An Investigation Into Conceptual Metaphors Denoting “Love” In American And Vietnamese Romantic Novels From 2008 To 2013 . M.A Thesis Linguistics

How love can be conceptualized in romantic novels and how conceptual representations vary across language and cultures have inspired me to carry out a research entitled: “An investigatio

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES

**********************

LÊ THỊ KHÁNH HÒA

AN INVESTIGATION INTO CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS DENOTING “LOVE” IN AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE

ROMANTIC NOVELS FROM 2008 TO 2013

Nghiên cứu ẩn dụ ý niệm dùng để biểu đạt “tình yêu”

trong các tiểu thuyết lãng mạn Mỹ - Việt từ 2008 đến 2013

M A Major Program Thesis

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

HA NOI – 2015

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES

**********************

LÊ THỊ KHÁNH HÒA

AN INVESTIGATION INTO CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS DENOTING “LOVE” IN AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE

ROMANTIC NOVELS FROM 2008 TO 2013

Nghiên cứu ẩn dụ ý niệm dùng để biểu đạt “tình yêu”

trong các tiểu thuyết lãng mạn Mỹ - Việt từ 2008 đến 2013

M A Major Program Thesis

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Huỳnh Anh Tuấn, Ph.D

HA NOI – 2015

DECLARATION

I hereby certify my authority of the research submitted entitled “An

investigation into conceptual metaphors denoting “love” in American and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013” in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Hanoi 2014

Lê Thị Khánh Hòa

I am greatly indebted to all my lecturers at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, for their endless enthusiasm and undeniable helpful lectures I would be very grateful to the staff of the Post-graduate Department for their support during the time of studying

I would like to send special thank to two consultants Mr Cesar Villanueva, working

in California and Mr Myron Baker, studying in Texas for their candid suggestions and encouragement I also want to express my appreciation to my friends, who are always ready to help me whenever I have difficulties

Last but not least, my warmest thanks are due to my family, especially my mother and my uncle Phạm Văn Hải, for their unconditional love, support, and forbearance

To all of them, I dedicate this study

Hanoi, September 2014

Lê Thị Khánh Hòa

ABSTRACT

This study aims at investigating how the abstract concept love is conceptualized in

American and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013 The theory of conceptual metaphor suggested by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Kovecses (1986)

