ways of denoting characteristics through domestic animal metaphor in english = cách cách diễn đạt tính cách thông qua ẩn dụ vật nuôi trong tiếng anh

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration i Acknowledgements ii Abstract iii Table of contents iv PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 1. Rationale 1 2. Aims of the study 2 3. Research question 2 4. Scope of the study 2 5. Organization of the study 3 PART II: DEVELOPMENT 4 Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 4 1.1. An overview of Cognitive Linguistics 4 1.2. An overview of Cognitive Semantics 5 1.3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory 7 1.3.1. Definition of Conceptual Metaphor 7 1.3.2. Domain and Mapping 8 1.3.3. Image – schema 9 1.3.4. Levels of Conceptual Metaphor 10 1.3.5. Types of Conceptual Metaphor 11 1.3.6. Some features of Conceptual Metaphor 14 1.4. Animal Metaphor and The Great Chain of Being Metaphor 15 Chapter 2: The Study 18 2.1. Research question 18 2.2. Data Collection 18 2.3. Analytical Framework 19 2.4. Analysis 20 5 2.4.1. Arrogance 20 2.4.2. Maliciousness 21 2.4.3. Selfishness/ Greediness 24 2.4.4. Stupidity 25 2.4.5. Loose moral 26 2.4.6. Obstinacy 27 2.4.7. Cowardice 28 2.4.8. Servility 29 2.4.9. Smugness 30 2.4.10. Aggressiveness 30 2.4.11. Despicableness 31 2.4.12. Mild-manner 33 .2.4.13. Tenaciousness 33 PART III: CONCLUSION 34 1. Conclusions 34 2. Implications 35 3. Suggestions for further research 36 REFERENCES 37 APPENDIX 40 6 Part I: INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale Over the past century, English has emerged as an international language with its influence extending to almost every part of the world and almost fields of life. It is an indispensable medium for diplomacy, aviation, transaction of international trade, scientific and technological studies, etc. Accordingly, English teaching and learning are becoming increasingly important. In Vietnam, there seems to exist a commonly-held assumption among many English learners that in acquiring a foreign language, such linguistic factors as grammatical, lexical, phonological etc. rules must be put priority and be the centre of the learning process. Such assumption, though considered reasonable to certain extent, has somehow shaped a rigid learning method which heavily focuses on linguistics factors and take other non-linguistic elements for granted. However, it has been pointed out that if we learn English without studying, at the same time, the underlying aspects of the language, we are merely using words which might convey improper senses. A lot of language phenomena are associated with cultural aspects of the country from which the language stems, and some also reflect the specific way of viewing and experiencing the world of people of that country. Metaphor is one such phenomenon. Metaphor is traditionally considered a figure of speech, an ornamental device that is restricted to literature and poetry and ―exclusive with the realm of ordinary everyday language‖ (Lakoff, 1993, p. 202). In recent decades, with the increasing interest of cognitive researchers in the subject, metaphor has been re-defined as a cognitive system that structures our thoughts and behavior rather than a language phenomenon, hence the term ―conceptual metaphor‖. According to cognitive linguistics, a conceptual metaphor is a mapping of the structure of a source domain onto a target domain, in which the target domain is understood in terms of the source domain. It acts as a powerful thinking mode in which people use their familiar, material and concrete concepts to know, think about and experience immaterial concepts which are difficult to be realize, thus obtain better understanding about themselves and the outside world. 7 Out of the human world, there is a colourful animal world which is closely related with our life. The ―neighbour‖ relationship between human and animals makes people very familiar with the habits of animals, and gradually they begin to associate some animals‘ characters with someone‘s characters, hence ―PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS‖ metaphor. Metaphorical transfer from animal domain to human domain is considered universal and can be found in many languages, including English and Vietnamese. However, although the same animal metaphor may occur in the two languages, it does not mean that the concept represented by that metaphor in English is totally identical to that in Vietnamese and vice versa. The difference in the perception of each language community toward an animal metaphor may cause difficulties for English learners in both learning and translating process. Therefore, a good understanding of how an animal protypical atrribute is used to talk about a human trait in a certain language not only helps English learners use it properly but also offers them opportunity to get to the heart of English culture. For this reason, the study will attempt to explore how animals related expressions are used to denote human characteristics in English and Vietnamese. As it would be an exhausive work if all animal terms are investigated, the study will limit itself to analyze just some domestic animals that are common in both everyday life and language, namely Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig, and Cow. 2. Aims of the study The study aims at - Investigating different ways of denoting human character traits through Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig, and Cow metaphors in English. - Identifying the symbolism of Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig and Cow in association with human character traits as encoded in English. 3. Research question To realize the above aims, the following research question will be addressed: How are salient human characteristics denoted through the Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig and Cow metaphor in English? 