Metaphors in modern english and vietnamese poetry

We borrow the idea that Lakoff and Turner 1989: 15 gave in setting up their study of metaphor in poetry as we choose poems “not to point out what is unusual about it but rather to introd

NGUYỄN THỊ QUYẾT

METAPHORS IN CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH AND

VIETNAMESE POETRY: A STUDY FROM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to express my thanks to my supervisors, Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Xuan Thom, Ph.D and Assoc Prof Dr Ngo Dinh Phuong, Ph.D., for their generous and insightful guidance while I was writing this dissertation They encouraged me to carry out the dissertation on cognitive linguistics and poetry I have been so fortunate to have them as supervisors

I would be indebted to the other members of committees for their willingness to share their time and knowledge Dr Ha Cam Tam for her valuable comments and suggestions when I first showed my understanding of the field, and her critical ideas on my writing are so valuable for me Dr Nguyen Quang for his deep understanding on methodology frame, his guidance has helped me much in completing the dissertation Dr Ngo Huu Hoang for his knowledge of cognitive theory has pushed me up into a deeper scrutiny of the field Practical ideas suggested by Dr Le Thanh Ha on the literature review led me to get better understanding of the issue Prof Dr Nguyen Duc Hoat’s comments on scope of the study were also of great help for me in completing the thesis

Many thanks should also go to Prof Dr Hoang Van Van, for patiently reading and commenting on this dissertation as an unofficial committee member

I would like to show my deep gratitude to Dr Ilicia Sprey, a Fulbright American scholar and

Ms Marilyn Nagano Schlief, an English professor from Michigan State University, in helping me clarify the meanings of English poems which were so challenging that without their help, I could not have understood them thoroughly

I would also like to express my thanks to the administrators of the Graduate Department who have greatly supported me in doing my research

Last, my thanks are also spent for all members of my family and colleagues at Hong Duc University who have so enthusiastically supported me during the time I was writing this dissertation

Hanoi, April 2014

ABSTRACT

Meaning construction is conceptualization which is based on embodiment (Evan & Green 2006; Evan, 2007) The conceptualization creates metaphors which mark the meditation between people and the environment Comparison of metaphors between English and Vietnamese therefore, shows not only a great deal of similarities, but also many differences In this dissertation, we study metaphors in modern English and Vietnamese lyric poems The identification of metaphors was adopted from Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) created

by the Pragglejaz Group (Pragglejaz Group, 2007; Steen, 2010) which supports the comparison between English and Vietnamese linguistic metaphors and conceptual metaphors uncovered in our data The results contribute to and enforce the findings by previous researchers of the field, they also supplement variation of conceptualization in the two languages Conceptual domains are put under 8 broad themes: the world; natural aspect; animal; time; action, body and character; person, life and death; inner feeling; and relationship Through the analysis and interpretation, the findings show variations in the conceptualization in language and it is realized that different conceptualizations are rooted from different beliefs, living condition, and philosophy of life

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

ABSTRACT ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

PARTA:INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Contribution of the study 2

3 Objectives of the study 2

4 Research questions and hypotheses 3

5 Scope of the study 3

6 Structure of the study 4

PARTB:DEVELOPMENT 6

CHAPTER ONE:LITERATURE REVIEW 6

1.1 The relation between language, culture and thought 6

1.2 Poetry and poetic language 7

1.3 Lyric as a genre of poetry 9

1.4 Cognitive linguistics 11

1.4.1 An overview of Cognitive Linguistics 11

1.4.2 Cognitive semantics 15

1.5 Metaphor 18

1.5.1 Metaphor: substitution view, comparison view, interaction view and pragmatic approach 18

1.5.2 Metaphor in cognitive linguistics 21

1.6 Concluding Remarks 29

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 30

2.1 Approach to the study 30

2.2 Principal methods of the study 31

2.3 Identification of metaphors 32

2.4 Data collection and analysis 35

2.4.1 Data collection 35

2.4.2 Data storage instrument 37

2.4.3 Data Analysis 40

2.4.4 Analytical Framework 41

2.5 Concluding Remarks 42

CHAPTER3:METAPHORSOFNATUREINENGLISHANDVIETNAMESEPOEMS 43

3.1 Metaphors of the world and related entities 43

3.1.1 The world and event 43

3.1.2 Colour, object, and sound 45

3.2 Metaphors of natural aspects 49

3.2.1 Landscape 50

3.2.2 Natural entities 55

3.2.3 Natural phenomena 61

3.2.4 Plant 65

3.3 Metaphors of animals 68

3.4 Metaphors of time 70

3.5 Concluding remarks 73

C HAPTER 4: M ETAPHORS OF HUMAN AND RELATED ASPECTS IN E NGLISH AND V IETNAMESE POEMS 75

4.1 Metaphors of body, characteristics, action, saying 75

4.1.1 Body parts 75

4.1.2 Characteristics of a person 79

4.1.3 Action 80

4.1.4 Saying 82

4.2 Metaphors of person, life, and death 85

4.2.1 Person 85

4.2.2 Life 89

4.2.3 Death 95

4.3 Metaphors of inner world: State, feeling and emotion 98

4.3.1 State 98

4.3.2 Feeling 102

4.3.3 Emotion 116

4.4 Metaphors of relationship 121

4.5 Concluding remarks 131

PARTC:CONCLUSIONSANDIMPLICATIONS 132

1RECAPULATION 132

2COMMON FEATURES IN THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE 134

2.1 Abstractness is mapped through concreteness 135

2.2 Non-human is mapped as human: embodiment 136

2.3 Human is mapped through non-human domain 136

2.4 Container metaphor and the manifestation of anthropocentricity 136

2.5 Abstract concepts are mapped through other abstract domains 136

3DIFFERENCES 137

3.1 Basement of reasoning 137

3.2 Prominent differences in English and Vietnamese metaphors 138

4IMPLICATIONS FROM THE RESULTS 139

4.1 For teachers 139

4.2 For translators 140

4.3 Suggestions for further study 142

ARTICLESANDPROJECTSRELATEDTOTHEDISSERTATION 143

REFERENCES 144

In English 144

In Vietnamese 153

WEBSITES OF ENGLISH POEMS 155

WEBSITE OF VIETNAMESE POEMS 159 INDEX OF CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN THE STUDY I DATA SAMPLE OF ENGLISH METAPHORS OF LANDSCAPE IV DATA SAMPLE OF VIETNAMESE METAPHORS OF LANDSCAPE VII SAMPLE OF ENGLISH METAPHORS IN A POEM X SAMPLE OF VIETNAMESE METAPHORS IN A POEM XI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CL: Cognitive Linguistics

MIP: Metaphor Identification Procedure

OALD: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Illustration of Nvivo tree nodes 37 Figure 3: Illustration of Nvivo quotations 38 Figure 4: Sample of Coding Summary Report of LIFE IS A TRIP 39 Figure 5: Sample of Coding Comparison Report in English and Vietnamese metaphor LIFE IS A TRIP 39 Figure 6: The basic domains of conceptual metaphors 133 Figure 7: Mechanism of conceptualization from the data 134

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

Metaphor is a great inspiration for researchers; as such, several studies have been carried out to deal with the matter In the world, the study of metaphors in poetry by Lakoff and Turner (1989) gave a clear and critical consideration of metaphors in English poems They also generalized many conceptual metaphors of death, time, life, people, plants, nights, and days, etc Anastasia (2008) studied metaphors in women college presidents’ inaugural addresses at Coed Institution’s; she studied 20 speeches and put them under 10 broad themes Polley (2012) considered metaphors of happiness in English and Mandarin Chinese of which he uses corpus approach in dealing with the data While Gomez-Moreno (2011) carried out a comparative study

of metaphor in specialized language, also, he applied the corpus-approach in dealing with metaphors Picken (2007) studied metaphors in literature and their impact on foreign language learners, of which he focuses on the identification and interpretation, the evaluation of metaphors

in literature as well as implications in designing curriculum, selecting materials and building up methodology in teaching language In Vietnamese poems, metaphor is also worked on in several studies such as metaphors in English and Vietnamese proverbs by Tiến (2012), the application of conceptual metaphors in teaching English to Vietnamese students by Vũ etc al (2010), metaphors in Vietnamese folklore by Ngọc (2009) This tradition shows that there is a great interest in metaphors in general, and metaphors in poems in particular, and most of the above mentioned studies are indebted to the view of metaphor from cognitive approach that was initiated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 2003) which stated that metaphors were mapped under concepts, and they constructed our thought and actions However, a study focusing on comparing between English and Vietnamese poems in terms of metaphor application has not been so far carried out In this study, we decided to deal with it as an initial research of the issue We borrow the idea that Lakoff and Turner (1989: 15) gave in setting up their study of metaphor in poetry as

we choose poems “not to point out what is unusual about it but rather to introduce a range of common, unconscious, automatic metaphors which are parts of our cultural knowledge and which allow us to communicate with each other, whether in ordinary conversation or in poetry.”