is adopted as the analytical framework in this study 200 samples of metaphorical

expressions denoting love were found in American and Vietnamese romantic

novels, which were written by native speakers The results show that love can be

conceptualized as war, madness/ insanity, magic, physical forces, pains, fire/

heat, a journey, and a nutrient in both languages However, it is easier to find

the metaphorical expressions Love is a container in American than in

Vietnamese In addition, the results show that there are many expressions

conceptualized Love as revenge in American, but it is not the case in

Vietnamese The results express the significant of cognitive semantics, which can

be applied in teaching, learning, and translating

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Declaration ……… i

Acknowledgements ……… ii

Abstract ……… iii

Table of contents ……… iv

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale of the study 1

2 Significance of the study 2

3 Aims, research questions, and scope of the study 2

4 Method and Procedures 4

5 Organization of the study 5

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 7

CHAPTER I: Theotical Background and Literature Review 7

1 Cognitive Linguistics 7

2 Cognitive Semantics 8

2.1 Cognitive approaches to grammar and cognitive semantics 8

2.2 Cognitive semantics: Guiding principles 9

2.2.1 Conceptual structure is embodied 10

2.2.2 Semantic structure is conceptual structure 11

2.2.3 Meaning representation is encyclopaedic 12

2.2.4 Meaning construction is conceptualization 13

3 Conceptual Metaphor Theory 13

3.1 Metaphor 13

3.1.1 Traditional theories of metaphors 13

3.1.2 Contemporary theories of metaphors 14

3.2 Conceptual Metaphors 16

3.2.1 Definition 16

3.2.2 Classification of conceptual metaphors 16

3.2.2.1 Structural metaphors 17

3.2.2.2 Ontological metaphors 18

3.2.2.3 Orientational metaphors 19

3.2.3 Conceptual metaphoric domains 21

3.2.3.1 One-to-one domain mapping 22

3.2.3.2 One-to-many domain mapping 23

3.2.3.3 Many-to-one domain mapping 24

4 Romantic novels 26

4.1 Definition 26

4.2 Classification 26

4.2.1 Historical romance 26

4.2.2 Contemporary romance 27

4.2.3 Paranormal romance 27

5 Previous studies 28

CHAPTER II: Research Methodology 30

1 Research design and methodology 30

2 Data 31

2.1 American romantic novels 31

2.1.1 The lucky one (2008) 31

2.1.2 Not another bad date (2008) 32

2.1.3 What I did for love (2009) 32

2.1.4 Last night at Chateau Marmont (2010) 32

2.2 Vietnamese romantic novels 33

2.2.1 Cocktail cho tình yêu (2009) 33

2.2.2 Nhắm mắt thấy Paris (2010) 33

2.2.3 Nếu có một linh hồn yêu em (2012) 33

2.2.4 Vẽ em bằng màu nỗi nhớ (2013) 33

3 Data collection 34

4 Data analysis 35

5 Research procedures 40

6 Reliability and Validity 43

CHAPTER III: Findings and Discussion 44

1 Quantitative analysis 44

1.1 Structural metaphors 46

1.2 Ontological metaphors 49

1.3 Orientational metaphors 49

2 Qualitative analysis 50

2.1 Conceptual metaphors denoting love in American romantic novels from 2008 to 2013 50

2.1.1 Love is a container 50

2.1.2 Love is war 51

2.1.3 Love is madness or insanity 52

2.1.4 Love is magic 53

2.1.5 Love is physical forces 54

2.1.6 Love is pains 55

2.1.7 Love is fire or heat 56

2.1.8 Love is a journey 57

2.1.9 Love is a nutrient 58

2.1.10 Love is revenge 58

2.2 Conceptual metaphors denoting love in Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013 59

2.2.1 Love is a container 59

2.2.2 Love is war 60

2.2.3 Love is madness or insanity 61

2.2.4 Love is magic 62

2.2.5 Love is physical forces 63

2.2.6 Love is pains 64

2.2.7 Love is fire or heat 64

2.2.8 Love is a journey 65

2.2.9 Love is a nutrient 66

2.2.10 Love is revenge 66

PART C: CONCLUSION 67

1 Research findings 67

1.1 Similarities 67

1.2 Differences 69

2 Implications for the study 71

2.1 Implications for teachers 72

2.2 Implications for learners 73

2.3 Implications for translators 73

3 Limitations and suggestions for further study 74

References 76 Appendices……… I

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the study

It is obvious that English has become an important part not only in communication but also in many other aspects of life Hence, one of the most important factors for developing countries like Vietnam to increase the integration process is that the teaching of English for the young generations should be much invested and become the top policy However, how to study it well and how to master it is still a difficult question for many learners

In recent years, cognitive linguistics has been considered as an increasingly essential discipline in language studies One of the most important branches of cognitive linguistics is cognitive semantics which emphasizes the importance of metaphor in language Metaphor – a perceptual conceptualizing tool, involves human cognitive processes, hence it helps men understand the changing world around In other words, conceptual metaphors help us to comprehend a relatively abstract concept thanks to a more concrete concept

Love is an eternal topic, whether in daily life or in literary works, or in films, which are universal and complex Due to certain cultural contexts or specific geography, love has its own uniqueness In other words, expressing love is not an easy task and different languages may have different conventions The description of conceptual love is beyond practicality However, it is undeniable that our emotions like happiness, sadness, anger… especially love can turn to be metaphorical Metaphor arises when a familiar, well-understood concept (the source) is used to explain or structure another less-familiar one (the target) How love can be conceptualized in romantic novels and how conceptual representations vary across language and

cultures have inspired me to carry out a research entitled: “An investigation into

conceptual metaphors denoting “love” in American and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013” It is hoped that this investigation will contribute to the

understanding and interpretation of conceptual metaphors in American and Vietnamese romantic novels

2 Significance of the study

2.1 In terms of theory

This study is hoped to provide useful contributions to studies of linguistic units from cognitive semantic approach, which in turn can shed light on researches in other fields such as psychology, psycholinguistics, and applied cultural linguistics

2.2 In terms of practice

This research is expected to help Vietnamese learners of English better understand conceptual metaphors in American and Vietnamese literary works Moreover, it can contribute to the teaching of American literature in Vietnamese universities of foreign languages

3 Aims, research questions, and scope of the study

3.1 Aims of the study

The study aims at investigating conceptual metaphors denoting “love” in American and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013 in the light of cognitive semantics Specifically, it aims at the following:

- Investigating how the concept of love is metaphorically expressed in

American and Vietnamese romantic novels

- Investigating the similarities and differences in expressions of conceptual

metaphors used for describing love in American and Vietnamese romantic

novels

- Suggesting the implications for the teaching, learning and translating of conceptual metaphors denoting love

3.2 Research questions

In order to achieve the aims of the study, the following research questions should

be taken into consideration:

- How is the concept for love metaphorically expressed in American and

Vietnamese romantic novels?

- What are the similarities and differences in expressions of conceptual

metaphors denoting love in American and Vietnamese romantic novels?

3.3 Scope of the study

Due to the limited time and ability, this research investigates only the similarities

and differences in expressions of conceptual metaphors denoting love in American

and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008 to 2013 from cognitive linguistic perspective Eight romantic novels in both languages, four in American and four in Vietnamese, will be chosen for the research aim as follows:

- Vietnamese romantic novels:

Cocktail cho tình yêu (Trần Thu Trang, 2009, 3rd edition)

Nhắm mắt thấy Paris (Dương Thụy, 2010)

Nếu có một linh hồn yêu em (Ngô Hoàng Anh, 2012)

Vẽ em bằng màu nỗi nhớ (Tâm Phạm, 2013)

- American romantic novels:

The lucky one (Nicolas Sparks, 2008)

Not another bad day (Rachel Gibson, 2008)

What I did for love (Susan Elizabeth Phillips, 2009)

Last night at Chateau Marmont (Lauren Weisberger, 2010)

4 Method and Procedures

4.1 Research Method

The study will be carried out through contrastive and comparative analysis in order

to investigate the similarities and differences in expressions of conceptual

metaphors denoting love in American and Vietnamese romantic novels from 2008

to 2013 from cognitive semantic perspective

4.2 Data collection

Metaphorical expressions denoting love will be collected from American and

Vietnamese romantic novels issued on the Internet and in publication printings from 2008 to 2013

4.3 Data analysis

The model as well as the instrument of the analysis and comparison of the two sets

of data collected in the two languages was adopted from Lakoff and Johnson as introduced in their invaluable book of “Metaphor We Live By” (1980) In this model, conceptual metaphors are classified into three different kinds, namely

structural metaphors, ontological metaphors and orientational metaphor

In structural metaphor, one concept is “…metaphorically structured in term of

another” The ontological metaphors are based on experiences with physical

objects, that is “…ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc as entities

and substances” By this way, when the target domain is not discrete or bounded,

these can still be categorized and identified In contrast, most of orientational metaphors deal with “spatial orientation” Therefore, a special relationship which

is normally based on experiences of the physical space is needed for this concept The data will be both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed Quantitatively, the data will be analyzed in terms of the frequencies of structural, ontological, and

orientational metaphors Qualitatively, the data will be examined and evaluated

based on the set of expressions denoting love as follows:

Love is physical forces

Love is madness or insanity

Love is magic

Love is war

Love is container

Love is a journey Love is fire or heat Love is nutrient Love is pains Love is revenge

E.g

LOVE IS PAINS

- His telephone message had ripped out her heart

- Tôi nhìn trân trân vào gương mặt đang cúi gằm của Khả Di, cảm giác như ngàn

mũi dao đâm nát trái tim mình lần nữa (Ngô Hoàng Anh, 2012)

LOVE IS MADNESS OR INSANITY

- Đan bật cười, cô với anh nói chuyện như hai kẻ dở hơi (Trần Thu Trang,

2009)

- Love is being crazy together (Lauren Weisberger, 2010)

5 Organization of the study

This study will cover the four main parts:

Part A: “Introduction” This part will present the rationale, the aims and the methodology It will also be discussed to the presentation of the scope, the significance and the organization of the study

Part B: “Development” This part will consist of three chapters:

Chapter I: “Theoretical background and Literature review” This chapter will

provide the fundamental knowledge of metaphors in general and conceptual

metaphors in particular Theoretical matters related to the study such as definition of cognitive semantics, guiding principles of cognitive semantics, the theories of metaphor, the conceptual metaphors, the metaphoric mappings, and the basic concepts of novels will be presented Then, some related researches about conceptual metaphors will also be discussed

Chapter II: “Research Methodology” This chapter will discuss the methods and

the procedures of the research This chapter will also deal with the description of samples and how the data are collected, described and analyzed

Chapter III: “Findings and Discussion” This chapter will mainly focus on

describing and analyzing the conceptual metaphor for American and Vietnamese expressions of love in order to understand how conceptual metaphors use similarly and differently in two languages

Part C: “Conclusion” This part will summarize the study’s results and presents the suggested implications for learning, teaching and translating conceptual metaphors in American and Vietnamese It will also present some limitations and suggestions for further research

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND

LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter is a critical analysis of the relevant literature of nature of cognitive aspects such as cognitive linguistics, cognitive semantics, metaphors, and conceptual metaphors The aim is to establish a theoretical background for the

comparative and contrastive study of conceptual metaphors denoting love in

American and Vietnamese romantic novels

1 Cognitive Linguistics

Cognitive linguistics is a modern school of linguistic thought and practice, which

Fauconnier and Turner (1998:133) refer as “a powerful approach to the study of

language, conceptual systems, human cognition, and general meaning construction” What makes cognitive linguistics differentiate from other

approaches to the study of language is that language is hypothesized to reflect certain principle properties and design features of the human mind In other words, it fundamentally examines the interrelation of human languages, the mind and socio-physical experience

Lakoff (1991:53) argues that the cognitive linguistics enterprise is identified by

two key commitments The first key commitment is the Generalization

Commitment which represents the characterization of general principles that are

responsible for all aspects of human language Other approaches try to separate the language into distinct aspects or modules such as phonology (sound), semantics (word and sentence meaning), pragmatics (meaning in discourse context), morphology (word structure), syntax (sentence structure), and so on

As a result, the generalization across these aspects of language or the study of their interrelations is incompletely recognized Conversely, cognitive linguists,

when mention Generalization Commitment, disagree that “the ‘modules’ or

‘subsystems’ of language are organized in significantly divergent ways, or indeed that distinct modules or subsystems even exist” (Evans & Green,

2006:28) Thus, Generalization Commitment extensively investigates the

abilities of linguistics knowledge emerge from a common set of human mind upon which they draw, rather than assuming that they are produced in encapsulated modules of the mind

The second defining key feature of Cognitive linguistics is Cognitive

Commitment While General Commitment concentrates on the research of the

common principles of all aspects of language, Cognitive Commitment helps

cognitive linguists recognize the principles of linguistic structure in which the knowledge about human cognitive is reflected from other cognitive and brain

disciplines Naturally, Cognitive Commitment is basically interdisciplinary such

as psychology, artificial intelligence, cognitive neuroscience, and philosophy (Evans, 2012:2)

In brief, how people can draw unconsciously on enormous cognitive and cultural resources, call up models and frames to set up numerous connections, organize large arrays of information, and use creative mappings, transfers, and elaborations when human beings engage in any language activity are undoubtedly recognized thanks to cognitive linguistics

2 Cognitive Semantics

2.1 Cognitive approaches to grammar and cognitive semantics

Cognitive approaches to grammar and cognitive semantics are the two main branches of cognitive linguistics Evans & Green (2006:50) adopt the viewpoint

that cognitive approaches to grammar refer to “the study of the symbolic

linguistic units that comprise language” This branch is concerned with

modeling the language system – the mental ‘grammar’ rather than the nature of mind itself and commonly accepts one of two foci According to these scholars, some cognitive grammarians agree that the fundamental unit of grammar is a form-meaning pairing or symbolic unit in which all linguistics forms contribute

to and express meaning, while some others follow the usage-based thesis which aims to depict the complexity of language use and focuses on the characterization of language and the motivation of its use Langacker (1987:494) states that the usage-based thesis constitutes a non-reductive approach to linguistic structure

Cognitive semantics – another essential branch of cognitive linguistics – is

concerned with modeling of meaning and attempts to recognize “the relationship

between experience, embodied cognition and language” (Evans & Green,

2006:50) More specifically, Evans, Bergen, and Zinken (2007:5) assume that cognitive semanticists research into knowledge representation (conceptual structure) and meaning construction (conceptualization) Linguistic meaning is seen through the lens of cognitive semantics as a manifestation of conceptual structure Sharing the same viewpoint, Talmy (2004:4) describes cognitive

semantics as “research on conceptual content and its organization in language”

The infrequent segregation between the study of cognitive approaches to grammar and cognitive semantics in practice, note Evans et al (2007:6), does not necessarily lead to the independent exist of their domains of enquiry However, in the hope of finding the conceptual metaphors denoting “love”, this research will primarily focus on cognitive semantics

2.2 Cognitive semantics: Guiding principles

It can affirm that cognitive semantics is a multifaceted framework Different cognitive semanticists are certainly interested in different foci and aspects Nevertheless, Evans & Green (2006:157) suggest that four main guiding

principles collectively characterizing a cognitive semantics approach should be taken consideration

