Linguistica inglese 2

Conceptual metaphors

A conceptual metaphor is a metaphor that concerns the way we develop and understand

concepts and ideas. In their study entitled Metaphors We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson

argued that metaphor is pervasive in human thought and everyday language. They showed

that metaphors are not simply linguistic devices used to make language more expressive,

but fundamental mechanisms through which people conceptualise the world and their

activities.

Conceptual metaphors allow us to understand abstract or complex concepts in terms of

more concrete and familiar experiences. They therefore influence not only the way we

speak, but also the way we think and understand reality.

Target domain and source domain

Lakoff and Johnson introduced a systematic and replicable methodology for analysing

conceptual metaphors. This methodology is based on the distinction between two domains:

-​ TARGET DOMAIN: the abstract or complex concept that we want to understand. It is

the subject matter being conceptualised.

-​ SOURCE DOMAIN: the more concrete or familiar concept through which we

understand the target domain.

The source domain provides a structure that helps us make sense of the target domain by

transferring some of its characteristics to it. This process is called metaphorical mapping.

For example:

-​ They won the argument.

This sentence involves understanding an argument in terms of war. The verb won is

normally associated with competitions or conflicts, including warfare, and therefore evokes

the source domain of war.

-​ SOURCE DOMAIN: war.

-​ TARGET DOMAIN: argument.

The conceptual metaphor can be expressed as:

-​ ARGUMENT IS WAR

This means that we understand arguments as if they were battles: people defend their

positions, attack their opponents' ideas and try to win the discussion. The metaphor is not

limited to the verb won, but reflects a broader way of conceptualising arguments.

Systematicity of metaphors

Conceptual metaphors are often systematic because the same relationship between a

source domain and a target domain can be expressed through different words and linguistic

expressions. In other words, several expressions that are different from a lexical point of

view may reflect the same underlying conceptual metaphor. This means that a conceptual

metaphor is not simply an individual word or expression, but a more general pattern of

thought. Bodily experiences, for example, can influence our conceptual system. As living

beings, we need food to survive, and eating is a familiar experience that can help us

understand other aspects of life. 1

Consider the expression:

That is food for thought.

-​ SOURCE DOMAIN: food.

-​ TARGET DOMAIN: thought or ideas.

This expression conceptualises thoughts as something that can nourish the mind, just as

food nourishes the body. The concrete experience of eating is used to make the abstract

process of thinking more understandable. This expression belongs to a broader system of

metaphors in which ideas are understood in terms of food and eating.

The underlying conceptual metaphor is:

-​ IDEAS ARE FOOD

This conceptual metaphor can also be expressed through other linguistic expressions, such

as to digest information or to chew over an idea. In these examples, mental processes are

understood through actions associated with food and eating. The systematicity of conceptual

metaphors therefore consists in the fact that a single conceptual mapping can generate

several different linguistic expressions.

Cultural-specific metaphors

Cultural contexts influence the way metaphors develop and are understood. Different

cultures may conceptualise the same abstract concept through different source domains,

depending on their experiences, values, practices and linguistic conventions. For example,

Italian and English use different colour metaphors to refer to financial situations.

In Italian, the expression essere al verde refers to having little or no money.

-​ SOURCE DOMAIN: the colour green.

-​ TARGET DOMAIN: one's financial situation.

In English, the expression to be in the red refers to being in debt or having a financial deficit.

-​ SOURCE DOMAIN: the colour red.

-​ TARGET DOMAIN: one's financial situation.

Although both expressions refer to financial circumstances, they use different colours to

convey their meanings. These examples illustrate how metaphorical expressions may vary

across languages and cultures.

Cultural-specific metaphors are metaphors that arise from the particular experiences,

values and practices of a given cultural community. Their meaning may depend on cultural

conventions that are not necessarily shared by speakers of other languages.

Culture and metaphors

Cultural contexts can influence both the linguistic expressions used to convey a metaphor

and the metaphorical mappings themselves. Different cultures may therefore have different

metaphorical expressions for the same concept or, in some cases, conceptualise the same

concept through different source domains.

An example is the expression:

-​ Stop wasting my time!

This expression is based on the conceptual metaphor:

TIME IS MONEY 2

-​ SOURCE DOMAIN: money or valuable resources.

-​ TARGET DOMAIN: time.

The verb waste is commonly associated with money and resources. When it is used with

time, it transfers the idea of wasting something valuable to the way we understand time. The

metaphor conceptualises time as a resource that can be spent, saved or wasted, just like

money. It reflects the idea that time is valuable and that using it inefficiently means losing

something important.

Other expressions based on the same conceptual metaphor include spending time, saving

time and investing time. These expressions demonstrate the systematic nature of conceptual

metaphors: different linguistic expressions can reflect the same underlying relationship

between a source domain and a target domain.

Lexical metaphors

When we analyse lexical metaphors, we concentrate on lexical choices, that is, the choice

of words used to express a particular meaning. In particular, we focus on words and

expressions that draw on a source domain to describe or conceptualise something belonging

to a target domain.

Some common lexical metaphors in English are also manifestations of conceptual

metaphors. This means that different metaphorical expressions can reflect the same

underlying conceptual structure. For example, the following expressions are based on the

conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY:

-​ He has no direction in life.

-​ He is lost.

-​ We are at the crossroads.

-​ She will certainly go places.

-​ Don't let anyone stand in your way.

In these expressions, life is understood in terms of a journey. The source domain is the

experience of travelling, while the target domain is life. Expressions such as direction, lost,

crossroads and way refer literally to journeys, but they are used metaphorically to describe

life choices, difficulties and future opportunities.

Similarly, the following expressions are based on the conceptual metaphor IDEAS ARE

FOOD:

-​ I can't digest the entire book.

-​ Those ideas are half-baked.

-​ That's food for thought.

-​ Let me stew over that one.

-​ This is my bread and butter.

-​ It's a piece of cake.

These expressions use vocabulary associated with food and its preparation to describe

mental processes, ideas, work and activities. For example, digest refers to the process of

breaking down food, but in the expression I can't digest the entire book, it refers to the

difficulty of processing and understanding information. 3

Another example of a lexical metaphor is:

-​ My lawyer is a shark.

In this sentence, the lawyer is metaphorically described as a shark. The expression transfers

characteristics associated with the animal to a human being.

Similarity and difference in lexical metaphors

Lexical metaphors exploit both similarity and difference between the metaphorical

expression and its corresponding literal meaning. A metaphorical expression has some

elements in common with the literal concept it evokes, but it also contains differences. It is

precisely this contrast that allows us to recognise the metaphorical meaning.

Consider the example:

-​ My lawyer is a shark.

The difference between the two concepts is immediately recognisable:

-​ A lawyer is a human being and a professional figure.

-​ A shark is an animal.

However, the intended similarity concerns certain characteristics associated with sharks in

the popular imagination, such as aggression, ruthlessness and the ability to attack. The

metaphor therefore transfers these characteristics from the source domain of sharks to the

target domain of lawyers. The contrast between the literal meaning and the intended

metaphorical meaning is essential. If there were no difference between the two concepts, the

expression would not produce the same metaphorical effect.

Metaphors as a question of word choice

Metaphors are also a question of lexical choice. When expressing a particular meaning,

speakers and writers can choose between a more congruent or literal wording and a more

metaphorical one. These choices are important because different expressions can

communicate similar information while producing different effects on the reader or listener.

Consider the following examples:

-​ My lawyer is a shark.

-​ My lawyer is ruthless.

Both expressions communicate the idea that the lawyer behaves aggressively or without

compassion. However, they do not produce exactly the same effect. In the first example, the

lawyer is compared to an animal associated with aggression and attack. The metaphor

suggests that the lawyer's behaviour is not simply ruthless within the boundaries of ordinary

human behaviour, but resembles the behaviour attributed to a dangerous predator. The

image of the shark makes the description more vivid and emotionally powerful. It can also

encourage the reader to perceive the lawyer as threatening or dangerous. In the second

example, ruthless directly expresses an abstract quality. Although the word conveys a

negative judgement, it does not evoke the same concrete image as shark. Therefore, the

choice between a literal and a metaphorical expression affects how a message is

interpreted. Metaphors can make abstract qualities more concrete, create emotional

associations and influence the way people perceive a person, situation or event. For this

reason, speakers and writers should be aware of the effects produced by their lexical

choices. 4

The etymology of "Fall in Love"

The expression fall in love provides an example of a lexical metaphor that has existed in

English for centuries. According to the etymological information, the expression is attested

from the 1520s. The verb fall can mean to pass suddenly and often involuntarily into a

particular physical or mental state. It appears in several expressions, including:

-​ Fall into a trap.

-​ She fell ill.

-​ They fell out of favour.

-​ Fall in love.

-​ Fall asleep.

-​ Fall prey to an impostor.

-​ Fall into a strange way of thinking.

-​ She fell to pieces after she lost her job.

In these expressions, fall does not necessarily refer to a literal physical movement

downwards. Instead, it describes entering a particular state or experiencing a change that

may be sudden or difficult to control.

In fall in love, love is conceptualised as a state into which a person falls, rather than

something they necessarily choose or enter through a deliberate process. The metaphor

therefore presents falling in love as an experience that can happen unexpectedly and

without complete control. This example also illustrates the relationship between language,

metaphor and culture. A metaphorical expression can become so conventional through

repeated use that speakers may no longer consciously perceive its metaphorical origin.

Lexical metaphors, culture and political discourse

Metaphors are closely connected to cultural contexts because they draw on shared

experiences, values and associations. They can also be used strategically in public

discourse to influence the way people understand political events and policies.

One example is the use of war-related vocabulary in political communication.

The Frame POLITICS IS CONFLICT

A frame is a conceptual structure through which we understand and interpret a particular

situation or area of experience. It organises the way we perceive events by highlighting

certain aspects of reality and making particular associations more prominent.

The frame POLITICS IS CONFLICT conceptualises political activity in terms of

confrontation, opposition and struggle.

Jonathan Charteris-Black studied a corpus of post-war manifestos produced by the two

major political parties in the United Kingdom. He found that both parties commonly used

terms such as fight, battle, protect and threat to present their policies. These words belong to

the semantic field of conflict and warfare. When used in political discourse, they can frame

political problems as threats that require action, opponents as adversaries and policies as

strategies for fighting or defending something. For example, the word fight can refer literally

to a physical confrontation, but in political discourse it can also describe efforts to address a

social problem, challenge an opponent or defend a particular principle. 5

According to research, the WAR FRAME was more prevalent than other figurative frames in

March and April 2020. This example demonstrates that metaphors are not merely decorative

linguistic devices. Their use can reflect the cultural and historical context in which

communication takes place and influence how people interpret particular events.

Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor

In Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor, Jonathan Charteris-Black

explains how metaphors can function as powerful instruments of persuasion. Metaphors

create a bridge between the familiar and the unfamiliar. They transfer meaning from a source

domain that people can easily understand to a more complex target domain that may be

more difficult to grasp.

By drawing on deeply rooted cultural schemata, politicians can present their beliefs and

policies in ways that resonate with their audiences. For example, when politics is framed as

war, politicians can portray themselves as heroic figures engaged in a difficult struggle. Their

policies may be presented as necessary actions to defend the community, overcome threats

or defeat an opponent. At the same time, political opponents can be represented as

enemies, while opposing policies can be depicted as dangerous or even villainous.

Metaphors therefore influence the way political actors and events are represented. They can

highlight particular aspects of a situation while downplaying others, encouraging audiences

to interpret political issues from a specific perspective. Their persuasive power lies partly in

their ability to make complex arguments more accessible and emotionally meaningful.

Rather than simply presenting information, metaphors can shape the audience's perception

of what is happening, who is responsible and what should be done.

Interpersonal meanings

Interpersonal meanings concern the ways people interact through language and the

relationships they establish with one another. The way we communicate depends on the

relationship we have with other speakers, but our linguistic choices can also influence that

relationship. We therefore adapt the language we use according to the person we are

addressing, the context in which communication takes place and the social roles involved.

Interpersonal meanings are not limited to spoken communication. They are also important in

writing, including emails, letters and other forms of written interaction. 6

Interpersonal Meanings and Social Relationships

The following example, discussed by Holmes (1992: 3), illustrates how the same person can

be addressed differently depending on the relationship between the speakers and the social

context in which the interaction takes place.

Every afternoon, Margaret packs her bag and leaves her Cardiff office at about five o'clock. As she

leaves, her business partner says Goodbye Margaret, and she replies Goodbye Mike. Her secretary

says Goodbye Ms Walker, and she replies Goodbye Jill. The caretaker says Bye Mrs Walker, to which

she responds Goodbye Andy. As she arrives home, she is greeted by Hi mum from her son, Jamie,

Hello dear, have a good day? from her mother, and simply You're late again! from her husband.Later

in the evening, the president of the local flower club calls to ask if she would like to join. She begins

the conversation by saying, Good evening, is that Mrs Billington? Margaret answers, No, it's Ms

Walker, but my husband's name is David Billington. She then asks, What can I do for you? Finally, a

friend calls her Borodar Meg, how's things? (Holmes, 1992: 3).

These examples show that forms of address, greetings and the choice of words vary

according to the social relationship between speakers. The same person can be addressed

in different ways depending on the degree of familiarity, the social roles involved and the

communicative context. For example, Margaret's business partner calls her Margaret, while

her secretary uses Ms Walker and the caretaker uses Mrs Walker. These different forms of

address illustrate how people can choose between first names, titles and surnames when

interacting with others. Using someone's first name can suggest familiarity, whereas using a

title and surname can signal greater formality or social distance. However, the interpretation

of these forms depends on the context: Ms and Mrs, for instance, are not interchangeable in

meaning because they convey different information about the person being addressed.

The example also shows that the way Margaret addresses other people does not always

correspond exactly to the way they address her. Her business partner calls her Margaret, but

she replies using his first name, Mike. Her secretary addresses her as Ms Walker, but

Margaret replies using Jill. Similarly, the caretaker calls her Mrs Walker, while she calls him

Andy. These choices illustrate how people may use different forms of address while

maintaining