We set up the study entitled Metaphors in contemporary English and Vietnamese poetry: A

study from cognitive approach Therefore, we would like to focus on the concepts of linguistic

metaphor, conceptual metaphor, conceptualization, mapping and domain, the key issues in cognitive approach to metaphor study We would make an effort to analyse metaphors in modern English and Vietnamese poems, to explore metaphors in the light of cognitive approach, drawing

out similarities and differences in conceptual metaphors between English and Vietnamese and linguistic metaphors manifesting them From English metaphorical expressions, which are also called linguistic metaphors, this study would inductively contribute to the system of conceptual metaphors mentioned previously such as those by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Kovecses (2010), Tendah (2009) etc enriching and expanding it The source domain and target domain of each conceptual metaphor and their attributes are analysed to make transparent the similarities and differences in the manifestation of conceptual metaphors in English and Vietnamese

2 Contribution of the study

Significantly, the study focuses on comparing English and Vietnamese metaphors in poems, both at the conceptual level and linguistic level, from which relating to the cultural values in the two languages, it manifests three points Firstly, it blends different ideas into one in identifying and analyzing metaphors which can be used as a replica for other research of the same interests The theory of linguistic and conceptual metaphor by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), the so called MIP model in identifying metaphors by Pragglejaz group (2007), Steen (2010), the signals marking metaphors by Charteris-Black (2004, 2005) are blended Secondly, it directly presents linguistic metaphors explored in modern English and Vietnamese lyric poems manifesting conceptual metaphors By such, it shows clearly how linguistic metaphors in the two languages represent similar conceptual metaphors, making clear about what aspects of a specific conceptual domain are activated in the two languages As a result, it clarifies the why of certain activation Thirdly, the study builds up a system of conceptual metaphors in English and Vietnamese poems, compares them, showing prominently similar and different linguistic and cultural characteristics in English and Vietnamese It would help people to thoroughly view the hidden values underlying the conceptualization of metaphors in the two languages, from that, it gives recommendations for understanding and dealing with metaphors in English, especially in teaching and translation

3 Objectives of the study

Our study pursues the following goals:

- To provide the evidence of linguistic metaphors manifesting the same conceptual metaphors in English and Vietnamese poetry to make clear what aspects of the mapping domains are activated in each language

- To enrich the study of metaphors, especially those in poetry by introducing conceptual metaphors explored in the study

- To give explanations of the the similarities and differences in the conceptualization between English and Vietnamese metaphors in terms of the factors regulating them

- To give implications to the teaching and translating of the English language

4 Research questions and hypotheses

The study is generated from the following questions:

1 In what dimensions do linguistic metaphors reveal the similar and/or different conceptual metaphors in the two languages in English and Vietnamese poems?

2 What explanations can be made for the similarities and/or differences in conceptualization in the two languages?

3 What implications could be drawn out from the findings in terms of teaching and translating English into Vietnamese?

The research question is based on the following assumptions:

1 Similar conceptual metaphors in modern English and Vietnamese poems are mapped from similar and/or different linguistic metaphors

2 Living condition and cultural traits influence patterns of thought manifesting in language use

3 Understanding similarities and differences in metaphorical mapping can help to understand the English language better which fosters the use of the English language

5 Scope of the study

In the dissertation, the issue we are concerned with is limited based on the following reasoning

Firstly, among different genres of poetry, such as (1) publicistic poetry, (2) lyricism, (3) free verse, (4) poem in prose, and (5) narrative verse (Hòa, 2006), we can not cover all, in this dissertation, the source of metaphors in our study is restricted in English and Vietnamese lyric poems (which would be termed both as lyric poems or poems in this study for short) We consider metaphor as a cognitive mechanism revealed in a form of communication

Secondly, the number of lyric poems selected for the study is also restricted to a modest scale, for the fact that, in this study all linguistic metaphors are identified, considered and manually picked out from poems The synthesis of these linguistic metaphors is also made based

on the observation of meaning revelation of each linguistic metaphor Therefore, a lot of work is done to fulfill these tasks, and as such 100 poems in each language is within the capability of the author

Thirdly, the poems selected for this study are termed “modern poems,” in the two languages: English and Vietnamese The term “modern” is taken as referring to time, not as trends in literature, it contains the time span from 1930s up to present

Another point that we would like to mention here is the domains defined in the study Metaphors extracted from poems would be analysed in details in terms of source and target domain, conceptual metaphors established from these mappings are explored From the data, conceptual metaphors are limited into those expressing the target domains of (1) the world, (2) natural aspects, (3) animals, (4) time, (5) action, body and character, (6) person, life and death, (7) inner world, (8) relationship Of each domain, it is further divided into sub-domains for comparison, for example, in grouping the target domains of natural aspects, we take landscape, natural entities and natural phenomena, and plant into consideration Among those eight major target domains, we compare the occurrences of tokens, which are also named linguistic metaphors (or sometimes linguistic expressions), in conceptual metaphors in English and Vietnamese poems Then we analyse, evaluate, and comment on the similarities and differences between two languages In the case that there exists a conceptual metaphor in one language which does not appear in the other, we would try to relate it to previous studies by other scholars

to see if there are any correspondences in the manifestation of that metaphor Therefore, the thesis is also built with an attempt to explain the availability, the proportionality and the manifestability of the linguistic metaphors in conveying conceptual metaphors in the two languages

To help Vietnamese learners understand clearly English expressions, the thesis makes a contrast between two languages in the above perspectives in order to clarify the factors determining the similarities as well as differences

6 Structure of the study

The thesis consists of the following parts:

Part A – Introduction – states the justification, significance, aims and objectives, scope and design of the study This part would briefly introduce what would be done in the thesis, how each step of the study is carried out; it gives readers an overview of the study

Part B – Development – includes the central matters in our study, noted as follows: Chapter I – Literature review – presents theoretical background to the study, the concepts and definitions to be used in the study such as the distinction between linguistic metaphors and conceptual metaphors, cognitive approach to language study, the consideration of lyric poetry as a genre, the concepts of domain, mapping, conceptualization, etc

Chapter II – Methodology – reviews the methods that previous studies of the field apply in identifying and analyzing metaphors, explains the frame to select, analyse and compare the data

in the two languages, it also concentrates on describing the use of Nvivo software in dealing with the data

Chapter III, IV – Metaphors in English and Vietnamese poems - are involved with the descriptions, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and comment on metaphors in English and Vietnamese based on comparative and cognitive dimensions

Part C summarises the results of the study and gives some recommendations based on the reasoning of conceptualization in the two languages which could be useful in L2 learning and translation

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 The relation between language, culture and thought

It has been seen that, the relation between language, culture, and thought is obvious It is understandable as language is a product of human beings, and that human mind is regulated by the living condition, say, the cultural pool that he was born in and grown up, the environment that feeds him up, the social norms that require him to behave this way but not others By such, his thought is shaped by the social and natural condition of the place he dwells in Wierzbicka (1997: 1) discovered the relationship between “the life of a society and the lexicon of the language spoken by it,” when she studied five languages of English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese to prove that words in a language is influenced by the living condition, the culture that

a certain community owns Sapir stated that language shapes our society “the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” (Sapir, quoted in Whorf, 1956: 134)

The habit of our life is in fact rooted from the language we use, though originally, life creates language, and that, as Wierzbicka (1997: 5) claimed the interrelation between languages, culture, and thought as follows: “words with special, culture-specific meanings reflect and pass

on not only ways of living characteristic of a given society but also ways of thinking.” As such, our thinking is shaped by the way language is used, and our culture determines what meaning should be denoted by a language item In this way, different languages cause differences in the way people think, and reflect the different in the way people behave; more generally, it entails the difference in culture that one is in

In our understanding, therefore, language is the token of thought, our thought is shown through language both verbally and nonverbally In turn, one’s thought is regulated by the hidden and unhidden cultural values; each community has a different culture, though different cultures may share universal features beside the distinctive ones These differences lie in people’s thinking and decide the way they shape their society and utter out their language Consequently, if two languages are significantly different in terms of the meanings denoting the similar phenomenon, it means the ways that people view the world are different The idea of language, thought and culture that Sapir (1949), Whorf (1956) raised is similar to the specific study of metaphors that Lakoff and Johnson (2003) viewed and stated that we “live by” them

We rely on language to shape our life, to regulate our activities as well as the order of the

society Metaphor is just a “technique” we apply in using our language, and in reality, metaphors are language, as a result, they must be traced back to see the way of life, the reality of the society, the cultural values, the thought that the community possesses

We have so far discussed the interrelationship between language, thought and culture, with reference to metaphor We believe that the study of metaphors across languages is worthy in considering hidden cultural values in languages

1.2 Poetry and poetic language

Researchers divide literary language into different aspects: poetic, dramatic, and narrative Poetry is the combination between the sound and the meaning; the sound contributes to the meaning of the poem The parallel importance of both sound and meaning in poetry has been recognized by many researchers (Lân, 2011; Jakobson, 1981; Hán, Sử, Phi, 2004; Ân, 2004; Hòa, 2006) Jakobson (1981: 17) stated that “In poetry not only the phonological sequence but,

in the same way, any sequence of semantic units strives to build an equation.” Each language’s poetry must be different due to the living condition, the geographical condition, and religions, etc According to Lân (2001: 3) if we want to study poetry, we have to study the language because the former is a special form of the latter He also stated (ibid 8) that poetry was the combination between four aspects: meaning, emotion, structure, and prosody In the Dictionary

of literary terms, (Hán, Sử, Phi, 2004: 309), poetry is the literary work reflecting mood, attitude, strong feeling through concise brief language which is a type of monologue configured and rhymed by the poets, manifesting the feeling, thoughts and viewpoint of the author For Hòa (2006: 157), poetry could be divided into 5 types, and he also named them in English as: (1) publicistic poetry, (2) lyricism, (3) free verse, (4) poem in prose, (5) narrative verse Lyric poetry

is the monologue representing one’s feeling, emotion through image and prosody Hùng (quoted

in Lân, 2011: 7) also had a similar understanding of poetry: It is a mode reflecting life and the author’s feelings through language rich with emotiveness, imagination and rhythm It is the earliest social form in history In the past, the narrative, lyrical and dramatic works are composed and represented through poems Therefore, through many generations, the concept of poetry coincided with literary creation Nam (1984, quoted in Lân, 2011: 5) defined: “poetry is a mode

of literary creativity reflecting life through one’s mood, rich feeling, strong imagination and especially with clearly-made rhythm.” Another scholar, Ân (2004: 301) viewed back at the history of poetry as “At first, verbal art was named poetry (the term “poetry” in Chinese was applied in the East of Asia at ancient and Middle Ages The term “poièsis” in Greek was used in Europe etc.) It is because of the fact that poetry and similar forms of language use still

predominated literature He also stated that poetry is the first type of verbal art It was the foundation for different genres such as epic, tragedy, comedy, and lyrical genres

Every poem is a creation The poem is full of imagination For Heidegger (1971: 197)

“What is spoken in the poem is what the poet enunciates out of himself What is thus spoken out, speaks by enunciating its content The language of the poem is a manifold enunciating – Language provides incontestably to be expression.” This idea focuses on two points: Firstly, in terms of content, the language of a poem is what the author utters out from what s/he thinks; secondly, in a poem, the language is multidimensional

To emphasize the uniqueness of poetic language, Hanauer (2003: 69) stated that poetry is

“a discourse” which contains the “individualized, personal experience and linguistic expression” and when a reader reads it, s/he will come across such an experience For its uniqueness, poetry promotes “multicultural understanding,” and at the same time, creates the contact among members in a community Poetry inspires feelings, but if it is scrutinized into, would be a field which makes the concept of literacy confusing, for if the latter means knowing to read and write, then to be able to read poems well would require quality of a language expert This scholar also emphasized that “poetry is a literary text that presents the experiences, thoughts, and feelings of the writer through a self-referential use of language that creates for the reader and writer a new understanding of the experiences, thought, or feeling related to in the text.” (ibid.)

In describing the organization of poetry’s language, Pace (2009: 23) said that “The poet literally “cuts up” other texts, organizing phrases, sentences, or whole paragraphs into a new work Thus, the poet does not invent, but draws from a world of possible images and arranges them into a new construct.” It is the fact that poetry today still owns its “memorable shape and form.” The more poetic a poem is, the more unpredictable the content becomes, which leads to more painstaking in comprehension The factors that help poetry exist in the modern society while there are so many other eye-catching and mind-catching inventions today is that it supplies

an “access to first-hand experience in the world” (Hanauer, 2003: 76) Language is pervasive around us but not always easy to deal with, for an item can be used with different attributes to express different meanings By such, it requires certain ways of investigation in order to catch up with the concept in exchange Language contains expressions made by human beings, out of their thought and results from the interaction between them and the world around One of the aspects of its use is that applied in poetry which once was a “mnemonic medium,” a means to preserve knowledge and converse among a community For example, the very classical works such as Iliad, Odyssey have proved that the persuasive values and poetic aspect, together with

melodic application are frequently mingled together Therefore, the scholar since an early time such as Aristotle realized the ornamental values of poetry

In poems, language activates the potential meaning which the same language items in other context can not do The special point of poetic language is that, though the materials are there around us and the meanings are expressed through words and structures not estranged to people, the combination of them is genuine, original in creation, it is an invention, which if paraphrased will lose the values and intention of the author What expressed in poetry is not usually transparent, instead, it could be understood at multilevel and it may activate different directions

of understanding with various explanations

From what is reviewed above, the language of poetry shares and is itself distinct from general language in the following aspects:

Language or poetic language is expression

Poetic language, however, is the unique creation of an individual, therefore, it is not usually transparent

Poetry has gone beyond the primary purpose of transferring knowledge to a special means

of conveying the author’s ideas to his surroundings

Poetry still keeps its memorable shape and form which is one of the structural features making it merge from common language

Those explicate why poems are what second language learners may feel interested in but also face with quite a few impediments, and the understanding of them is worth carrying out research on Therefore, poetry is considered a special application of language, whose main purposes are on emotion, feelings and thoughts In the following section, we will introduce one genre of poetry: the lyric

1.3 Lyric as a genre of poetry

In considering poetry, we are aware of the fact that the focus on language of a certain genre

is beneficial for language learners and teachers, We hold a similar idea with Wang (2009: 81) in realizing that “analyses of particular discourse types, often called genre analysis, are applicable

to document design or pedagogy.” Therefore, what is considered as genre is also taken into consideration Some scholars equated genre with discourse type (Simpson, 2003; Carter, 1997), and others distinguished between genre and text type (Fairclough, 2003; Swales, 1990; Wang, 2009; Wodak, 2009; Guerin, 2005; Van Dijk, 2008) The first approach states that “genres are text type categories, such as novels, newspaper articles or public speeches, which are readily distinguished by mature speakers of English (Biber & Finegan 1991:213; quoted in Simpson (2003: 35), and that it is located “at a higher level of discourse organization than a register.”

Carter (1997) observed that genre is a particular type of text It can be seen that this approach is a

“more static” way in elaborating the understanding of genre On the other hand, those who follow the second approach, the one that gives a more “dynamic” view of genre, see it as a particular type of communicative event with a particular communicative purpose, and those purposes should be realized by the users, or “discourse community” (Swales, 1990) It is seen as

a social practice as in Wang (2009: 237) “A genre is a schematically structured and goal-oriented social process.” Fairclough (2003: 65) defined that genre is the “specifically discoursal aspect of ways of acting and interacting in the course of social events.” He also gave six aspects of genre, including the constraint of social practices on the forms of social action and interaction as well as the ways they are interrelated; the new capitalism’s social transformation can be seen as changes

in social practice networking, therefore, it changes the action and interaction form, as a result, causes change in genres; For those very socially oriented nature, some genres are comparatively

“local in scale,” while others might be universal; The changes in genre means the changes in the combination of genres; different, interconnected texts can manifest different genres; a particular genre does not fully embrace a particular text or interaction, on the other hand, the latter might involve “a combination of different genres.”

For what Fairclough stated, it is clear that, it will be too simple in defining genre as text type, and that in considering a genre, it is necessary to view it from the multi-facet aspects related to context The study of a phenomenon of language with attention to genre, therefore, is reasonable, as Guerin (2005: 37) declared “Genre is comparable to schema: it draws on our previous knowledge and experience, and offers a framework for interpretation,” and that it is part

of our knowledge, it functions as a kind of “pre-setting device,” it will help us to bear in our mind what is going on with our study, an awareness of what we are dealing with, a joke, business discussion, a chat, a novel or a poem Of which, lyric, according to him (2005: 34) could be taken as a genre, was defined as “a fairly brief poem characterized primarily by emotion, imagination, and subjectivity.” In defining genre of poetry, Stockwell (2002: 28) observed that genre “has been applied to several different levels of classification,” and the importance is that it can be defined based on the combination of social, historical, functional, authorial, political, stylistic, arbitrary, idiosyncratic, or based on individual factors themselves

Lyric is a genre in poetry, that is the idea shared by many researchers, it is one of the primary genres in poetry, as Blasing (2007: 20, 34) stated, it is “a universal genre” and is “the foundational genre in diverse languages.” It is a “socially coded way” of emotion, “the most rhetorical of poetic genres.” Đức (1985: 285) stated very clearly about lyric poetry For him, it is

“a genre of literary work” and that it is “often based on the poet’s inner feeling towards life,

emphasizing the emotion in it… Emotion in poetry is the direct factor in building up the image.” Abrams & Harpham (2009: 179) observed that “the lyric genre comprehends a great variety of utterances,” it is of common belief that lyric is emotionally oriented, and therefore, subjectivity

is the primary feature of it “Lyric is uttered in the first person,” (ibid.) however, the “I” in lyrics does not necessarily the author of the poem, it is just a form of language to express a mood or state of feeling, it demonstrates a situation with the first person expressing himself (Guerin et al , 2005; Blasing, 2007; Miller, 2006) For example, Guerin et.al (2005: 109) claimed that “in a lyric there is a speaker-that is, a first-person situation This immediately sets a context and a set

of circumstances, for the speaker is doing something, somewhere,” or he also observes that it is a speaker reacting to “an experience, a feeling, an idea, or even a physical sensation.” Stockwell (2002) listed poetry as a mode, and presents lyric as a genre among others such as comedy, tragedy, gothic, surrealism, etc For Blasing (2007: 2), the function of a lyric is to “refer, represent, express, narrate, imitate, communicate, think, reason, theorize, philosophize,” as long

as it contains an “I” talking to “nobody in particular,” and in the way that it is not “primarily concerned with narrating a story or dramatizing an action.” In short, it is lyric poetry which can

be seen as a genre, from the characteristics it owns that help to distinguish it from others

In this study, we consider a lyrics as a poem conveying individual’s emotions, feelings, and reaction to the situation or action which are socially constrained in being expressed, it is a genre of poetry, containing the following characteristics:

- In terms of purpose, it is a form of communicating author’s ideas (in this case, the feeling, the emotion etc.) of and to the context

- In terms of form, it contains an “I” the agent of such feeling who expresses himself explicitly or implicitly through language of the poem

1.4 Cognitive linguistics

There are many different principles underlying what is termed CL, however, they share a common point of the connection of language and mind, and the agreement in the interaction of the language model itself, the context, and cognitive resources This section would present basic issues relevant to the current study such as definition of CL, cognitive semantics, the position of metaphor studies in CL etc

1.4.1 An overview of Cognitive Linguistics

CL has revealed itself for the last 30 years as a prominent approach in the study of language, conceptual systems, human cognition, and general meaning construction It realizes that the study of language is the study of cognitive and cultural domains, the models and frames which language is activated within, the multiple connections which an element leads to others in

the language network, the underlying mapping as well as elaboration Language does not simply represent meaning but generates the construction of meaning in a specific context within a particular cultural model and cognitive resource As a modern school of linguistic thought and practice “it is concerned with investigating the relationship between human language, the mind, and socio-physical experience” (Evan et al., 2007: 2)

It is of common understanding that CL is not a single theory but a cluster of theories, with the central focus on language and thought (Nesset (2008), Evans (2007), Evans and Green (2006), Geeraerts & Cuyckens (2007)), for Nesset (2008: 9) it contains “a family of broadly compatible theoretical approaches” as long as they share the common view that language is an

“integral part of cognition.” The relationship between language and thought, of course, has been realized by many scholars, however, cognitive linguistics strongly emphasizes specific features

of it Evans (2007: 22) denoted the central aspects of it, 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.” As it is rather an umbrella field, sometimes authors may view “similar phenomena” with “distinct terminology” Evans and Green (2006: XX) The point that makes cognitive linguistics different from other approaches to language study, according to Evans and Green (2006: 5) is that “language is assumed to reflect certain fundamental properties and design features of the human mind.” While Geeraerts & Cuyckens (2007: 3) claimed that “the analysis

of the conceptual and experiential basis of linguistic categories is of primary importance within Cognitive Linguistics,” and all approaches that “natural language is studied as a mental phenomenon” (ibid 4) can be put under the cognitive linguistic theory The study of CL could be divided into two main strands: cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar The former is concerned with considering linguistic semantics, while the latter is concerned with modeling the language system rather than the nature of the mind itself; it means the foci of grammar study are

on meaning Therefore, there are a lot of overlapping areas between cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar Cognitive semantics is involved with the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure encoded by language, though there are differences between them, they share common interest that put them under the umbrella of cognitive enterprise: the study of meaning and the source that such meaning is conveyed To make clear what is contained in CL, Evans and Green schematized it with the figure:

The study of meaning and grammar from cognitive linguistics

(Adapted from Evans and Green, 2006: 50)

There are two commitments of CL, the first one is the generalization commitment (Lakoff, 1990), which shows its interest in exploring general principles applied to all aspects of language use; another commitment is the cognitive commitment, it represents a commitment to providing a characterization of the general principles for language in accordance with what is known about the mind and brain from other disciplines, the latter makes this branch of language studies cognitive and therefore, interdisciplinary in nature It is therefore a cognitive science, one

of the “scientific disciplines that study the mind” (Geeraerts, 2006: 28)

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 The CL enterprise paves a way to study human imagination CL argues that language reveals the systematic processes working in human mind It shares with functionalism in approaching language through viewing its function, at the same time, it considers language model a representation of cognition, on the other hand, it shares with Generative Linguistics in the mental nature, and it distinguishes itself in the focus on human mind and the non-autonomy of language CL does not rely on “objectivism” of language, instead, it applies “experientialism,” of which experientialism is the mingle of “objectivism” and

“subjectivism” (Kitamura, 2010: 89)

Some of the basic principles of CL will serve to show the importance given to context:

- Language is not an autonomous entity, but rather is related to other human cognitive aspects

Cognitive approaches to grammar The study of the symbolic linguistic units that comprise language

Cognitive semantics The study of the relationship between

experience, embodied cognition and

language

Cognitive linguistics 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

- The main object of CL, therefore, is language use, language can be considered from many different perspectives (syntax, semantics, pragmatics and cognition)

- Meaning should be considered both from semantics and pragmatic point of view

As mentioned above, CL shares with functionalism the concern with language function, however, CL does not make the sharp distinction between syntax and the lexicon Instead, it

“contends that syntax and the lexicon form a continuum of construction ranging from very specific elements (e.g cat, kick the bucket) to increasingly more general patterns (e.g noun, transitive construction)” (Broccias 2006: 81) Other researchers such as Lakoff and Jonhson (1980), Rosch (1975) also rejected the dominant idea at the time that syntax is separate from other aspects of language, and that language is separate from cognition

Insights taken from CL can be useful for second language teaching and learning, based

on the following dimensions:

- Language is an integral part of cognition, it is not considered a unique unit, therefore, in second language acquisition, it should be taught in association with the mind, representing by the underlying conceptual mappings

- In CL, language is viewed as non-dichotomous, structured inventory of conventional symbolic units of varying complexity (Langacker, 1987, 2008), as a result, the teaching and learning which should be based on the combination of different aspects of language as a whole, learning a language, at the same time, learning “standard behaviour,” social norms in it

- CL does not accept the term dictionary meaning, as a result, it argues that, a word or a

pattern is the cue linking to other language items, all of which lie in a system network This leads

to the fact that the second language teaching and learning should not consider a linguistic expression as an isolated one but view language in a broader system, in connection with other elements of the system Isolating a certain language element is not a wise work to do

- In the focal issues of CL, metaphor and metonymy play an important role in the semantics of natural languages and in thinking patterns (Gibb, 2007; Lakoff and Johnson, 2003) For many researchers, especially the pioneers such as Lakoff and Johnson, metaphor is not just a literary phenomenon of language use, but a common use of language that people take for granted, and the network of metaphorical expressions are built through the mapping of domains

in conceptual metaphors Consequently, the teaching of language should involve the instruction

of those tenets of language study In the following section, we would briefly present the basic issues of one of its basic strand: Cognitive semantics

1.4.2 Cognitive semantics

Cognitive semantics is concerned with the investigation of the relationship between conceptualization stands for meaning construction, scholars study language as the means through which these cognitive phenomena can be investigated Cognitive experience, the conceptual system and the semantic structure encoded by language (Evans and Green, 2006, Evans, 2007),

of which the conceptual system is knowledge representation, semantics is not a single theory in language study, on the contrary, it is manifested through the guiding principles such as Blending Theory, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Frame Semantics, Mental Spaces Theory etc

