to learn and use them are accounted for by general cognitive, kinaesthetic abilities, our visual and sensimotor skills and our human categorisation strategies, together with our cultural, contextual and functional parameters” (p 8) Gemma and Jiménez-López (2009) express that

“mental and linguistic categories are not abstract, disembodied and human independent categories; we create them on the basis of our concrete experiences and under the constraints imposed by our bodies” (p 6) Johnson (1992) defines that

‘They are motivated and grounded more or less directly in experience, in our bodily, physical, social and cultural experiences, because after all, we are beings of the flesh” (p 347)

To turn the second main idea, CL is related to the theory of linguistic

meaning According to Barcelona (1997) all linguistic forms “act as clues activating

the meanings that reside in our minds and brains This activation of meaning is not

necessarily entirely the same in every person, because meaning is based on individual experience as well as collective experience” (p 9)

Moreover, according to Johnson (1987); Lakoff and Johnson (2003); and Kövecses (2005), one of the main tenets of the cognitive linguistics approach is

human cognition In Pathak’s (2013) work, he shows “human cognition is

independent of language: linguistic expressions of cross-domain mappings are merely surface manifestations of deeper cognitive structures that have an important spatial or analogue component” (p 66)

In short, CL mainly refers to mappings concerned with the most dramatic

form called conceptual metaphor which we present in the next part

2.2 Conceptual metaphor

2.2.1 The views of conceptual metaphor

As we see above, the cognitive approach to metaphor basically focuses on two points: first, metaphor is not a product merely associated with literary language but a product of human cognition, it is found everywhere in language and is a background which helps people understand what is named novel metaphorical expressions in distinction from conventional metaphors Another focus of this approach is that, in conceptual metaphor, different domains in human mind interact with each other through the mapping mechanism This part presents the concepts of conceptual metaphor (CM)

The idea of CM is indebted to a seminar article by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 2003) which states that metaphor, in nature, is a cognitive phenomenon, and what strikes us on the surface is called linguistic metaphor Evans and Green (2006) states that “Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) may be considered the first passionate supporters of metaphors, as in their view metaphors are conceptual, as many of the ways in which we think and act are basically metaphorical” (p 44) In fact, their idea is strikingly surprising to scholars as when it is elaborated, it shows the motivation of metaphor, and it also proves that metaphor is connected in a system

Those can be considered two new points that the previous theories have not mentioned about

To emphasize this new approach to metaphor, we would like to glance briefly through the previous approaches in that they suggest that metaphor is

defined on conceptual grounds In Aristotle’s two major works Poetics and Rhetoric

(reproduced in Kirby, 1997 and in Driscoll, 2012), for example, Aristotle stated that

“metaphor, like foreign terms and unusual word forms, is a kind of “alien” used to achieve “impressiveness” (Kirby, 1997, p 534) For the readers, a good metaphor “depends upon being able to perceive likenesses - presumably likenesses

term-in thterm-ings that seem dissimilar, or at least likenesses that might not term-initially suggest themselves” (Kirby, 1997, p 536) However, Aristotle focused on the artistic dimension of the creation of metaphors The distance between the original object and the metaphorical comparison is bridged by identifying a feature which is common or similar in the two objects or ideas compared Meanwhile in Halliday’s works on metaphors, the experience is mentioned in his theory of grammatical metaphor which has attracted the attention of both functional linguists and cognitive linguists (Halliday, 1985; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) He stated that “the concept of grammatical metaphor depends on the idea that there are direct links from form to meaning to experience” (Halliday 1985, p xix) According to Halliday (1985), metaphor is a verbal transference; a variation in the expression of meanings which involves a non-literal use of words Halliday (1985) also makes a distinction between two main types of grammatical metaphor: interpersonal metaphors (or metaphors of mood) and ideational metaphors (or metaphors of transitivity) (Sáenz,

2000, p 498) Such an approach, however, seems to assume an objectivist view of reality which clearly contradicts current findings in the cognitive sciences

Reviewing these concepts of metaphors as a statement that studying metaphors as experience arose from the other perspectives on metaphors However,

to go into details, the cognitive linguistics revolutionised the conception of metaphor establishing the basic foundation for the analysis of metaphors

In Lakoff and Johnson’s study (1980, 2003), they initially realize that bodily experience is the grounding for metaphorical conceptualization, later, with the contribution of many other researchers in the field, they acknowledge that metaphor may arise from the physiology of itself as in the case of anger “Initially we had only guessed that conceptual metaphors were grounded in bodily experience They realize the system of metaphors for anger arose, across languages and cultures, from the physiology of anger itself” (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003, p 250) To Lakoff and Johnson (1980), “the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another, and we act according to the way we conceive of things” (p 5) They suggested a problem that metaphors are different from similes

with an example: ‘Her cheeks are like red roses” is a simile, but ‘Her rosy

cheeks…’ is a metaphor They explained that “metaphor is a shortened or

compressed simile, without the like element; we now know, that this is not as

simple as it may seem, as the only similarities relevant to metaphor are the ones experienced by people” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p 154)

What is Conceptual Metaphor?

To make clear what CM is, other definitions are worth examining from several scholars, such as Littlemore and Low (2006): “They are not linguistic expressions, but rather relationships” (p 12) Another viewpoint is that: “The main

assumption underlying the conceptual metaphor approach is that metaphor is not

primarily a phenomenon of language, but rather a phenomenon of thought” Tendahl (2009, p 4) For Lakoff and Johnson (2003), conceptual metaphor is a

“natural part of human thought” (p 247) To make it clear of what shape it is, Kövecses (2010) described it as having two conceptual domains and between those two domains, one (the target) is understood in terms of another (the source) Although they are the two seemingly different ways, of giving definition, their ideas summit in the point that conceptual metaphor is distinguished from linguistic metaphor and we are indebted to them for multi-dimensional understanding of conceptual metaphor that we draw out from their definition The source of

conceptual metaphor, according to Lakoff and Johnson (2003, p 154 - 155), is

“grounded in correlations within our experience These experiential correlations may be of two types: experiential co-occurrence and experiential similarity” Kövecses (2002) furthermore explains that this accounts for the unidirectionality of conceptual metaphors, that the metaphorical process generally goes “from the more concrete to the more abstract but not the other way around” (p 6) According to Kövecses (2002), CMs are “written in small capital letters as per scholarly tradition, however the wordings do not literally materialize in language and only indicate the underlying concept” (p 21) In other words, he defines a conceptual metaphor as “understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain” (Kövecses, 2002, p 21) The classical source and target domains in English such as LOVE IS A JOURNEY, LIFE IS A JOURNEY, etc were generated

by Lakoff and Johnson (2003) They are manifested through many metaphorical expressions From them, it is seen that the relationship between linguistic metaphors is created by conceptual ones An examination of examples of linguistic metaphors revealing the conceptualization LOVE IS A JOURNEY from Lakoff and

Johnson’s Metaphors we live by (cited in Kövecses, 2010, p 6) is below:

Look how far we’ve come.

We’re at the crossroads.

We’ll just have to go our separate ways.

We can’t turn back now.

I don’t think this relationship is going anywhere.

Where are we?

It can be seen that CM is understood from its grounding, its structure and meaning as follows: It is the hidden statement or thought underlying one or several linguistic metaphors; it is structured through two domains, the target domain (what

is being described) and the source domain (what is borrowed to describe); it expresses human thought and is manifested through the form A IS B (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003)

In short, CL has stressed the vital importance of conceptual metaphors as one

of two fundamental types of cognitive models in which people comprehend abstract concepts Gibbs (1998) In fact, conceptual metaphors are considered as means of viewing one concept in terms of another concept, of finding coherence across unrelated events, and of providing conceptual schemata through which humans can understand the objective world (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)

2.2.2 Related concepts

Aiming to support to the study, this part presents related definitions on CM

We examine some related concepts like conceptual domain (CD), source domain (SD), target domain (TD), mappings and conceptualization respectively

expression ‘We set out to prove bats are birds’) and the A JOURNEY DEFINES A PATH metaphor (as in the metaphorical expression ‘He strayed from the path’), we

have the AN ARGUMENT DEFINES A PATH metaphor (as in the metaphorical

expression ‘He strayed from the line of argument’) (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003)

Later, Lakoff and Johnson (2003) expanded on it as a way to lay out the target mappings

source-to-2.2.2.2 Source domain

SD is focused much in the works of many linguists as Hatch & Brown (1995), Kövecses (1991, 2005, 2006, 2008), Kövecses & Szabo (1996), Lakoff (1993), Lascaratou (2007), Lee (2001), McGlone (2007) We intend to introduce the concepts from Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2003) and Kövecses (2006) According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2003), they show that a more concrete, well-delineated (described), or a more highly structured one is called SD which is typically not as abstract or complex as TD According to Kövecses (2006), the SD

is more familiar to the speakers than the TD In addition, the source concept is accessible via direct experience, since, as said above, the source concept is really embodied: i.e., given in a direct body-based experience For instance, in the AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY conceptual metaphor, the SD is ‘a journey’

2.2.2.3 Target domain

A relatively abstract, less well-delineated, less familiar, or inherently unstructured concept is called TD (Kövecses, 2006; Lakoff, 1993) They emphasize that both TD or CD should be understood in terms of the SD structure based on a set

of conceptual correspondences between their elements Then, in the LIFE IS A JOURNEY conceptual metaphor, the ‘life’ conceptual domain is typically considered as not being more complex or abstract than the ‘journey’ conceptual domain (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980/2003) The abstract concept of LIFE, is mysterious Much in our lives is beyond our control, despite our attempts Our own direct experience of life often comprises a collection of events, which appear unpredictable and unrelated to each other In other words, in the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY, the TD is ‘life’

2.2.2.4 Mappings

According to Kövecses (2006, p 371), “conceptual metaphors are characterized by a set of conceptual correspondences between elements of the source and target domains Such correspondences can also be found within a domain between two mental spaces These correspondences are technically called

mappings” A mapping is the systematic set of correspondences which exist

between constituent elements of the SD and TD (Charteris-Black, 2004) In other

words, the systematic identification of the SD and TD is termed a metaphorical mapping “Metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology of the source domain in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain” (Lakoff, 1993, p 215)

For Charteris-Black (2004), mapping involves a set of relations of which a lot of attributes are activated, but not just one, and between these properties, there should exist the interrelationships, a certain property should not be mapped independently, but in relations with other attributes The mapping links the two domains in the sense that aspects of the source are made to correspond with the target (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff & Turner, 1989; Lakoff, 1993) In the mapping LIFE IS A JOURNEY which is clarified in the table 2.1 below, there is a tight mapping according to which entities in the domain of LIFE (e.g., the people, their life goals, the obstacles) correspond systematically to entities in the source domain of a JOURNEY (e.g., the traveller, the destinations, the difficulties in life) According to Lakoff (1993), “the systematicity indicates a fixed pattern of ontological correspondences across the two conceptual domains” (p 208) However, not every aspect of A JOURNEY or LIFE, but only select aspects of the domains, participates in metaphor (Kövecses, 2006) We can consider this metaphor with the following mapping (drawn from Kövecses, 2006, p 116):

Table 2.1: Mappings for the LIFE IS A JOURNEY metaphor

→ leading a life (with a purpose)

obstacles (in the way of motion) → difficulties (in life)

path/way of the journey → the manner/way of living

choices about the path → choices in life

Notably, it is the conceptual correspondence between the source and target domain “in a sense that constituent conceptual elements of B correspond to constituent elements of A” (Lakoff, 1986, p 7) Understanding clearly about mapping can help us interpret metaphor, we can base on the mapping to reconstruct the source, the target, and what is activated in the mapping between them In creating a metaphor, people try to code it under the mechanism of conceptualization Through the channel of mapping, therefore, in decoding it, one needs to realize the process and what is involved in that process to get the meaning, the thought behind that mapping Kövecses (2006) also suggested metaphorical

highlighting and hiding to indicate that only certain aspects of the TD participate in

metaphor and metaphorical utilization to indicate that only certain aspects of the SD

participate in metaphor Thanks to domain mapping, conceptual metaphors can

highlight this aspect; hide the other one that most politicians usually use

In short, “a metaphorical mapping for which there is an independent and direct experiential basis and independent linguistic evidence” (Tendahl, 2009, p 124)

2.2.2.5 Conceptualization

According to Evans (2007), conceptualization is a process, which is “the process of meaning construction to which language contributes It does so by providing access to rich encyclopaedic knowledge and by prompting for complex processes of conceptual integration” (p 38) In other words, conceptualization is the process of which thought patterns operate in reflecting the world in human language associated with the flexible and dynamic nature of human thought Consequently, it may embrace many linguistic metaphors as well as attributes of the SD and TD

In short, in this part we introduce some related definitions on CM to support

a background for the thesis The theoretical basis presented above on CM is used to describe and analyse CMs based on the five basic human senses in English and Vietnamese in chapter four, five and six

The concepts of the human senses are then presented to approach the exact objectives

2.3 Human senses

2.3.1 The concepts of human senses

Although it can be said that humans have more than five senses, as we presented in the scope of the study, we choose the five basic human senses namely

vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste The other senses may be suggested for the

further research in chapter seven Therefore, this part presents the concepts of these five senses

Actually, these five classical senses are considered as channels providing information about the external world It can be said that they help human beings to perceive surrounding environment According to Sekuler and Blake (1994), the senses collect information and transfer to the brain and then the human perception perceives descriptions of objects and events According to Mihaela (2016, p 24)

“the existence of perception provided that at least three main elements are present” This author emphazied that they are “the perceiver or perceptor as the person involved in this process, who carries out the perception, the object - animate or inanimate - being perceived and the act of perception itself” (p 24) This author also cited Martin Joos’ idea (1968) that “the perceptual phenomenon can be represented by an axis of visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory or tactile perception, defined by two extremities: the perceiver and perceived object” and illustrated a following form imagined by Martin Joos (1968) (cited in Mihaela, 2016, p 24):

Table 2.2: Extremities of the five basic human senses (Mihaela, 2016, p 24)

Perceiver Perceived object

The ear of the listener object heard The nose of the perceiver object smelt The tongue of the perceiver object tasted The hands of the perceiver object touched

In 1994, Sekuler and Blake envisaged the phenomenon of perception as a biological process wherein the brain obtains descriptions of objects and events, using information collected by the senses Classen (1993) also defines them as

“different modalities for conveying information about the physical world” (p 4) In

fact, each sense has a different way to provide information on that world and “each sensory modality is connected to a specific receptor organ transforming stimuli into

a subjective experience” (Mihaela, 2016, p 25) She also emphasized that “the differentiating properties are: the nature of the stimulus, the distance and contact between the stimulus and perceiver, the location and contact between the duration

of perception, the identification and modification of the stimulus by the perceiver” (p 25) According to Ibarretxe-Antunano (1999), “Biologically, each sense has its own receptors – eyes, ears, skin, nose, mouth – and its own pathways to the brain Each sense receptor responds to different stimuli: light, sound waves, mechanical disturbances, volatile substances, and soluble substances” (p 132) The concepts of each sense will be then presented and it seems logical to start with vision

2.3.2 Vision

The Oxford Advanced Learning Dictionary (OALD) states that “vision is the

faculty or state of being able to see, is the ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom, is an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance” “It is considered to be a distant sense in that human beings do not need to have a direct contact with what their eyes see” (Mihaela, 2016, p 25) According to Ibarretxe-Antuñano (1999), vision is “by far the most studied sense of the five” (p 55) In 2008, Allan also declared that it is the most significant sense with the evidence of more 75% of her research’s entries about vision In fact, Sweetser (1991) observes that vision is associated with “the objective and intellectual mental domain” (p 37) Classen (1993) defines them as “different modalities for conveying information about the physical world” (p 4) However, they do that in different ways Ibarretxe-Antuñano (1999) expresses “culturally, human beings rely more on some senses than on others” (p 210) She also concluded that vision is the most reliable in Western societies However, the senses

of the world are considered to be made from the senses of smell, hearing and touch

in Western history, and other contemporary cultures “It gives us more information than any of the other senses” (Sweetser, 1986, p 531) In other words, visual

perception is the process of registering visual sensory stimuli as meaningful experience It can be said that public knowledge may be provided through vision sense as what Sweetser (1986) suggests that vision has a connection to intellectual activity because of three reasons: “(i) Vision is our primary source of objective data about the world (ii) The focusing ability of vision that enables us to pick up one stimulus at will from many (iii) Vision is identical for different people who can take the same viewpoint” (p 531)

According to Mihaela (2016), in the process of visual perception, eyes are the main component for both capturing the light and generating messages The light is the prototypical stimulus which reflects the spatial configuration of the perceived object

in form, dimension, orientation, colour and distance Although vision is a distant sense, “the light must come into contact with the eyes in order to be transformed into neural elements and make this process possible” (Mihaela, 2016, p 25)

2.3.3 Hearing

According to the OALD, hearing is “the faculty of perceiving sounds, is an

opportunity to state one's case” Hearing has a process of auditory perception in which ears capture the sound waves representing the hearing’s prototypical stimuli and coming inside our ears” Similarly, to visual perception, “the sounds are registered in the neocortex, where the main part of the intellectual skills and the language faculty are situated” (Mihaela, 2016, p 26) According to Ibarretxe-Antunano (1999, p 210), “these sound waves are then transformed into neural events by the hair cells and analysed by neurones specialised for frequency and sound location” This author also emphazied that “hearing is the sensory modality denoting linguistic communication in which two elements are involved namely the hearer and the speaker The presence of the speaker be it a person or an object is always compulsory” (p 64)

In fact, “in hearing, as in vision, it is possible to locate the source and direction of stimulus, where sounds are coming from, even if the object that emits

the sound is far away from us, and even if we cannot perceive with our eyes, we can still hear it” (Ibarretxe-Antunano, 1999, p 210)

In Mihaela’s work in 2016, she stated interestingly that in hearing has a limitation of the ability to manipulate as vision because the ears cannot control physically the act of perception as opening, closing or directing as the eyes and this mechanism is constantly open Therefore, according to the same linguist (2016),

“within active visual perception, the perceiver physically and mentally controls the act of perception, while the control is only mental for the hearer” (p 26) Although the hearer and speaker are two elements involved in hearing which “is said to be the sense of linguistic communication” and the speaker who “could be a person or an object, known or unknown, but the fact is that it is always present” (Ibarretxe-Antunano, 1999, p 64)

2.3.4 Touch

Touch is defined in the OALD as “coming into or being in contact with,

handling in order to interfere with, altering or otherwise affecting, affecting or concerning, producing feelings of affection, gratitude, or sympathy in, reaching (a specified level or amount)” “Touch provides people with the possibility to learn, interact with the others and even protect themselves from unpleasant or dangerous situations” (Mihaela, 2016, p 26) In other words, according to same linguist, “the perception of touch is the contact between the skin and an external entity such as a different object when mechanical disturbances produce nerve impulses” (p 26) This author presented “the difference with the other senses results from the fact that the sensations are due to stimulation anywhere on the entire body” (p 26) and the hand is considered as the most subject organ to stimulation “It is important to notice that tactile perception is always superficial and thus, the perceiver can in this way obtain information about the temperature, shape, size, and surface of a perceived object” (Ibarretxe-Antunano, 1999, p 139) This author defined “by touching an object, the perceiver can tell what the limits of the perceived object are” (p 26) Mihaela (2016) also emphasized that in sensory modalities, the touch

always has a connection to emotions Buck (1949) gives an example of ‘feel of’ and

‘feel’ as in ‘perceive by touch’ “refers not only to the physical perception but also to

the emotions” and Hans Kurath (1921) explains that “this transfer of meaning from sense perception to emotion on the basis of the similarity of feeling that both domains share” (cited in Mihaela, 2016, p 26)

2.3.5 Smell

In the OALD, smell is defined as “the faculty or power of perceiving odours

or scents by means of the organs in the nose, a highly developed sense of smell, perceiving or detecting the odour or scent of, emitting an odour or scent of a specified kind” In Mihaela’s work (2016), she stated that “the perceiver’s age or gender, the distance between him and the source of the odour, the concentration level of odorous molecules are all factors that make this perception different from odour to odour” (p 26) According the same linguist, “the information obtained is projected into the limbic region of the brain, also called the emotional brain Thus, odours receive an immediate, positive or negative valorisation” (p 26) Viberg (1984) gave a reason for this is that “it often signals the presence of something at a distance from the perceiver” (p 148) We must recognize that, from all senses,

while vision is the one that is by far the most commonly used to objectively describe what one perceives, smell is the least developed sense in humans It cannot be interpreted similarly to the stimulus for vision or hearing

2.3.6 Taste

Taste is defined in the OALD: “The sensation of flavour perceived in the

mouth and throat on contact with a substance” According to Ibarretxe-Antunano (1999), the sense of taste has some properties: (1) contact, (2) voluntary, (3) briefness and (4) subjectivity According to Miller and Reedy (1990), the taste buds are the responsible receptor cells for the reception of chemical substances The most sensitive part, however, is the tip of the tongue; this can identify tastes in only a couple of seconds Besides, taste information arrives at the brain over several different communication lines In the brain, there are two sections involved: on the

one hand, the insular cortex - located between the temporal and parietal lobes – whose activity triggers the conscious experience of tastes; and on the other, part of the limbic system, which registers some behaviourally relevant information about

taste As seen in the case of smell, this is a possible explanation for the differences

in the aesthetic judgments of the perceivers in reference to the classification of

tastes, both physically and metaphorically The physical sense of taste is generally

linked to personal likes and dislikes in the mental world Perhaps the reason why

this is so lies in the fact that the sense of taste is most closely associated with fine

discrimination

In short, thanks to these characteristics of human senses, they are used to create many metaphorical expressions, especially in literature The next part presents metaphor in literature

2.4 Metaphor in literature

According to Kövecses (2010), “one of the startling discoveries of work on poetic language by cognitive linguists is the recognition that most poetic language is based on conventional, ordinary conceptual metaphors” (p 50) In fact, he emphasized that metaphors have a relationship when they are used in ordinary language and in literature (Kövecses, 2010) According to the same author, “there is

a widespread notion among lay people and scholars alike that the “real” source of metaphor is in literature and the arts” (p 50) In fact, he found that “everyday language and the everyday conceptual system contribute a great deal to the working

of the artistic genius” (p 49) In literature, writers obviously create new metaphors

“jumping out” from the text and “they have a tendency to be noteworthy by virtue

of their frequently anomalous or strange character” (Kövecses, 2010, p 49) For illustration, Gibbs (1994) analysed an example (cited in Kövecses, 2010, p 49)

from the novel Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel García Márquez: “Once he

tasted some chamomile tea … “This stuff tastes of window.” … it did taste of window” In this situation, a new perspective is created from a reality by the author

with an idea of creating an unconventional metaphor “tea tastes like window” This

is one of literary metaphors that are original and creative (Kövecses, 2010) Besides, the characteristics of personification, extended metaphors, image-based metaphors,

or “megametaphors” are also included in literary texts

In summary, according to Kövecses (2010), the authors often make metaphors constituting a special set These metaphors are done by ordinary people There are some ways to transform them used by writers like extending, elaboration, combining or questioning that make literary metaphors special “Although people are not explicitly instructed about which element of one image maps onto which element of another, they can perform the mappings successfully in the process of interpreting literary texts” (Kövecses, 2010, p 59)

2.5 Related research

2.5.1 A general review

From Aristotlian’s time, the existence of metaphors has been recognized (Kövecses, 2002, p 5) Until the 1960s-70s, cognitive linguistics emerged and was considered the classic study According to Evans and Green (2006), although firmly rooted around ten years ago, CL’s research was dominated by a few scholars

in the 1970s-80s However, “by the early 1990s, there was a growing proliferation

of research in this area, and of researchers who identified themselves as cognitive

linguists” (Evans & Green, 2006, p 5) It “marked the birth of cognitive linguistics

as a broadly grounded, self conscious intellectual movement” (Langacker, 1991/2002, p xv) Then, CL has gained a good deal of visibility in research in many languages in the world The works can be listed here: Evans (2007); Evans & Green (2006), Lee, D (2001) and Geeraerts (2006) had the works to introduce CL; Johnson (1992) gave a detail in philosophical implications of Cognitive Semantics;

Langacker (1987) wrote “Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical

Prerequisites”; Nesset T (2008) showed “Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model: Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology - Phonology Interface”;

Sweetser (1999) studied on “Compositionality and blending: semantic

composition, in cognitively realistic framework” and “Blended spaces and

performativity” (2000); Talmy (2000) gave a study of “Toward a Cognitive Semantics”; Ly ́ Toàn Thắng had some typical works such as “Linguistics and

Space Cognition” (1984), “Cognitive Linguistics - From theory to Practice”

(2005) and “Applying embodiment theory on analysing some linguistic

expressions” (2007) Some authors studied it on cultural aspects such as Sweetser

with “From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of

Semantic Structure” (1990) In 2003, Boers showed special issue on applied

linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor Johnson

(1987) had “The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and

Reason”

There are indeed many works on CL, especially on conceptual metaphor - one of the salient achievements of this approach Many typical authors with the works of metaphor in the view of CL can be remarked Searle (1993) had a study of

“Metaphor.” Gibbs and Steen (1999) gave “Metaphor in cognitive linguistics”, especially Lakoff and Kövecses Lakoff had “Metaphors We Live By” (with Johnson, [1980], 2003), “A Figure of Thought Metaphor and Symbolic Activity” (1986), “Image Metaphors Metaphor and Symbolic Activity” (1987), “More Than

Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor” (with Turner, 1989), “The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image schemas?” (1990),

“The contemporary theory of metaphor” (1993), “Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought” (with Johnson, 1999)

Besides, Kövecses also had many works of metaphor in the view of CL such as

“Happiness: A definitional effort - Metaphor and Symbolic Activity” (1991),

“Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling” (2000);

“Metaphor: A Practical Introduction” ([2002] 2010), “Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation” (2005), “Language, mind and culture: a practical introduction” (2006), “Metaphor and emotion” (2008) Charteris-Black (2004)

stated the corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis Picken (2007) performed

a study of “Literature, Metaphor, and the Foreign Language Learner” Trần Văn

Cơ stated his works in “Cognitive Linguistics - noting and thinking” (2007),

“Perception, Cognition - Two but one” (2007), “An introduction to Cognitive Linguistics” (2011), “Cognitive Linguistics - Explaining and Contrasting Dictionary” (2011) Phan Văn Hòa (2008) studied of “Comparative Metaphor, Pragmatic Metaphor and Grammatical Metaphor” Nguyễn Đứ c Dân (2009) had

“Cognition in space of Vietnamese” In 2007, Pragglejaz Group gave two works:

“A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse Metaphor and Symbol” and “A Practical and Flexible Method for Identifying Metaphorically - Used Words in Discourse” In 2008, Phan Thế Hưng performed a study of

“Cognitive Model in conceptual metaphor” In 2009, he continued with studying of

“An investigation of Vietnamese metaphors in the view of Cognitive Linguistics”

for his doctoral dissertation Steen et al (2010) gave “Metaphor in Usage” There

are also many works in comparing and contrasting with many world languages like

Charteris-Black with “Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative

study of Malay and English” (2002); Trần Thi ̣ Thu Huê ̣ with “A contrastive and comparative study of metaphor in Vietnamese and Korean in the view of Cognitive Linguistics” (2002); Nguyễn Thi ̣ Quyết with “Metaphors in contemporary English and Vietnamese poetry: a study from cognitive approach” (2015); Trần Bá Tiến

with “A study of idioms of emotion in English and Vietnamese in the view of

Cognitive Linguistics” (2015); Nguyễn Văn Trào with “Idioms of emotion: A comparative and contrastive analysis” (2009), etc

In the view of CL, “mental and linguistic categories are not abstract, disembodied and human independent categories; we create them on the basis of our concrete experiences and under the constraints imposed by our bodies” (Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 1999, p 18) Therefore, using body parts to express the metaphorical meanings is extremely popular in daily life which attracts the linguists’ interest

with many famous works like: Nguyễn Văn Phổ with “Perception verbs in

Vietnamese” (2009); Ibarretxe-Antuñano with “Polysemy and Metaphor in Perception Verbs: A Cross-linguistic Study (1999); Olfactory Research Fund

with “Living well with your Sense of Smell (1996); Sekuler & Blake with

“Perception” (1994); Viberg with “The verbs of perception: A typological study”

(1984), etc

However, due to space and time limitations, we will choose only a certain number of salient related works of metaphor in English and Vietnamese to review

2.5.2 The typical related works in English

2.5.2.1 The work of Lakoff and Johnson

In 1980, Lakoff and Johnson first published their seminal book Metaphors

We Live By (revised 2003) which has been applied to the study of many different

languages In this work, Lakoff and Johnson gave a new perspective on metaphor They take the position that metaphor is a part of language usage and is therefore part of cognition Further, metaphor is not merely cognitive; it is also a linguistic, sociocultural, neural, and bodily phenomenon (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 2003) This view is shared by other scholars (Gibbs, 1998; Kövecses, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2010; Charteris Black, 2002; Picken, 2007) The difference with previous approaches is that, in the CL perspective, metaphor is defined as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another According to Lakoff and Johnson (2003), metaphor constitutes one of the basic strands of CL, and one which is mentioned in most CL studies in CL In other words, CL gave conceptual metaphorical analysis its academic foundation (Kövecses, 2002) Lakoff & Johnson (1980) stated that “these patterns are in fact so widespread and established that it affects the way we speak, think and even act, thus being a dominant character in our everyday life” (p 3) It is also defined that “they ultimately assert that metaphors go beyond mere words and that our thought processes are largely metaphorical in nature” (p 6)

In the view of CL, metaphors are understood in association with a system of many other metaphors: together, they form what is called a conceptual metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003)

Conceptual metaphor has been investigated in a number of specific domains

In economics texts, Johnson (1987) argued in The Body in the Mind: The “bodily