8 4. Scope of the study The study examines a group of domestic animal metaphors. Within the domestic animal source domain, five sub-domains are chosen: dog, cat, chicken, pig and cow. When a comparison between humans and animals is made, different features of animals such as physical appearance features, sounds, and prototypical behaviours can be respectively mapped onto human domain. In this thesis, the foci will be on those metaphors that describe human characteristics. 5. Organization of the study The study consists of three parts. The first part ―Introduction” gives a brief account of the rationale, scope, aims, research questions and organization of the study. The second and also the main part of the study, ―Development”, consists of two chapters: Chapter 1: Theoretical background, which provides an overview of conceptual metaphor such as its definition, levels, types and features as well as other central concepts to understand conceptual metaphor like domain, mapping and image-schema. Chapter 2: The study. This chapter restates the research question, briefly describes the data collection procedure as well as presents the analytical framework. The main focus of this chapter is a discussion on the usage of different expressions with Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig, and Cow to denote human characteristics in English. The last part is “Conclusion”, which summarizes the main findings; draw important conclusion and offers suggestions for further studies. The study ends with “Reference” and “Appendix” 9 Part II: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1.1. An Overview of Cognitive Linguistics Cognitive linguistics has emerged in the last twenty-five years as a powerful approach to the study of language, conceptual systems, human cognition, and general meaning construction. It views linguistic knowledge as part of general cognition and thinking; i.e. linguistic behaviour is not separated from other general cognitive abilities which allow mental processes of reasoning, memory, attention or learning, but understood as an integral part of it. (Johnson, 1987). It addresses within language the structuring of basic conceptual categories such as space and time, scenes and events, entities and processes, motion and location, force and causation. It addresses the structuring of ideational and affective categories attributed to cognitive agents, such as attention and perspective, volition and intention. Aspects of language studied in cognitive linguistics include conceptualization, meaning, metaphor, grammar, and many other aspects of the language facility as it relates to thinking. As an interdisciplinary enterprise, it incorporates ideas from philosophy, neurobiology, psychology, computer science and develops theoretical insights based on empirical methodologies. The cognitive linguistics movement consists of different theories that share at least two important tenets: first, language is symbolic in nature; and second, everything in language is permeated with meaning. In cognitive view, language is taken to be fundamentally symbolic at all levels of its structure. The purpose of linguistic inquiry is to describe its semiotic function; i.e. the symbolic association between a meaning and a phonological form. The lexicon, morphology, and syntax form a continuum of symbolic structures that cannot easily be separated into discrete compartments. Consequently, the grammar of a language can be described as ―a structured inventory of conventional symbolic units‖ (Langacker, 1987, p.73). To put the same thing differently, symbolic units constitute the totality of the grammar of the language, and each symbolic unit is composed of a semantic and a phonological pole. As linguistic expressions are inherently symbolic, the investigation of their meaning represents a major field of studies in cognitive linguistics. Meaning is considered to be 10 equated with conceptualization, or to be more specific, in the human interpretation of the world. It is subjective, anthropocentric, and reflects dominant cultural concerns and culture- specific modes of interaction as well as features of the world as such (Lakoff 1987, Langacker 1991, Wierzbicka 1988). In that sense, man's conceptual system is postulated to be grounded or ―embodied‖ in his physical experience, i.e. conceptual categories, and the meanings of words, sentences and other linguistic structures are considered to be motivated and grounded in one's concrete, direct experience with the surrounding world with which one interacts. 1.2. An Overview of Cognitive Semantics As an indispensable part of cognitive linguistics, cognitive semantics is concerned with investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure encoded by language (Evans and Green, 2006). It is concerned most directly with the form of the internal mental representations that constitute conceptual structure and with the formal relations between this level and other levels of representation. In specific terms, scholars working in cognitive semantics investigate knowledge representation (conceptual structure), and meaning construction (conceptualization). Cognitive semanticists have employed language as the lens through which these cognitive phenomena can be investigated. Consequently, research in cognitive semantics tends to be interested in modelling the human mind as much as it is concerned with investigating linguistic semantics. Cognitive semantics is not a single unified framework. Those researchers who identify themselves as cognitive semanticists typically have a diverse set of foci and interests. However, there are a number of guiding principles that collectively characterize a cognitive approach to semantics which can be stated as follows: (i) Conceptual structure is embodied; (ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure; (iii) Meaning representation is encyclopedic; and (ix) Meaning-construction is conceptualization (Evans and Green, 2006) (i) Conceptual structure