For sholars who work in cognitive semantics and study the conceptual structure and conceptualization (Evans, 2007, Langacker, 2008, Gibbs, 2008), meaning is defined as the conceptualization underlying the linguistic expressions Language use is seen as the manifestation of thought, and in considering it, authors should relate it with social practices, as stated by Langacker (2008: 4) “… Linguistic meanings are also grounded in social interaction, being negotiated by interlocutors based on mutual assessment of their knowledge, thoughts, and intentions.” He also emphasized the searching for evidence of conceptual structure in language and raises the role of empirical data for those findings Gibbs (2008: 113) focused on the necessity of a flexible approach to cognitive semantics because, he argued, our knowledge “is not static” but is it established in and “structured by various patterns of our perceptual interactions, bodily actions, and manipulations of objects.” Of which the pattern is called “image schema,” the “sensorimotor orientation” when we manipulate objects is one of the main ways of

perceiving the world He also specialized it through the image of containment in mapping anger

as fluid in a container, which shows the embodied trend in our conceptualization of the world

Evans (2007: 66) contributed to this literature by clarifying that the embodied cognition is derived from the interaction between human bodies with the environment And for language

“reflects conceptual structure, then it follows that language reflects embodied experience.” Croft (1993: 336, quoted in Charteris-Black, 2004: 13) shared with this view in stating that “the study

of linguistic semantics is the study of common sense human experience.” Langacker (2008: 4) made it clear of the root of meaning in thought, in human mind that the meaning is connected with conceptualization, but can not be identified with concepts For him, it includes “both novel and established conceptions,” and the human experience, manifesting through “not just

“intellectual” notions, but sensory, motor, and emotive experience,” therefore, dynamic aspects

of context should be taken into consideration such as “physical, linguistic, social, and cultural context” which constrain the meaning, and that conception is created and shown through time, consequently, it changes with time

Cognitive semantics theory is the parental one of conceptual metaphor theory Leezenberg (2001: 144) denoted that in cognitive semantics, the transference of domain creates metaphor

“the emergence of clearly delimited, distinct cognitive domains between which metaphorical

transfers are to take place.” He also stated that this approach focuses on the conceptualization of interpreting metaphors; it is the basement for reducing linguistic metaphors to conceptual metaphors, and helps to understand metaphors from pattern of thought Charteris-Black (2004: 14) also carried out his study under this umbrella approach and he claimed that image schema is the central tenet in conceptualizing metaphor, and he acknowledges the embodied trend in it that

“image schemas are the source of metaphorical mappings for abstract domains.” This is coincident with Gibb’s idea above of cognitive semantics in general

Cognitive semantics, like the enterprise of CL, is not a clear-cut boundary framework, in which one can take all its perspectives into a single study There are a number of ways of approaching language study which can be named cognitive semantic approach The guiding principles of cognitive semantics was stated by Evans (2007: 99), Evans and Green (2006: 153)

as follows:

1 Conceptual structure is embodied

2 Semantic structure is conceptual structure

3 Meaning and representation are encyclopaedic

4 Meaning construction is conceptualization

The idea that conceptual structure is embodied entails that we have a specific view of the world due to our unique physical characteristics In other words, we construct the concept based

on the meditation between us and the environment One example of the way embodiment affects the nature of experience is the notion of beauty While in some certain areas in the world, complexion with spots is considered beautiful in some areas but not as symbol of beauty in others

In the second perspective, that semantic structure is conceptual structure, the former is understood as the meanings conventionally connected with words and other linguistic elements can go with conceptual structures, however, they are two separate parts and not coincident

It is the third perspective which states that the nature of semantic structure is encyclopaedic It means that lexical words do not represent clear-cut categories of meaning which are stated in dictionary view, on the contrary, it is the “points of access” (Evan and Green, 2006: 160) to the large dimension of knowledge relating to a certain concept or conceptual domain

For example: John is a Shylock

It is seen that in such a comment/statement, in our understanding of the world, originally in literature, one knows that the utterance is by no means contradictory, it is completely acceptable

and is clearly understood as we relate Shylock to the associated characteristics: mean, selfish, etc

However, it does not mean that the encyclopaedic meaning excludes conventional meaning, let’s look at the following example:

E.g If John were here we would discuss the matter

It is stated in this sentence that John presently stays here, according to it, John is my friend

or colleague, he is, in fact, not here, therefore, we can not discuss the matter now In summary,

we build up the information by connecting distinct mental spaces, which is, here and there In this dimension a new meaning arises differently which is known as encyclopaedic meaning Meaning construction is conceptualization, of which the first one is the concern of the relationship between the conceptual structure and the sensory experience, it means the way people experience the world For example, a prisoner in prison, the prison has the structural characteristics of a boundary, the interior and exterior etc., it has the function of keeping sentenced people, the man is not allowed to leave it and receive rights which common citizens have till he is released The concept “image schema” is closely related to containment

To sum up, cognitive semantics is the study of language in the relation of mind, and that, not concept, but conceptualization is the focal point of it In mentioning conceptualization, we refer to the motivation of concepts and see them in a dynamic picture, that changes with time, and the cause for these changes comes from the interaction between human and environment, the

experience, the encyclopaedic knowledge that people have drawn out when they exist in the society

The above review of previous studies summarizes the issues underlying cognitive semantics Generally, we have discussed one of the broad areas: Cognitive semantics For a thorough view of the cornerstones of CL issues applied in the study, the following section will devote to metaphor, though the definition and related aspects such as mappings, conceptualization, domain, etc

1.5 Metaphor

1.5.1 Metaphor: substitution view, comparison view, interaction view and

pragmatic approach Traditionally, metaphor is considered a trope, a figure of speech which writers often use to impress readers Centuries ago, people started to realize the application of it in language use Since Aristotle’s time, metaphor is “the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion.” (Aristotle, XXI)

In his detailed description of several aspects in poetry, Leech (1969) claimed that metaphor

is a figure of speech in literature and idiom and gives the concepts of Tenor and Vehicle on the basement of Grounding For him, metaphor is so central to our notion of poetic creation that it is often treated as a phenomenon of its own right, without reference to other kinds of transferred meaning

Many literary researchers emphasize the unusual use of words which has already existed before and replaces it with an objectively inadequate word Metaphor is also seen as a product of

an individual, as in Bergman and Epstein (1992) it was seen as “the dance of the mind” and it is associated with a powerful trope in poetry, the basic rule of it is the transformation of one thing

or idea to another, but it is considered the necessary skill of poetic creativity

We now look at metaphor from different view and approaches in order to see briefly but precisely how it has been considered so far For that, the division of approaches to metaphor study perhaps best relies on Black (1993) in his criticism to comparison, a special case of substitution theory of metaphor In his review and criticism, he saw metaphor as being studied from “substitution view,” according to this approach, a metaphor replaces a literal term, of which, comparison is one case In the substitution view to metaphor, which Black considered as the umbrella one over comparison view of which one term is applied for another that it does not literally belong to through the mechanism of transference of meaning

The comparison theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s work “Poetics” which considered

metaphor as the model of an implicit comparison For this approach, the metaphor A is B is seen

as an elliptical form of A is like B “B in respects X, Y, Z…” (Tehdal, 2009: 1) He also stated the problem of this approach: “One problem is that it presumes that metaphors cannot create

similarities From this perspective, metaphors can only describe existing similarities.” (Katz et.al., 1998: 3) reviewed metaphors under the comparison theory as “an explicit or implicit comparison, which is literally false: "my car is a lemon," "Juliet is the sun," "chair leg") Littlemore and Low (2006: 42) observed that proponents of the comparison theory think that

“metaphor comprehension and simile comprehension are similar.” As such, the reader or listeners need to identify common features that two parts of the expressions bear

In the comparison view, when one says x is y, it means in reality x and y share similarities

which are considered as grounds The similarities help people to reduce the challenge in comprehending the concept used and the real entity we want to mention As Miller (1993: 367)

denoted “If an author says that x is y when we know in fact that x is not y, we must try to

imagine a world in which x is y This act of imagination is facilitated if, in the real world, x is like y in some respects, for then we can take their similarities as the author’s grounds for saying that x is y” Miller dedicatedly took comparison as the basement of metaphors, although analogy

is taken as the base for comparison, He established that “In order to see that “The toes are the

fingers of the foot” can be formulated as an instance of metaphor, let’s take it as “the toes are the fingers” which can be paraphrased as “Some property of the toes is like some property of the

fingers” In Vietnam, scholars also share the common idea with the world’s scholars in defining metaphor under the theory of comparison, and similarity is emphasized, although the former often associate metaphor with the value it brings about in language use, for example, Hòa (2006: 107), said that metaphor is a figure of speech through the implicit comparison of which the name

of one thing is called by another when two of them has certain similar meaning, in order to widen the imagination from the readers Or for Lạc (2003: 52), it is the second name for the first one based on the similarity or likeness (in terms of fact or imagination) between A (the one named) and B (the one naming)

It is also elaborated that what the sentence means is “the referent”, what the reader is expected to know is the relatum and the new information is the realization of similarity between the referent and relatum For this theory, metaphor is considered as a hidden comparison, it is similar to simile in comparing two entities and differs from the latter in the implicit comparison while simile is viewed as an overt comparison

The opponents of this view (Searle, 1993) stated that it is defective to claim that metaphor

is a comparison between two similar things “Metaphorical statements can not be equivalent in meaning to literal statements of similarity because the truth conditions of the two sorts of statements are frequently different” and in criticizing the theory in comprehending the metaphorical expression, he shot as “saying that the metaphorical “S is P” implies the literal “S

is like P” does not solve our problem It only pushes it back a step” The comparison theory shows its weakness in revealing the literal comparison as the basement for metaphorical

expressions For in many situations, they are not literally similar

The proponents of the Interaction view (Black, 1993) took comparison view in the facets that there are similarities between two things, however, it differs from the former in the denial of alike characteristics between two things He also generated that in a metaphorical statement, the primary and the secondary subject interact with each other The former generates a selection of some certain properties of the latter, in such a way that those properties are constructed in a parallel implication – complex “that goes well with the primary subject which in turn encourages

the “parallel challenges” in the secondary one” He gave the example Society is a sea as “being

not so much about the sea (considered as a thing) as about a system of relationships (the

"implicative complex" …) signaled by the presence of the word "sea" in the sentence in question.” (1993: 28) In this view, comprehension is emphasized, however, we do not have the criteria for defining the properties As a result, a definite interpretation is not supported, ambiguity is unavoidable A critic of this view (Searle, 1997: 921) stated: “The most serious objection to the semantic view is not that it falsely presupposes that all metaphorical occurrences

of words must be surrounded by literal occurrence of other words, but rather, even when the metaphorical occurrence is within the context of literal occurrences, it is not in general the case that the metaphorical speaker’s meaning is a result of any interaction among the elements of the sentence or any literal sense of “interaction.” Another critic of this view is Katz et.al (1998: 27)

in elaborating certain problems of this approach, for example stated “interaction presumes that the primary and subsidiary subjects have a reciprocal effect on one another, yet an extensive psychological literature indicates that the two aspects of metaphor play quite different roles in metaphor comprehension.”

People also view the approaches to metaphor as “semantic” and “pragmatic” theory from that, they term the substitution theory as “semantic” and name the new-born way to metaphor study “pragmatic.” In fact, this is closely associated to the works by Austin (1963), Searl (1993), Grice (1975) etc In this theory, a metaphor is the deviant use of language in a certain context The sentence meaning is defective in a certain language context For Glucksberg and Keysar

(1993: 403), “Deriving literal meaning is always the first step in determining intended speaker meanings, including metaphorical meanings The second step is to access whether sentence meaning is plausible in context” It means the hearer realizes the meaning as what the speaker intends to say; when the meaning is not plausible, it means the message intended is different from the sentence meaning, the hearer must decide which is the best choice of meaning applied

in that specific case The supporter of this theory (Grice, 1975) observed that in normal conversation, people follow cooperative principles, and metaphor is the violation of the maxims

in conversation, especially quality maxim Several opponents of this view states that some sentences which are not literally defective are not metaphors at all (Glucksber and Keysar, 1993) and that many metaphors are not difficult to understand if put in textual contexts

Despite the criticism, pragmatic view still has its values in understanding metaphors as it is feasible in dealing with this language use in many circumstances

Later, the cognitive approach to metaphor blows a new breath into the issue It views metaphors from a hierarchical dimension As such, metaphors are not merely the deviant use of language or an implicit comparison, but a matter of conceptualization of the world Basically, they are the result of our knowledge and experience of the world, as well as the interaction of human beings with the world resulting in embodiment in reflection Moreover, metaphors are netted together, coherent with one another in the system of human encyclopaedic knowledge and manifesting themselves through language The latter approach to metaphor is applied in our study and would be elaborated in the following section

1.5.2 Metaphor in cognitive linguistics

1.5.2.1 The concept of metaphor in cognitive linguistics

According to cognitive linguists such as Lakoff and Johnson (2003), metaphor is a part of language usage, therefore, it is a part of cognition Further, metaphor is not merely cognitive, it is also a linguistic, sociocultural, neural, and bodily phenomenon This was shared by scholars in this field of CL such as Gibb (1998, 2007), Kovecses (2002), Charteris Black (2002, 2004), Picken (2007), Cơ (2007) The distinction between the concept of metaphor in traditional approach and CL is that, in CL perspective, metaphor is considered as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain Among other basic strands of CL, metaphor is an important one which is mentioned in most studies in CL, as a cognitive linguist, one soon realizes the fact that metaphor is common in language study, therefore, it seems that from cognitive semantics, metaphor is mentioned as an important part

In CL, it is a cornerstone issue among others such as Mental Space, Blending Theories, etc

It is different from traditional approaches to metaphor in that it suggests that metaphor is created

based on conceptual ground, which is termed conceptual metaphor, and therefore it is not only understood as a separated one but in association with a system of many other metaphors, together, they form what is called a “conceptual metaphor.” The cognitive approach to metaphor basically focuses on two points: metaphor is not a product merely associated with literary language but a product of human cognition As a result, 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 For Lakoff and Johnson, metaphor does not only lies in the word but in the thought

of people, they give the definition of metaphor as “principally a way of conceiving of one thing

in terms of another” (2003: 36), and that “the essence of metaphor is understanding and experience one kind of things in terms of another.” (ibid: 5) Ân (2004: 12) summarized the idea

of cognitive approach to metaphor as: “understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain.” For another scholar, Cơ (2007), metaphor in CL is a cognitive mechanism, he also stated that the nature of metaphor lies in the mechanism that helps us to understand abstract concepts, we normally understand metaphors based on non-metaphorical expressions

From any perspective, the common point here is that metaphor is the use of word, or term,

or concept to denote another word, term, or concept, as that, there must appear the “irrelevance”

in the surface when we view it It proposes that metaphors are created based on conceptual ground, which is termed conceptual metaphor, and therefore it is not only understood as a separated one but in association with a system of many other metaphors, together, they form the so-called “conceptual metaphor.” Metaphor has been the focal issues of many aspects of study in

CL It The study of metaphor across languages can improve the status of CL in cognitive sciences, as well as help learners to be aware of the differences in metaphors between two languages, from the results of study, students can bear in their minds the conceptualization underlying each language system, it will equip them to understand metaphors in target language better

In short, in our study, a metaphor is established based on the understanding of one thing in terms of another And basically, the shift of concept from one domain to another is at the root of the linguistic metaphors at the language level In the following sections, we would present the cornerstone issues related to metaphors

1.5.2.2 Fundamental issues in metaphor studies

In terms of hierarchical classification, the concepts of linguistic and conceptual metaphor

are introduced, together with their accompaniments In considering metaphors, the notions of

their accompaniments such as domain, mapping, conceptualization should be taken into

consideration

1.5.2.2.1 Linguistic metaphor

Linguistic metaphor is an expression which carries metaphorical linguistic meaning, it means, the use of terms based on analogy of objects or concepts Many linguistic metaphors seem to be separated in the surface, in fact, are interrelated with one another in a system by means of conceptual metaphors underlying them In most cases, linguistic metaphors are defined

in relation with conceptual metaphors, for example, Kovecses (2010: 4) states that “it is the metaphorical linguistic expressions that reveal the existence of the conceptual metaphors.” Meanwhile, Littlemore and Low (2006: 11) denote: “…linguistic metaphors are words or expressions that are uttered or written,” after giving examples to illustrate what it is as follows:

“The phrase level playing field is a linguistic metaphor, because it consists of three words

concerning sport, in an utterance concerning a different topic, commerce In this expression, the

‘Japanese car market’ is the Topic, the ‘level playing field’ is the Vehicle, and the reason for

connecting the entities, such as “games need a flat terrain to be fair” is called the Ground.”

Lakoff and Johnson (2003: 247) stated that “linguistic metaphor is a natural part of human language.” In CL approach to metaphor, they realize that linguistic metaphors are those others call “metaphor” in general In another case, Picken (2007) emphasizes the language dimension of linguistic metaphor, for him, they are at the linguistic level, and are the words or expressions that in a certain context seem not coherent Leezenberg (2001) and Kimmel (2008) emphasize on the understanding of linguistic metaphor in contrasting it with context, for Leezenberg, metaphor causes “semantic tension” and in nature, it is the result of the shift from the use of a word or a phrase “from the context or domain in which it is expected to occur to another context or domain where it is not expected to occur” (ibid 184) Kimmel coincides the new terms with Leech’s (1969) in applying the source or vehicle term and states that metaphor creates “semantic tension with its cotext or context” Kimmel (2008: 193) As a summary, in our study, a linguistic metaphor has the following features:

- It is a linguistic expression

- It bears a tension with the context and cotext it appears

- It is created based on the association between entities

- It is the manifestation of the underlying conceptual metaphor

We are now looking at how the latter, conceptual metaphor, is defined

1.5.2.2.2 Conceptual metaphor

The idea of conceptual metaphor is indebted to seminar article by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) which states that metaphor, in nature, is a cognitive phenomenon, and what strikes us on the surface is called linguistic metaphor 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 In their study, 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 that the system of metaphors for anger arose, across languages and cultures, from the physiology of anger itself” (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003: 250) And they refer to the concepts of time, events, causation, morality etc., despite not listing all the cases, they notice that each concept is “entirely structured by elaborate systems of conceptual metaphor” and give the example of the concept of causation which may have “nearly two dozen distinct metaphors.”

It entails that a lot of elaborating research should be carried out to reveal the conceptual metaphors underlying language

However, to make clear what conceptual metaphor is, let us go through some definitions Several scholars, such as Charteris-Black (2004) emphasized its linguistic form which underlies

a figure of speech (metaphor) This, in turns, functions as resolving “the semantic tension of a set

of metaphors by showing them to be related.” Meanwhile, others such as Littlemore and Low (2006), Kovecses (2010), Tendahl (2009) did not see it as the “statement” as Charteris-Black, they view conceptual metaphor as a phenomenon of thought, or revealing relationship, “They are not linguistic expressions, but rather relationships” Littlemore and Low (2006: 12), or “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: 4) For Lakoff and Johnson (2003: 247), conceptual metaphor is a “natural part of human thought.” To make it clear of what shape it is, Kovecses (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: 154, 155), is “grounded in correlations within our experience These experiential correlations may be

of two types: experiential co-occurrence and experiential similarity.” 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 Let’s look at the examples of linguistic metaphors revealing the conceptualization LOVE IS A JOURNEY 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 conceptual metaphor 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 For this matter, the relationship between conceptual and linguistic metaphor is necessarily elaborated

The connection between linguistic metaphor and conceptual metaphor has been paid attention to, as they are attached to one another, the former is the manifestation of the latter, while the latter is what we base on to see the motivation of the former To make a distinction between them Lakoff and Johnson, (2003: 248) viewed conceptual metaphor as “a natural part of human thought” while linguistic metaphor as a “natural part of human language.” They also stated the importance of linguistic metaphor in understanding a conceptual metaphor as: “every question about the nature of conceptual metaphor and its role in thought and language is an empirical question.” Littlemore and Low also realized the relationship between them in interpreting a metaphor as follows

It is difficult to identify the exact nature of the relationship between linguistic and conceptual metaphor When faced with a linguistic metaphor in oral or written discourse, we may look for an underlying conceptual metaphor as a means of understanding it and/or working out connections with other parts of the discourse

Littlemore and Low (2006: 14)

From our viewpoint, linguistic metaphor is a language expression showing conceptual metaphor, showing our thought from the surface of language, meanwhile, conceptual metaphor is the deep layer underlying linguistic metaphor, clarifying the motivation of absurd linguistic metaphors As such, many separated linguistic metaphors, in fact, may interrelate within a conceptual one

1.5.2.2.3 Conceptual domain

Domain is a conceptual entity in metaphor theory It is a “relatively complex knowledge

structure” (Evans and Green, 2007: 61) which associates with “coherent aspects of experience.”

A conceptual domain is “any coherent organization of experience” (Kovecses, 2010: 4) For

example, the conceptual domain JOURNEY is assumed to include traveler, mode of transport,

route, destination, obstacles, etc When one domain is expressed in terms of another, a

conceptual metaphor is formed, and at that time the former is termed target domain and the latter

source domain The original definition was given by Lakoff and Johnson (2003: 266) of domain

as follows:

In a metaphor; there are two domains: the target domain, which is constituted by the immediate subject

matter, and the source domain, in which important metaphorical reasoning takes place and that provides the source concepts used in that reasoning Metaphorical language has literal meaning in the source domain

Related to conceptual metaphor, the domain was also defined by Kovecses (2010: 4) as follows:

The conceptual domain from which we draw out metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain is called “source domain,” while the conceptual domain that is understood this way is the “target domain”… The target domain is the domain that we try to understand through the use of the source domain

It should be more relevant to give an example here to illustrate what is what through exhaustive elaboration of the theory, the conceptual metaphor SADNESS IS A FLUID IN A CONTAINER (Kovecses, 2010: 334) can be considered the hidden idea underlying the linguistic

expression “I am filled with sorrow” and in this case, the source domain is fluid in a container while the target domain is the thought people want to convey about their sadness He also

illustrated the image of target domain from the source domain of slide and projector, of which the projector as the mapping and the slide shows what people can see as the target domain which

is created from the structure of the source domain Therefore, the source and the target domain

have correspondent relationship through mapping – projection

1.5.2.2.4 Mapping

Mapping is a new concept in linguistics, but not in other fields, for Tendahl (2009: 115), this concept is rooted from the term of mathematics, and many researchers (Tendahl (2009), Lakoff (1993), Charteris-Black (2004), Katz (1998)), shared the idea that in mapping, the features of the source domain are mapped onto the target domain For example, when the

conceptual metaphor DESIRE IS FIRE is manifested through “drawing at the heats – in the

belly, in the rain,” “of my mind, burning as if it could go on, burning itself, burning down”

(Rich, Burning Oneself Out), “A candle in the thighs – warms youth and seed and burns the

seeds of age” (Thomas, Light Breaks Where No Sun Rises) It is viewed that the features of

DESIRE (the target domain) is mapped from the features of FIRE (the source domain) in the sense that they are hot (the fire is hot, and the desire makes a person feel hot, eager to obtain things s/he wants) Fire, if one stays too near, can burn him/her, desire, if one has a very strong desire and plunges himself into it, he can get damaged as being burnt etc Lakoff (1993: 215 ) argued that the structure of the source domain should be kept in the target domain, this is the basement for one to understand a metaphor in the most common way “Metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology (that is the image-schema structure) of the source domain, in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain.” And “Image-schema structure is preserved in the mapping—interiors of containers map to interiors, exteriors map to exteriors; sources of motion to sources, goals to goals, and so on” Lakoff and Johnson (2003: 266), in any case, the “correspondences across such domains” is called metaphorical mapping They also realized that the mappings are not arbitrary, but “are shaped and constrained by our bodily experiences” (ibid 247), although later, they committed that they were startled by the findings of other researchers in such a way that, not all conceptualization is bodily constrained, and that in many other cases, the conceptual metaphor is related to the physiology of the term itself, and they gave the example of nearly two dozens of conceptual metaphor related to the concept of causation as the acknowledgement of this phenomenon Besides, they also discussed the idea of

“image-schema” and took “container” and “path” structure “rich image” and play a key role in understanding the target domain

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 Katz (1998) also took the view of Lakoff in such a way that mapping keeps intact the “cognitive topology of the source domain” provided that it is “consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain” and he also hypothesizes that there might be “a

hierarchical structure” that mappings are “embedded.” For him, mapping is pervasive in much of

“conventional language.” Charteris-Black (2004: 13) even had more emphasis on the correspondence between the source and the target domain, he argued that in mapping, language will “represent the structural identity between two domains.”

Especially, 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” (Kovecses, 2010: 7) He also gave examples to illustrate this:

Source: Journey

the traveler

the vehicle

the journey

the distance covered

the obstacles encountered

decisions about which way to go

the destination of the journey

Target: love

the lovers the love relationship itself events in the relationship the progress made the difficulties experienced choices about what to do the goal(s) of the relationship

1.5.2.2.5 Conceptualization

Conceptualization is a process, that is “the process of meaning construction to which

language contributes” (Evan and Green, 2006: 38) This process is operated through the access to the encyclopedic knowledge and by prompting for “complex processes of conceptual integration.” Conceptualization is associated with the flexible and dynamic nature of human thought Therefore, the process that we construct meaning, specifically, the process of mapping one domain onto another to create a conceptual metaphor is named conceptualization Consequently, it may embrace many linguistic metaphors as well as attributes of the source and target domain For example, the conceptualization of sadness through the source domain of pain

is shown in this study through the attributes such as hurt, wound, or pain Let’s consider the

examples such as “Reproaches me for every hurt – with injured, bovine eyes.” (Mayers), “I feel

old wound reopened.” (McGough) Conceptualization, in short, is the process of which thought

patterns operate in reflecting the world in human language

1.6 Concluding Remarks

We have so far reviewed issues in CL as well as metaphor theories, of which in CL, metaphors are a part of language, and therefore, a part of human thought, they are pervasive in language use One of the main areas of CL: cognitive semantics is dealt with in order to provide the basis for metaphor theory Metaphor, in our review, is considered from different approaches and within CL approach, the definition of its accompaniments, together with that that transparent insights of attributes of metaphor studies which would be used later, such as the hierarchically linguistic and conceptual metaphors, conceptualization, and mapping are presented

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

The main aim of this research is on metaphors in modern English and Vietnamese poems, consequently, we would like to clarify hidden cultural values underlying conceptual metaphors The data is limited at metaphors in the two languages’ poems, specifically, in one genre of poetry: lyric Firstly, we try to answer the questions concerning the availability of conceptual metaphors in English and Vietnamese, through the manifestation of linguistic metaphors Secondly, we consider linguistic metaphors conveying similar conceptual ones in the two languages After that different conceptual metaphors are taken into consideration in order to point out possible factors determining the similarities and differences between the conceptualizations To meet the established requirements, the approaches and methods as well as techniques of gathering data, describing, interpreting and comparing metaphors in the two languages are applied as in the following sections

2.1 Approach to the study

The major approaches that are used in the study are deductive and inductive To be more specific, they are applied as follows:

Firstly, deductive approach helps us to have the theoretical foundation for the study which is based on the literature synthesized in the works of scholars whose ideas are fundamental for the research The scholars we are indebted to in adapting their ideas of metaphorical concepts and comparative study: Lakoff and Johnson (2003) for their initial ideas

of conceptualization and conceptual metaphors, Lakoff (2006), Thắng (2008, 2012) for their comprehensive ideas of the mapping from one domain to another; Kovecses (2005), Charteris-Black (2004, 2005), Stefanowitsch (2006), Steen (2010), The Pragglejaz Group (2007), Semino (1996), Cơ (2007) for the identification and analysis of metaphors; Hòa (2006a), (2006b), Lạc (2003), Lạc and Hòa (2002), Ân (2004), Lân (2011), Đức and Hán (1985), for exhaustive definitions and types of metaphor in general, and the comprehensible mentioning of cognitive approach to metaphors etc Those help us in deducing a theoretical basement for our dissertation From the theoretical foundation, we draw out a framework of study for this research which is based on cognitive approach to metaphors

Secondly, inductive approach is important in carrying out this research, with this approach, we could get the vital data for the study and describe, analyze, interpret and synthesize

it to draw out comments and evaluation on the perspectives that we are concerned with, i.e linguistic metaphors and conceptual metaphors and the values underlying them This helps us in counting metaphors and put them into proportion in considering linguistic metaphors embedded

in a conceptual metaphor

2.2 Principal methods of the study

It is primarily a qualitative study, of which after metaphorical expressions are explored, meaning is interpreted, then the source and target domains are defined, comments are given on prominent lexemes and the role of them in expressing ideas, conceptual metaphors are also built

up from metaphorical expressions To implement this, we use the qualitative research software Nvivo to support the categorizing and analyzing the data This is applied in dealing with metaphors extracted from 100 poems in each language which vary in length but are selectively chosen Of which, the English data contains 13,666 words and Vietnamese data has 13,645 words in size With this method, the number of metaphorical expressions, the frequency of lexical items in the source and target domains defined are brought together which support an exhaustive description, interpretation and consensus comments As such, the counting and sorting played an important role as it would show the concern in people’s minds when using the language, i.e the common conceptualization in language At this stage, the export from Nvivo data and the spreadsheet help us to count and sort the conceptual domains collected from our data

Descriptive: The data collected is described to set up a foundation for analysis and interpretation The description deals with several aspects of the data collected such as what role a certain lexeme plays in the frequency found in one language, how meaning is conveyed through the appearance of metaphorical expressions, etc Descriptive method is integrated with analytic and synthetic methods which helps to consider metaphors from the original motivation, view metaphorical concepts from the linguistic metaphors uncovered, and explains the mapping in each language; comparative, of which the similarities and differences are considered in terms

of domains, to make clear the factors determining those similarities and differences

Comparative: The main aim of the study is to compare between English and Vietnamese metaphors, therefore, after linguistic metaphors are gathered into conceptual metaphors, and the later, in turn, are put into 8 broad terms of (1) the world, (2) natural aspects, (3) animals, (4) time, (5) action, body and character, (6) person, life and death, (7) inner world, (8) relationship

We take each area as a basis for comparison of which the levels of both conceptual metaphors and linguistic metaphors are considered, interpreted and compared between two languages To make it clearer to comprehend, we carry out the following steps to compare in our data:

1 Look at the conceptual metaphors of an area, for example, inner world, to see which conceptual metaphors in English and Vietnamese are coincident and which ones are unique to one language but not the other

2 When the conceptual metaphors are the same, consider the linguistic metaphors to see if the activated mapping attributes are similar or not, if they are similar, recommendations are made in terms of the convenience in target language use that may results from those similarities Otherwise, the differences in the activation of attributes in mapping the target and the source domains considered and notifications are made in terms of language use

3 When a conceptual metaphor is unique to a language but not in the other, explanations for such differences are given to make clear the determining factors of them from cultural, ideological, and social perspectives Implications are also made to avoid ridicule or failure in using and/or translating the target language

4 Connect the results from those eight areas for comparing to make generalizations to fulfill the aim and objectives set up at the beginning of the dissertation: to draw out evaluation in the application of metaphors in English and Vietnamese lyrics, to make general implications to teaching and translating for Vietnamese teachers and learners

2.3 Identification of metaphors

Researchers show their own way in defining metaphor, but most of them meet in the idea that in recognizing metaphor, initially, a semantic tension or a deviant use of language would be considered as a signal of metaphor, and such a case should be taken into consideration (Charteris-Black, 2004; Picken, 2007; Kimmel, 2008; Leezenberg, 2001) the violation of code signals a manifestation of conceptual metaphor, and this tension in the language level would be eliminated through the understanding of conceptualization For example, Charteris-Black (2004: 13) observed that “metaphor creates a semantic tension by code violation” and that “conceptual

representation undertaken by cognitive semanticists eliminates this semantic tension.”

Leezenberg (2001: 135) shared the same view in focusing on the anomaly of language expressions in recognizing metaphor “falsity or anomaly as a criterion that allows for the recognition of metaphor.” The anomaly can only emergent from the context, and cotext, therefore, he denotes the role of context in defining metaphor at the level of language, and that it should be considered through the “level of the utterance in its total context.” Steen (2007) introduced two criteria for recognizing metaphor as (1) the contrast of lexical item in the context which is not relevant with verbal communication and (2) “The speech activity sense of the relevant expressions can be said to be motivated by the more basic sense via a cross-domain mapping where the target is speech activity and the source is a different domain.” Totally agree with this approach to metaphor identification, Picken (2007) added the idea that, besides this, background knowledge plays an important role in noticing metaphors, and he gave an example to illustrate that, there is no tension in the use of language in context, there is nothing anomalous in

language expressions, however, based on the encyclopaedic knowledge, the expression “And

miles to go before I sleep” can be considered as a metaphor, in the meaning that “I have many duties to accomplish before I die.”

From the above observation, it is understood that, we should at first identify in most cases, through the incoherence in the superficial meaning, the absurdity in language meaning in a published discourse can be a potential case of metaphor, but it is not the only case, in others, we should read the whole discourse to see the general meaning the author wants to convey, this will help the researcher on the right track, and s/he can view metaphors in a more systematic way As can be seen from the previous works, the ways we identify metaphors will depend on the meaning of the expression in the context and the general meaning of the discourse that the author creates As Charteris-Black put it:

It is worthy to note that from the linguistic criteria, metaphor is a word or a phrase that causes tenseness by (1) reification, the use of abstract term for more concrete ones; (2) personification, the use of an inanimate term to refer to something inanimate; (3) depersonification, the use of an inanimate term to refer to something inanimate (Charteris-Black, 2004 : 21)

From cognitive perspective, a metaphor is created by a change in the conceptual system The foundation of this change comes from the psychological association between “the referent of

a linguistic expression in its original source context and the reference in the novel target context” (ibid.) The criteria are specified as follows: a metaphor results from the shift in the use of a word or phrase from the context, or in which it is expected to occur to another context or domain where it is not expected to occur, thereby causing semantic tension

The above are the hints for realizing a metaphor, providing the background to define a metaphor in general However, in a particular case of metaphor, one needs to use knowledge from different perspectives in dealing with it The combination of the criteria (i.e linguistic, pragmatic, and cognitive) is necessary which one needs to bear in mind to help him/her point out and best understand a metaphor

Authors have their own ways to deal with metaphor to meet their research goals, Black (2004) stated that the first step should be “a close reading of a sample of texts with the aim of identifying candidate metaphors.” And the second step is “further qualitative phase in which corpus contexts are examined to determine whether each use of a keyword is metaphoric

Charteris-or literal.” These seem to be simple but in fact, fully cover the process of defining and understanding metaphor, for we can only identify metaphor through a thorough understanding of

it