2.2.1 Conceptual structure is embodied

The interaction between human conceptual structure and the external world of sensory experience is the central interest of cognitive semanticists To put it simply, cognitive semanticists try to explore the awareness and interaction of human beings toward the external world and, then, connect a theory of conceptual structure with which people have experienced in the world Evans

and Green (2006:45) affirm that “…our construal of reality is likely to be

mediated in large measure by the nature of our bodies” One idea that is

proposed to explain this interaction is the embodied cognition thesis by Lakoff (1987, 1990, and 1993) and Johnson (1987) This thesis assumes that the nature

of conceptual organization arises from bodily experience It means that human can use effectively the linguistics expressions that carry the meaning to the hearers due to the embodied experience which we can conceive and perceive in the external world Briefly, the embodied cognition thesis can be stated as a

general proposition: “[The] properties of certain categories are a consequence

of the nature of human biological capacities and of the experience of functioning

in a physical and social environment” (Lakoff, 1987:12)

Johnson (1987) proposes that image schemas are relatively abstract concepts arising from embodied experience In their book, Evans and Green (2006:157) posit that image schematic conceptual structure can create more abstract kinds of meaning, while one concept like CONTAINER is grounded in directly human embodied experience of interacting with bounded landmark Let consider the following examples from Lakoff and Johnson (1980:32):

a He’s in love

b We’re out of trouble now

c He’s coming out of the coma

d I’m slowly getting into shape

e He entered a state of euphoria

f He fell into a depression.

In these examples, it is clear that the concept of CONTAINER is metaphorically projected onto the abstract conceptual domain of STATES, which consists of other concepts like LOVE, TROUBLE, and HEALTH As a result, we have the base conceptual metaphor STATES ARE CONTAINERS, and more specific LOVE IS CONTAINER, TROUBLE IS CONTAINER, and HEALTH IS CONTAINER The key behind metaphorical projection is that concrete concepts like CONTAINER derive from linguistics expressions in human daily experience and structure more abstract conceptual domains like STATES This is the way in which conceptual structure is embodied

2.2.2 Semantic structure is conceptual structure

This guiding principle asserts that language helps reflect the concepts in the mind

of the speaker rather than directly refer to the objects in the real external world (Evans and Green, 2006:159) In other words, semantic structure, which allows the conventional meanings to associate with words or other linguistic units, can be equal to conceptual structure However, the authors also add that the equality of semantic structure and conceptual structure does not imply that these two are interchangeable Moreover, the meanings conventionally associated with linguistic units can only form a subset of possible concepts For example, from Langacker’s observation (1987:103), we definitely have concept for the space on the face between our nose and mouth where the hair grows called a moustache However, there is no English word which can be conventionally encoded this concept As a result, there are more thoughts, ideas, and feelings than the number of meanings which can be encoded in language

2.2.3 Meaning representation is encyclopaedic

It is proved that the conventional meanings associated with linguistic units, such as words can help differentiate the utterances, as an example below:

The consequence of the conventional range of meanings associated with sad and

happy helps distinguish the meanings in examples (a) and (b) However, cognitive

semanticists affirm that the conventional meaning associated with a particular linguistic units act only as a “prompt” to the appropriate selection for interpretation

in the particular context of the utterance To illustrate this point, let consider the

word “safe” in the examples provided by Fauconnier and Turner (2002), with the

context of a child playing on the beach:

a The child is safe

b The beach is safe

c The shovel is safe

From this context, the interpretation of (a) is clearly that the child will not come to any harm However, the interpretations of (b) and (c) do not mean that the beach or the shovel will not come to harm, but that neither beach nor shovel will cause any harm to the child Clearly, there is no fixed feature of the word “safe” which attaches with specific word such as “child”, “beach”, or “shovel” Yet, to understand the meaning of the utterance, we extract and synthesize our encyclopaedic knowledge relating to children, beach, and shovel, and the knowledge relating to what it means to be safe We will also select the proper interpretation for the context of the utterance In brief, this guiding principle

emphasizes that “semantic structure is encyclopaedic in nature” (Evans and Green,

2006:160) This means that all neatly packaged meanings of lexical concepts do not

be entirely represented Instead, the lexical concepts are considered as “points of access” to vast repositories of knowledge relating to a particular concept or conceptual domain (e.g., Langacker, 1987)

2.2.4 Meaning construction is conceptualization

This principle implies that meaning cannot be encoded by language itself but can

be constructed at the conceptual level because words (and other linguistic units) are only ‘prompts’ for the construction of meaning In other words, meaning construction is equated with conceptualization – a process whereby an array of conceptual operations and the recruitment of background knowledge are prompted

by linguistic units Consequently, meaning is a process rather than “a discrete

‘thing’ that can be ‘packaged’ by language” (Evans and Green, 2006:162)

3 Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Cognitive linguists have admitted that Conceptual Metaphor Theory suggested by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) was one of the earliest and the most influential theoretical frameworks which contributed to the theoretical impetus of cognitive semantic approach and of other neighboring disciplines like cognitive psychology and anthropology The basic premise of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, emphasize Lakoff & Johnson (1980:3), is that metaphor is not simply a stylistic feature of

language but it is “fundamentally metaphorical in nature” This theory also

suggests that the organization of conceptual structure is based on cross domain mappings or correspondences between conceptual domains Lakoff and Johnson, along with their collaborators, connect the first two of the central principles of cognitive semantics (2.2.1 & 2.2.2) and claim that some of these mappings are due

to pre-conceptual embodied experiences while others build on the experiences to form more complex conceptual structures (cited in Evans & Green, 2006:287) In order to clarify the term, metaphor and conceptual metaphors should be thoroughly discussed

3.1 Metaphor

3.1.1 Traditional theories of metaphors

Metaphor used to be simply defined as “…a figure of speech in which a word or

phrase is used to describe something it does not literally denote” (McGlone,

2007:109) The Greek rhetoricians considered metaphor one of the master devices namely trope which is based on the implicitly marked comparison of two categories Up to the late 19th century, the study of metaphor was still considered the main concern of literary scholars who were interested in the interpretation of particular tropes in poetry and fiction According to the Aristotelian “comparison view” (1965), metaphor was characterized by the schematic form: X is Y, such as

this journal is a gem and could be explicitly interpreted in simile form: X is like Y

(this journal is like a gem) (cited in McGlone, 2007:110) Thus, the comparison

view, underlines Miller (1993: 186-188), treats metaphors as a species of a species

of analogy and asserts that the perception of similarity is the basis of metaphor use and comprehension However, many scholars reject that simplistic comparison view about metaphor Richards (1936:90) denies that metaphor is mere ornament

and a unique feature of language but “the omnipresent principle of all its free

action” He also clarifies the metaphor form and provides a fairly standard

terminology of metaphor The term used metaphorically is the “vehicle” (e.g a gem), the term to which it is applied is the “tenor” or “topic” (e.g this journal), and the meaning of the metaphor is the “ground” Building on Richards’ work, Black (1962) proposes his “interaction view” where metaphors reflect the process of perceiving the topic concept ‘‘in terms of’’ the vehicle concept to produce a ground that combines their conceptual attributes and transcends their literal denotations (cited in McGlone, 2007:110) His theory, however, is criticized by many contemporary metaphor theorists for its vague explanation of figurative transcendence

3.1.2 Contemporary theories of metaphors

A great number of treatises and models have been proposed to specify the interaction of topic and vehicle concepts to yield metaphoric meanings Let consider the following expressions which commonly refer to particular experiences

of love relationships:

a Look how far we’ve come

b We’re at a crossroads

c We can’t turn back now

d I don’t think this relationship is going anywhere

e Where are we?

f We’re stuck

g It’s been a long, bumpy road

h We’re just spinning our wheels

i Our marriage is on the rocks

j We’ve gotten off the track

k This relationship is foundering

Lakoff and Johnson (1980:44-45) Noticeably, these expressions are used to talk about relationships in ordinary daily life, without stylistic and poetic features Moreover, the linguistic formula X is Y is not applied in these expressions However, it cannot deny that these expressions are apparently non-literal because a relationship cannot literally spin its wheels nor stand at the crossroads Black (1962) argues that metaphor does not merely deal with the level of word meaning, but with the deeper level of conceptual structure Richardt (2005:19) also affirms that “conceptual metaphor” framework advanced

by Lakoff and his colleagues has undoubtedly become the most influential theory

of metaphor Although most people may view metaphor as characteristic of

language alone, and also as “a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary

language”, Lakoff and Johnson (1980:3) again insist that metaphor takes part in

every aspects of our life and deeply roots in our conceptual system It is not only a matter of language, but also of thought and action According to their proposal, one cognitive domain can be understood, or even created, in terms of components more

usually associated with another cognitive domain (cited in Ferrando, 1998:81)

Similarly, Kovecses (2002:4) identifies metaphor in the cognitive linguistic view as

“…understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain”

In conclusion, in cognitive approach, metaphors do not simply use as figures of speech in literature, but they are also pervasive in everyday language They are rooted in our minds and operate naturally and unconsciously In addition, they are conceptual tools whereby more abstract and intangible domains can be understood and created in terms of familiarity and concrete

3.2 Conceptual Metaphors

3.2.1 Definition

Lakoff and Johnson (1980:5) define conceptual metaphors as conventionalized

cognitive structures which is “…understanding and experiencing one kind of thing

[called the target domain] in terms of another [called the source domain]” Ansah

(2010:6) goes along with the viewpoint of Lakoff and Johnson He also emphasizes

that in Conceptual Metaphor Theory, conceptual metaphor is considered as “the

systematic structuring or restructuring” in which a target domain (a more abstract

conceptual domain) is interpreted or reconceptualized in terms of a source domain (a more concrete domain) through the projection of semantic features Conceptual metaphors, which are based on the regular analogies between target domain and source domain, provide a source of evidence of the how our cognition works and a means of changing the way people think (Svetlana, 2013: 45) Such conceptual metaphors will allow language users to understand and communicate effectively the more complex and abstract ideas in terms of ordinary experiences

3.2.2 Classification of conceptual metaphors

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) differentiate among three main kinds of metaphors, according to the cognitive functions that they perform, namely structural, ontological and orientational metaphors

3.2.2.1 Structural metaphors

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 5-61) affirm “the essence of metaphor is understanding

and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” Structural metaphors,

which allow us “…to use one highly structured and clearly delineated concept to

structure another”, are important in creating new metaphors and metaphorical

concepts Sharing the same idea, Kovëcses (2002:33) explain that in structural metaphors, the cognitive function of these metaphors is to enable speakers to understand target A by means of the structure of source B This phenomenon is exemplified with the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR and realized in language by expressions such as:

a Your claims are indefensible

b He attacked every weak point in my argument

c I demolished his argument

d I’ve never won an argument with him

e If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out

f He shot down all of my arguments

In these expressions, what is means for conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR is to structure what we do and how we understand what we are doing when

we argue When we speak normally and literally about arguments, we use the

language of war: we take positions to defend; we attack our opponent; we either fortify or abandon weak positions; we choose different strategies and lines of attack; we eventually win or lose We cannot unify arguments and wars into the same concept because they are different kinds of things – verbal discourse and armed conflict – and perform different kinds of actions However, the structure and lexicon of arguments such as “attack, defense, counterattack, etc.” are partially structured, understood, performed, and talked about in terms of war The concept is metaphorically structured and therefore the language is as well In conclusion,

structural metaphors are instances where we metaphorically structure one concept

in terms of another (Lakoff & Johnson 1980:14)

3.2.2.2 Ontological metaphors

Another kind of conceptual metaphors is named ontological metaphors which are less transparently projected from the source domain to the target concept than structural metaphors (Kovëcses, 2002:34) However, Drogosz (2008:98) highlights

the importance of ontological metaphors which “…constitute a first and,

apparently, a necessary step in constructing a conceptual metaphor” According to

Lakoff and Johnson (1980:25), this kind of conceptual metaphor arises because

“our experience of physical objects and substances provides a further basis for

understanding” They claim that ontological metaphors serve many different

purposes such as referring, quantifying, identifying aspects, identifying causes, setting goals, and motivating actions In ontological metaphors, the stuff of everyday existence such as objects, entities, and containers are employed to explain other abstract target concepts like an activity, emotion, or idea In other words, they contribute to the comprehension of nonphysical objects as an entity In order to manifest the use of ontological metaphors in human speech, Lakoff and Johnson provide a variety of examples in case of INFLATION IS AN ENTITY as follows:

a Inflation is lowering our standard of living

b We need to combat inflation

c Inflation is backing us into the corner

d Inflation has robbed me of my savings

e The dollar has been destroyed by inflation

f Inflation is eating up our profits

g Our biggest enemy right now is inflation

In these phrases, Lakoff and Johnson emphasize that this is how human think about inflation We regard this vague concept as a kind of concrete entity which can be

able to interact with in a physical way and even cause events in the world In fact, it

is arguable that it is hard to generally discuss concepts without using some metaphor tying the concept to the real world and particularly explain inflation without resorting to an ontological metaphor The ontological metaphors can be possible to move from the base metaphor INFLATION IS AN ENTITY (e.g

Inflation is lowering our standard of living.) to the more specific one INFLATION

IS A PERSON (e.g Inflation is eating up our profits.) or even INFLATION IS AN ADVERSARY (e.g Inflation has robbed me of my savings) These conceptual

metaphors are built on the previous one and add certain new details in order to enhance understanding of inflation Lakoff and Johnson (1980:29) note that container metaphor is a particular kind of ontological metaphor As they explain,

humans are “… a container, with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation” because we are “…physical beings, bounded and set off from the rest of the world

by the surface of our skin” Consequently, other physical bounded objects tend to

be projected by our in-out orientation For example, the conceptual metaphor

EVENTS ARE CONTAINERS can lead to daily utterances such as “He is in the race”, “He is out of the race now”, or “The game was full of excitement” In brief,

the ontological metaphor is a metaphor that characterizes a non-physical object as a physical entity

3.2.2.3 Orientational metaphors

Orientational metaphors are defined by Lakoff and Johnson (1980:14) as being

metaphors which “…give a concept a spatial orientation” This is the ability of

human to organize systems of concepts based on experience about spatialization we

have been acquiring during our lives Kovëcses (2002:35) affirms “…orientational

metaphors provide even less conceptual structure for target concepts than ontological ones” The term “orientational metaphors” is derived from the fact that

most metaphors deal with human spatial orientations and their main cognitive

function is to “…make a set of target concepts coherent in our conceptual system”

Lakoff and Johnson again posit the existence of metaphor in daily life by

presenting many expressions in term of conceptual metaphors HAPPY IS UP and SAD IS DOWN such as:

a I’m feeling up today

b You’re in high spirits

c My spirit rose

d I’m feeling down

e He’s really low these days

f My spirit sank.

In this case, the concept of happiness is identified with an upward orientation while the concept of sadness is characterized with a downward orientation These examples provide evidence that the metaphor is used systematically by people Lakoff and Johnson (1980:15) spend considerable time analyzing what physical bases several metaphors have in their book and come to a conclusion that metaphors are strongly based on the nature of human body and the way the body operates in our physical environment They explain that human beings walk erect; this means we can overcome the gravitational force Consequently, the erect body has a positive emotional state and the drooping posture goes along with sadness and

depression Orientational metaphors, which can organize “a whole system of

concepts with respect to one another”, focus largely on concept systematicity rather

than explanation (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:14) The systematicity of orientational metaphors can be divided into internal and external types

The internal systematicity of orientational metaphors concerns the coherence of instances in a same conceptual metaphor system rather than isolated and random

cases “I’ m feeling up” and “My spirit rose” both refer to the concept of happiness

and are clearly coherent with each other There would be the absence of coherence

if both “I’ am feeling up” and “My spirit sank” referred to the concept happiness

Thus, the internal systematicity reinforces itself More interestingly, the external systemticity is also the key feature of orientational metaphors which systematize

groups of concepts Assuming that there are a finite number of spatial metaphors

possible such as up, down, left, right, and so forth, it can affirm that many different concepts will probably share the same orientation in their orientational metaphors

As a result, the concepts sharing an orientation are implied to be related in some

way through spatialization Thus, GOOD is associated with UP orientation to general well-being, and this orientation is coherent with special cases like HAPPINESS IS, MORE IS UP, and HIGH STATUS IS UP (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:18) Orientational metaphors emphasize the relationships between concepts,

as well as offering a systematic way of speaking or thinking about a particular concept

Moreover, Lakoff and Johnson (1980:14-21) emphasize that the orientational metaphors are based on physical and cultural experience They can vary from culture to culture They are culture-specific, that is, not all cultures give priority to the up – down orientation In some cultures more emphasis may, for example, be put on an active-passive orientation or in-out orientation For example, “I’m feeling

up” can be translated into Vietnamese as “Tôi đang vui” We can see that the up/

down metaphors in the English expressions are different form of the equivalents in Vietnamese

3.2.3 Conceptual metaphoric domains

It has already pointed out that in the studies of conceptual metaphor, which is when one concept domain can be understood by another concept domain (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:5)

There are many different terms used to refer these two domains in the studies of metaphorical mapping The following table shows some of the terms: (Issac, 2006:18)

The domain from which concepts

originate The domain to which concepts are mapped Source Target (e.g Lakoff and Johnson, 1980)

Filter Target (e.g Hausman, 1986)

Vehicle Topic (e.g Kelly and Keil, 1987;

Black,1979)

Table 1.1: The various terms used for the two domains in the studies of

metaphorical mapping Lakoff and Johnson’s terminology of referring to the two domains, namely source and target domain will be mainly used in this thesis because Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory is the central guide through the research Lakoff and

Johnson (1980:15) explain that the source domain is the metaphorical expression

which helps us understand another conceptual domain, and the conceptual domain

that we understand through the source domain is called the target domain It has

been established that there is a logical possibility of a one-to-one, a one- to- many, and a many-to-one relationships in the conceptual metaphor mappings

3.2.3.1 One-to-one domain mapping

Lakoff (1993:203) affirms that a single source domain maps onto a single target domain in the orthodox one-to-one domain relationship The conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY is used to examine the nature of the relation between domains Lakoff (1993:206) clarifies the principle for understanding the domain of love in terms of the domain of journey in a metaphorical scenario:

The lovers are travelers on a journey together, with common life goals seen

as destinations Their relationship is their vehicle in which they travel and it

allows them to pursue the goals of their relationship together Their relationship is seen as fulfilling its purpose as long as it allows the couple to

make progress towards their common goal The journey isn’t easy There are

impediments and there are points (crossroads) where a decision has to be

made about which direction to go and whether to keep travelling together Along with this scenario, Lakoff (1993:208) emphasizes that the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY is apparently made up by the properties across conceptual domains from the source domain of journey to the target domain of love rather than any particular word or expression

Table 1.2: Metaphorical Mapping between Conceptual Domains

This author also claims that the direction of the mapping is from the source domain

to the target domain or the mapping between the domains is unidirectional The fact that the expressions expressing properties or entities of love originate in the journey domain helps Lakoff confirm his claim

3.2.3.2 One-to-many domain mapping

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Morgan and Bales (2002) highlight the many domain mapping in which one source domain is mapped to several target domains Lakoff illustrates the one-to-many domain mapping with examples of conceptual metaphors LOVE IS A CONTAINER, LIFE IS A CONTAINER, and EVENT IS A CONTAINER In these examples, we can see that three different targets LOVE, LIFE, and EVENT can be understood through one source domain CONTAINER Consider the illustrations below:

The country has just come

out of the war

Table 1.3: One-to-many domain mapping examples The prepositions such as “in”, “into”, and “out of”, the verb such as “filled with”, and the adjectives such as “full”, “empty”, “left” are normally used to indicate something surrounded by boundaries However, LOVE, LIFE, and EVENT are the abstract concepts which cannot be measured Therefore, in those metaphorical expressions, the abstract concepts LOVE, LIFE, and EVENT are understood by the more concrete domain CONTAINER

3.2.3.3 Many-to-one domain mapping

Although Lakoff and Johnson (1980:46-48) do not directly state that there is to-one domain mapping, they describe a number of concepts that act as source domains of one target concept by listing and analyzing the examples:

IDEAS ARE PEOPLE He is the father of modern

biology

Cognitive psychology is

still in its infancy

IDEAS ARE PLANTS His ideas have finally

come to fruition That’s a budding theory

IDEAS ARE

PRODUCTS

We’ve generated a lot of

ideas this week

This is a rough idea; it

needs to be refined

IDEAS ARE

COMMODITIES

There is always a market

for good ideas That idea won’t just sell

IDEAS ARE

RESOURCES Let’s pool our ideas

Don’t waste your

thoughts on small projects

IDEAS ARE MONEY That book is a treasure

trove of ideas He is rich in ideas

IDEAS ARE CUTTING

INSTRUMENTS That’s an incisive idea

That was a cutting

That’s an outdated idea

Table 1.4: Many-to-one domain mapping Based on these examples, we can obviously see that the target domain IDEA can be understood through several sources domains In other words, one target domain can

be mapped onto several sources To clarify the reason, Kovecses (2002:84)

confirms that “Since concepts (both target and source) have several aspects to

them, speakers need several source domains to understand these different aspects

of target concepts.”

4 Romantic novels

4.1 Definition

Novel along with other forms or narrative nonfiction, such as letters, biographies, and history used to be very popular in England and America Novel can be basically understood as a story with the prose form in long shape, which including the complex plot, many characters, and various setting However, with a shift in society and development of time, the novel is not only based on data nonfiction but

also based on the desired imagination Rees (1973:106) defines that novel is “a

fictitious prose narrative of considerable length in which characters and action representative of real live are portrayed in a plot of more or less complexity”

Burgess (2014:1) suggests that in its broad framework, the genre of novel has encompassed an extensive range of types and styles There are some important types, namely picaresque, epistolary, Gothic, romantic, realist, historical

Romance novel or romantic novel is a literary genre It is an abstract concept; therefore, it seems very difficult to give an exact definition However, according to Wikipedia (2012), romantic novels emphasizes their focus on the relationship and

romantic love between two people, and an “emotionally satisfying and optimistic

ending” is compulsory element in this type of genre

4.2 Classification

Each novelist has different ways to classify the subgenres of romantic novel However, there is no specific and official classification After synthesizing a variety of sources written by different authors on the Internet, three main subgenres

of romantic novels are presented in the following parts

4.2.1 Historical romance

Craig and Hughes (2008) define historical romance in contrast with contemporary romance Historical romance is romance set before World War II Historical romances transport the readers to another time and place thanks to the various

historical details Marble (2001) adds that some historical romances use the historical elements as a “wallpaper” while others are in depth The moods and the plots of this subgenre vary widely from humorous to deadly serious The best word count for a historical romance is about 100,000 words or 400 manuscript pages There are some typical novelists of this subgenre including Mary Jo Putney, Patricia Gaffney, Laura Kinsale, Anne Stuart, Julia Quinn, Amanda Quick, or Jill Barnet

4.2.2 Contemporary romance

According to Wikipedia (2007), contemporary romance – the largest of the romance novel subgenres – is often set after World War II and reflects the life and the mores of the time when it is written In contemporary romance written in the period of 1970s, heroines usually quit jobs after getting married and children However, in the contemporary romance works after 1970s, the main characters still keep working As suggested by Roman writers of America, the contemporary romance can be either humorous romances or romantic suspense The best word count for contemporary romance is over 70,000 words It is also emphasized that in this subgenre, the love story is the main element and ends with emotional satisfaction Marble (2001) proposes some noble writers of this subgenre including Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Elizabeth Bevarly, Jennifer Crusie, and Rachel Gibson 4.2.3 Paranormal romance

Paranormal romance is one of the subgenres of romantic novels This subgenre’s main focus is on romantic love with elements beyond the range of scientific explanation (Wikipedia, 2007) The story in this type takes place on other planets

or in imaginary lands The main characters are probably creatures such as vampires, werewolves, genies, ghosts, and pixies Craig and Hughes (2008) classify the popular types of paranormal romances into time travel, futuristic, fantasy, ghosts, witches and magic, vampires, shape-shifters, demons and the undead The best word count for these novels is at least 40,000 Notable writers of paranormal

romance include Susan Krinard, Maggie Shayne, Jillian Hunter, Christine Feehan, and Christina Skye (Marble, 2001)

5 Previous studies

Cognitive Linguistics was emerged in the 1970s whose aim was to investigate the relationship of the language, the mind, and the socio – physical experience of human beings Over the last decades, a variety of researches have been done in this aspect, especially for the conceptual emotional metaphors Typically, the first impressive and influential book was introduced by Lakoff and Johnson in 1980 In that book, they present the clear viewpoints about conceptual metaphor which is not only the matter of language but also a matter of human thought process and the interaction between them Conceptual metaphor helps us to use the language effectively and shape our perception and actions without our ever noticing them The authors affirm that abstract and intangible concepts can be metaphorically understood by more concrete and tangible concepts It is obvious that emotion is extremely complicated phenomenon which cannot be defined easily However, due

to conceptual metaphor theory, it is systematically mapped via more basic and tangible concepts The work is the theoretical source and guideline which provides the model of my study

There are many cognitive linguists contributing to the development of cognitive linguistics in Vietnam such as Lý Toàn Thắng (2005), Trần Văn Cơ (2007), Nguyễn Đức Tồn (2007) In the book titled “Ngôn Ngữ học tri nhận – từ lý thuyết đại cương đến thực tiễn tiếng Việt”, Lý Toàn Thắng (2005) presents systematically the historical background and some typical works of cognitive linguistics in order

to clarify the significance of this new approach More importantly, the author succeeds in examining the model of special cognition in Vietnamese Trần Văn Cơ (2007) presents an overview of metaphor and conceptual metaphor as well as the development of these areas in the world and in Vietnam He also points out that conceptual metaphor helps understand one concept in terms of another Nguyễn Đức Tồn (2008) and Nguyễn Lai (2009) investigate the conceptual metaphors in

idioms and poetry respectively In addition, some minor researches about emotion metaphor have been done so far More specifically, Nguyễn Hoàng Nam (2012) examines the semantic features of conceptual metaphors in English and Vietnamese idioms denoting human beings in terms of happiness, sadness, anger, and fear In his study, he confirms that the conceptual metaphor helps create the meaning of the idioms in both languages Thanks to the comparison between English and Vietnamese conceptualization, the learners can have better understanding about two languages, especially the idioms denoting human feelings Phạm Thị Thu Hà (2013) also investigates both syntactic features and conceptual metaphor denoting human inner feelings namely love, happiness, pride, anger, fear, and sadness However, the data of her study is extracted from the published diaries This study again confirms that metaphorical expressions of human emotion can be found in both languages Last but not least, the study done by Nguyễn Thị Thơm (2010) discusses the nouns love on some English expressions The great contribution of her study lies in the careful analysis of conceptual metaphors denoting love in English in comparison with Vietnamese expressions She comes to two most important conclusions Firstly, the structural metaphor is the most productive type

of the cognitive metaphor Secondly, English and Vietnamese seem to share most

of the process of conceptualization of love However, this study mainly focuses on the metaphorical expressions denoting love in English and the data is compiled from dictionaries and some plays of Shakespeare

Despite all the existing books and researches on conceptualization in the world in general and Vietnamese in particular, there has been no specific study on

conceptual metaphor denoting love in American and Vietnamese romantic novels,

which might help the teachers, the learners, and the translators master two languages Therefore, it has inspired me to carry out this thesis

CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, a brief summary about the research methodology used in this study such as the research design and methods, data collection, data analysis, research procedures will be presented This research methodology is very useful because it helps the author choose the appropriate methods and instruments as well as obtain the valuable data The appropriate methodology will guarantee the reliability and the validity of the study

1 Research design and methodology

In this section, the plan of the overall scheme of the research will be presented This research utilizes contrastive and comparative analysis on level of lexical units

Firstly, Contrastive Analysis (C.A) is defined to be “a linguistic enterprise aimed

at producing inverted (i.e contrastive, not comparative) two-valued typologies (a C.A is always concerned with a pair of languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can be compared” (James, 1980:2) Sharing the same viewpoint,

Firbas (1992:13) defines contrastive analysis as a useful heuristic tool which throws valuable light on the characteristic features of the languages contrasted Johansson (2008:9) affirms that contrastive analysis is the systematic comparison of two or more languages The aims of contrastive analysis are to describe the languages’ similarities and differences as well as to provide better descriptions and better teaching materials for language learners Therefore, it is a useful and effective tool

in pedagogical aspect In addition, although contrastive analysis and translation studies are separate field and have different aims; according to Hoey and Houghton (1998:49), they have been proved to have bidirectional relationship On the one hand, the translation of specific pieces of text may provide the data for contrastive analysis On the other, contrastive analysis may provide explanations of difficulties encountered in translation Secondly, Collier (1993:105) describes comparative analysis as a fundamental tool which sharpens the power of description It plays a central role in concept-formation by bringing in focus suggestive similarities and contrasts among cases Its aim is to test hypotheses as well as contribute to the