is embodied A fundamental concern for cognitive semanticists is the nature of the relationship between conceptual structure and the external world of sensory experience. One idea that has emerged in an attempt to explain the nature of conceptual organization on the basis of interaction with the physical world is the embodied cognition thesis. The thesis holds that the 11 nature of conceptual organization arises from bodily experience so part of what makes conceptual structure meaningful is the bodily experience with which it is associated. We can only talk about what we can perceive and conceive, and the things that we can perceive and conceive derive from embodied experience. Hence, conceptual structure (the nature of human concepts) is a consequence of the nature of our embodiment and thus is embodied. (ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure This principle asserts that language refers to concepts in the mind of the speaker rather than to objects in the external world (Evans and Green, 2006). In other words, semantic structure (the meanings conventionally associated with words and other linguistic unit) can be equated with concepts. However, the claim that semantic structure can be equated with conceptual structure does not mean that the two are identical. Instead, cognitive semanticists claim that the meanings associated with linguistic units such as words, for example, form only a subset of possible concepts. After all, we have many more thoughts, ideas and feelings than we can conventionally encode in language. (iii) Meaning representation is encyclopedic The third central principle of cognitive semantics holds that semantic structure is encyclopedic in nature. This means that lexical concepts do not represent neatly packaged bundles of meaning This means that words do not represent neatly packaged bundles of meaning but serve as ―points of access‖ to vast repositories of knowledge relating to a particular concept of conceptual domain (Langacker 1987). (ix) Meaning-construction is conceptualization The fourth principle associated with cognitive semantics is that language itself does not encode meaning. Instead, as we have seen, words are only ―prompts‖ for the construction of meaning (Evans and Green, 2006). According to this view, meaning is constructed at the conceptual level: meaning construction is equated with conceptualization, a dynamic process whereby linguistics units serve as prompts for an array of conceptual operations and the recruitment of background knowledge. It follows from this view that meaning is a process rather than a discrete ―thing‖ that can be ―packaged‖ by language. 12 1.3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory Since the appearance of Cognitive Linguistics in the mid 1970s, metaphor has received great amount of attention by scholars such as Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1987) and Turner (1987) who have devoted their research to studying this phenomenon. In Metaphors We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson propose Conceptual Metaphor Theory which postulates that metaphors develop through experiences and become a part of our basic conceptual system. Through our bodily experiences we learn to connect one thing to something else and the mapping is stored in our brain. Thus, the use of metaphor reflects speakers‘ ideas and the interactions with the world. Assuming that the human ordinary conceptual system is metaphorically structured, metaphor in Lakoff and Johnson‘s description is not simply a means of expression, but a means of conceptualization (Deignan, 2005; Kövecses, 2005). It resides in thought, and structures thinking and knowledge; and it is grounded in physical experience (Deignan, 2005, p. 13) Hence, metaphor is primarily a matter of conceptual structure, and derivatively a matter of language: ―Metaphor is a tool so ordinary that we use it unconsciously and automatically it is irreplaceable: metaphor allows us to understand our selves and our world in ways that no other modes of thought can.‖ (Lakoff & Turner, 1989, p. xi). Therefore, it should not at any time be forgotten is that the Conceptual Metaphor Theory is not merely a linguistic theory of how figurative language works, but a theory of language, cognition and reasoning. In the later part, some of the key concepts in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory such as domain and mappings, image-schema, levels of conceptual metaphor, types of conceptual metaphor as well as some of its basic features are explained in details. 1.3.1. Definition of Conceptual Metaphor Lakoff and Johnson argue that ―the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another‖ (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, p. 5). Thus, from the cognitive linguistic point of view, metaphor is defined as the cognitive mechanism whereby one conceptual domain (source domain) is partially mapped or projected onto another conceptual domain (target domain), so that the second domain is partially understood in terms of the first one. Metaphor is thus ―a cross domain mapping in the conceptual system‖ (Lakoff 13 1994, p.203). A convenient short hand way of capturing this view of metaphor is as follows: CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (A) IS CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (B). 1.3.2. Domain and Mapping As stated above, conceptual metaphors are systematic mappings across two conceptual domains: the source domain is mapped onto the target domain. A conceptual domain is any coherent organization of experience. Of the two domains that participate in conceptual metaphor, the one from which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain is called source domain, and the one that is understood this way is the target domain. The target domain is that which is described and the source domain or the metaphoric theme provides the terms which the target is described. The source domain is typically concrete and the target domain is typically abstract. For example, in such conceptual metaphors as LOVE IS A JOURNEY, AN ARGUMENT IS WAR, or THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS, ideas and knowledge from the source domain of ―journey‖, ―war‖, or ―buildings‖ are mapped onto the target domain of ―love‖, ―argument‖, and ―theories‖. In other words, it is through the source domains of ―journey‖, ―war‖, or ―buildings‖ that we better understand ―love‖, ―argument‖ and ―theories‖. The mapping between two conceptual domains A and B is ―a set of systematic correspondences between the source and the target in the sense that constituent conceptual elements of B correspond to constituent elements of A‖ (Kovecses, 2002, p.6) To know a conceptual metaphor is to know the set of mappings that applies to a given source-target pairing. Taken the LOVE IS A JOURNEY conceptual metaphor as an example, we can lay out a set of correspondences or mappings between constituent elements of the source and those of the target as follows: Source: JOURNEY the travelers the vehicle the journey the distance covered the obstacles encountered Target: LOVE  the lovers  the love relationship itself  events in the relationship  the progress made  the difficulties experienced [...]... Great Chain of Being metaphor so we may understand the process of animal metaphors through it The Great Chain of Being ―goes back to the Bible‖ as Kovecses (2002, p 126) mentions It was a folk theory originally used to explain the relationship between different levels of things in a hierarchy The main purpose of ―Great Chain of Being‖ metaphor is to assign a place for everything in a well-defined hierarchical... Metaphor In many languages, animal names are engaged in metaphorical process Animal metaphors refer to the metaphors with animals as source domains in the mappings The comprehension of human attributes and behaviours through animal attributes and behaviours 21 results from the application of the highly general conceptual metaphor, i.e HUMANS ARE ANIMALS To comprehend the mappings of animal metaphors, Lakoff... DOMAIN IS SOURCE DOMAIN formula to describe the metaphorical connection between the two domains in a conceptual metaphor More precisely, the conceptual metaphor consists of a structural mapping between the target domain and source domain, in which the target domain is then understood in terms of the source domain Therefore, in the general HUMANS ARE DOMESTIC ANIMALS metaphor, HUMANS is target domain... conceptual metaphors are printed capital, the instances are in italic with the metaphorical expressions highlighted in bold font 2.4.1 Arrogance In English, the quality of being arrogant is usually perceived to be present in behaviours of two domestic animals: cock from chicken category, puppy from dog category Hence, in English there exist two metaphors which denotes human arrogance using domestic animal. .. domain in a way that is consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain‖ (Lakoff, 1993, p 125) That is, not only the topology of the source domain transferred remains invariant but also that the mapping remains consistent with the supposedly logical structure of the target domain Accordingly, the Invariance Principle first limits the choice of source domains for a particular target domain... ―Great Chain of Being‖ metaphor, thus, presupposes that the natural order of the cosmos is that higher forms of existence dominate lower forms of existence Furthermore, in terms of attribute of each level, the upper level contains attributes of the levels below it, but it consists of some attributes the lower doesn‘t have For example, animal instincts are properties of animals and the upper beings humans,... changing continually, new conceptual metaphors are generalized and accordingly, new metaphorical expressions are created In ordinary everyday life it can restructure ingrained patterns of thinking And in scientific contexts it can have a heuristic function.‖ (Jākel, 2002, p 22), that is way metaphor display its creativity power in both language and cognition 1.4 The Great Chain of Being and Animal Metaphor. .. conceptual metaphor, namely structural, ontological, and orientational 1.3.5.1 Structural metaphors Structural metaphors make up the largest portion in conceptual metaphors According to Lakoff & Johnson (1980, p.197), structural metaphors ―involve the structuring of one kind of experience or activity in terms of another kind of experience or activity.‖ To put the same thing differently, in structural metaphor, ... but humans think and have rationalities which animals do not Moreover, the attributes of the upper beings are more specific and distinct since they do not appear in the lower ones In this sense, when we apply 22 the Great Chain of Being to animal metaphors, we may find that human beings at the higher level in the hierarchy contain the attributes that animals such as pig and tigers have For instance, pigs... tackled with a combination of talent, dogged determination and a fine sense of humour 39 Part III: CONCLUSION 1 Conclusion In this current study, some insights have been investigated into as regards how domestic animal metaphor are used to designate human character traits in English language Such notions in Conceptual Metaphor Theory as structural metaphor, mapping, source and target domain etc have served . Chain of Being and Animal Metaphor In many languages, animal names are engaged in metaphorical process. Animal metaphors refer to the metaphors with animals as source domains in the mappings mappings of animal metaphors, Lakoff and Turner (1989) declared the Great Chain of Being metaphor so we may understand the process of animal metaphors through it. The Great Chain of Being. Pig and Cow metaphor in English? 8 4. Scope of the study The study examines a group of domestic animal metaphors. Within the domestic animal source domain, five sub-domains are chosen: