Nadežda R. Silaški*
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Economics
UDK 811.111'367.7
Originalni naučni rad
ANIMAL METAPHORS IN SOME
BUSINESS-RELATED TERMS IN ENGLISH**
Abstract: Within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff and
Johnson 1980) and Conceptual Metonymy Theory (Radden & Kövecses 1999, Barcelona 2000) the paper deals with ANIMAL metaphors as a metonymy-based cognitive mechanism through which people and institutions in the world of business and finance are
conceptualised in English. The more general PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS and INSTITUTIONS ARE
ANIMALS metaphors are illustrated and categorised into several submetaphors (INVESTORS ARE ANIMALS, PRODUCTS ARE ANIMALS, COMPANIES ARE ANIMALS) in order to show
how the most salient characteristics of animals and recognisable patterns of their behaviour (source domain) are mapped onto the business and financial market participants
(target domain). Some pedagogical implications, i.e. metaphor-based vocabulary teaching to ESP economics students, are also discussed in the paper.
Key words: conceptual metaphor, ANIMAL metaphor, English for Specific Purposes, economics, vocabulary.
1. Introduction
In the last three decades, since the seminal book by Lakoff and Johnson
(1980) was published on metaphors as not merely a textual decoration but the
way we structure and organise our thoughts, there has been a continuing interest
in the research of metaphors used in the field of economics and business, already proved to be notably replete with metaphors (see e.g. Henderson 1982;
Charteris-Black 2000; 2004; White 2003; etc.). Such a proliferation of studies in
itself indicates the extent to which metaphors permeate this type of discourse.
These studies have described various aspects of metaphoricity in economic and
business texts, e.g. the conceptualisations of ECONOMY, GROWTH, MARKET,
MARKET MOVEMENTS, etc.
White (2003: 138) claims that “diverse figurative expressions encountered in economic discourse can often be traced back to a single source domain”.
Having in mind the pervasive use of ANIMAL metaphors in business and economic texts in English, little systematic research has been done to explain why
animals and their distinctive characteristics so frequently serve as a source do*
silaskin@sbb.rs
The paper is the result of research conducted within project no. 178002 Languages and cultures across space and time funded by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. A much shorter version was presented at the International Conference Across Languages And Cultures, Herceg Novi, Montenegro, June 4-6, 2009.
**
Nadežda R. Silaški
main in the process of metaphorisation as well as which particular aspects of
certain animals (their habits, the ways they eat, their physical characteristics,
etc.) are used in conceptual mappings from the source to the target domain.1 In
this paper, therefore, we deal with some metaphorically used business and financial terms in English that are based on the ANIMAL metaphor. Most terms
that make up the corpus of the research have been taken from Investopedia.com,
a web site containing a comprehensive financial dictionary available online. Several terms, which are not highly technical, come from diverse English business
dictionaries.
Within the theoretical framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Kövecses 2002) we deal with the more general PEOPLE
ARE ANIMALS and INSTITUTIONS ARE ANIMALS metaphors, illustrating and categorising them into several submetaphors (INVESTORS ARE ANIMALS, PRODUCTS
ARE ANIMALS and COMPANIES ARE ANIMALS) in order to show how relevant
characteristics of animals and animal behaviour (source domain) are mapped
onto the financial market participants, people and institutions (target domain).
In conclusion, we suggest ways in which metaphor-based vocabulary teaching
to ESP economics students may be applied in regard to the teaching of specific
financial and business lexis.
2. Theoretical framework
According to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson 1980)
and Conceptual Metonymy Theory (Radden & Kövecses 1999, Barcelona
2000), metaphor and metonymy are regarded not only as a textual decoration
which contributes to the expressiveness of the text, but as having “important roles in structuring thinking and therefore language” (Deignan 2005: 73). As “metaphor and metonymy often ‘meet’ at conceptual and linguistic crossroads”
(Barcelona 2000: 1), a strict difference between them cannot be drawn easily.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) define metaphor as understanding and experiencing
one kind of thing in terms of another or as a partial mapping or set of correspondences between two conceptual domains which they term the source and target
domains. However, such metaphorical structuring is partial in that only certain
aspects of a target domain are brought into focus, thus stressing the most relevant aspects while at the same time hiding some other aspects of a concept, in line with the principle of metaphorical highlighting and hiding (Lakoff &
Johnson 1980: 10).
Metonymy, on the other hand, is understood as a conceptual projection
whereby one domain is partially understood in terms of another domain included in the same experiential domain (Barcelona 2000). Many authors claim that
all metaphors are essentially metonymy-based (see e.g. Barcelona 2000; Radden
1
See, though, Silaški & Đurović (2010) for a detailed account of animal metaphors used for the conceptualisation of inflation in English.
566
Animal Metaphors in Some Business-Related Terms in English
& Kövecses 1999; etc.). A metonymy-based metaphor is defined as “a mapping
involving two conceptual domains which are grounded in, or can be tracked to,
one conceptual domain.” (Radden 2000: 93). Metaphor used to be claimed to be
based on similarities between unlike entities. However, research has shown that
some metaphors “cannot be traced back to experiential correlations, but rather
have their basis in perceived similarities or resemblances” (Semino 2008: 7).
Metonymy, on the other hand, is based on conceptual contiguity, which is based
on “extralinguistic experiences and connotations and is therefore culture-dependent” (Niemeier 1998: 123).
In this paper an attempt will be made to demonstrate how certain
aspects of animals and their instinctual and physical attributes as well as their
behaviour patterns are mapped onto people and institutions in business and financial vocabulary. Such ANIMAL metaphors are metonymy-based, i.e. typical
properties or salient features of an animal stand for that animal. Thus, in the
process of metaphorisation only the most salient properties of animals (via metonymy motivated by the TYPICAL OVER NON–TYPICAL cognitive principle
[Radden & Kövecses 1999: 49]) are mapped onto people and institutions as a
target domain. As fas as the teaching of vocabulary in an ESP economics classroom is concerned, however, the question which arises is the following: if metonymy is a culture-dependent concept whose use as a cognitive tool results in
equally culturally-dependent metaphors in business and financial terms based on
animal names, is it possible for ESP students whose mother tongue is not English to understand the metonymic and metaphorical transfers which may not be
based on the same set of connotations as those relevant to their own culture? In
other words, since ANIMAL metaphors in English business and financial vocabulary always involve the “stand for” relationship in which salient features of animals chosen for the conceptual projection in English may not be the same as in
other languages and cultures, is it possible in an ESP classroom to rely on metaphor-based technique of vocabulary teaching to ESP students? These and similar issues will be dealt with in greater detail in the text which follows.
3. ANIMAL metaphors
metaphors are common in many languages2, which proves that
“the domain of animals is an extremely productive source domain” (Kövecses
2002: 17) in the process of metaphorisation. Since much of human behavior
may be metaphorically understood in terms of animal behaviour, it is not surprising that the business and financial world, with its fiercely competitive setting
and its main participants, people and institutions, abounds in ANIMAL metaphors. The working of a financial system and the intricacies of the business and
ANIMAL
2
For Serbian see e.g. Halupka-Rešetar & Radić (2003) and Prodanović-Stankić
(2004). For other languages see e.g. Talebinejad & Dastjerdi (2005), Hsieh (2006), Silaški & Đurović (2010), etc.
567
Nadežda R. Silaški
financial world are frequently difficult to understand. In this field, therefore,
metaphors serve, among other things, the purpose of understanding intangible,
complex and abstract entities in terms of more concrete, simpler and easier-tocomprehend entities.
In an attempt to explain how the animal-related words acquired their
metaphorical meanings, Kövecses states the following:
“The only way these meanings can have emerged is that humans attributed human characteristics to animals and then reapplied these characteristics
to humans. That is, animals were personified first, and then the ‘human-based
animal characteristics’ were used to understand human behavior. But it is not
only human behavior that is metaphorically understood in terms of animal behavior; people themselves are also often described as animals of some kind.” (Kövecses 2002: 125)
Thus, the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS structures our thoughts about human behaviour and its relevant aspects, meaning that “anthropomorphization of animal attributes and behavior is almost always an input condition for the metaphorical applications of animal names” (Talebinejad & Dastjerdi 2005: 145). As Fontecha and Natalan (2003: 774) state, several features characterise the ANIMAL metaphor. Firstly, these authors point out its systematicity,
i.e. the same type of structure made up of a mapping or correspondences between a source (animals) and target domain (people) is identified. Secondly, the
animal metaphor is grounded in our experience with people and animals.
Thirdly, this metaphor is based on the GENERIC IS SPECIFIC metaphor which “allows the mapping of generic information from the source domain to a specific
instantiation in the target domain” (Fontecha & Natalan 2003: 774). Finally, it
implies a vertical hierarchical organisation of beings, in line with the GREAT
CHAIN OF BEING metaphor, which “allows us to comprehend general human
character traits in terms of well-understood non-human attributes” (Lakoff &
Turner 1989: 172).
However, it is not only people and the way they behave that are viewed
in terms of animals and their behaviour. In financial and business semi-technical
vocabulary we find numerous ANIMAL metaphors where “instinctual attributes
and behavior” (Kövecses 2002: 126) of animals are mapped onto inanimate objects, such as institutions (companies, markets) as well as products. In the following sections we will categorise two broad metaphors, PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS
and INSTITUTIONS ARE ANIMALS into several submetaphors, to illustrate and explain the process of metaphorisation in those terms in which animal names are
used metaphorically.
3.1. PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS
In the PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS metaphor, salient properties of animals are
mapped onto the properties of people as a target domain. In other words, the
conceptual basis for this metaphor is that “there is a semantic transfer of the at-
568
Animal Metaphors in Some Business-Related Terms in English
tributes that are associated with the animal to refer to the behaviour of humans”
(Charteris-Black 2004: 182). More specifically, in a set of epistemic correspondences we use the knowledge about a particular animal (its most relevant characteristics, via the metonymy THE SALIENT PROPERTIES OF AN ANIMAL STAND
FOR THAT ANIMAL) to talk about people. For example, in a metaphorically motivated expression fat cats, a slang word used to describe executives who earn
what are widely believed to be unreasonably high salaries and bonuses, the conceptual mapping occurs, such that “quintessential properties” (Lakoff & Turner
1989: 196) of cats (laziness, detachment, lust and vanity) are mapped onto people. In this term, an image of cats is conjured up as animals (=people) that consume more than an appropriate amount of food (=money), thus becoming
grossly overweight, which in turn connotes luxurious life fat cats have.3
We shall illustrate the use of PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS metaphor in business and financial vocabulary with two more examples. The first term is hawk,
which, in the financial world, is defined as “an economic policy advisor who
has a negative view toward inflation and its effects on society”. The most salient
property of a hawk is its sharp vision as this bird is reputed to have visual acuity
several times that of a normal human being. Hawks, therefore, carefully monitor
and control economic inflation through interest-rate adjustments and monetarypolicy controls, thanks to their sharp vision and the ability to spot the danger
(=inflation) much faster than other people. The term with the opposite meaning
is dove, defined as “an economic policy advisor who promotes monetary policies that involve the maintenance of low interest rates, believing that inflation and
its negative effects will have a minimal impact on society”. With regard to doves, we tend to attribute to these animals the characteristic of placidity, which is
their salient property given to them by humans. The term dove is derived from
the docile and placid nature of doves, birds which are most frequently used as
symbols of peace and tranquility.
A submetaphor of the more general PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS metaphor is
the INVESTORS ARE ANIMALS metaphor, made explicit in the TYPES OF INVESTORS ARE TYPES OF ANIMALS metaphor. Investors, like all other people, differ
with regard to the ways they choose the most profitable investments. For this reason, there are several terms that refer to various kinds of investors and many of
them are metaphorically used animal names. In this case, certain properties of
animals which correspond to the attributes of investors, reflected in their prudent, reckless, greedy, etc. behaviour as regards investments, are mapped onto
3
In this case, negative aspects of an animal are mapped onto people. However,
there are other metaphorically motivated expressions (e.g. eager beaver or busy bee),
where animal-related metaphors capture the positive characteristics of human beings,
zeal, industry and hard work. In the term killer bees (those who help a company fend off
a takeover attempt with the use of defensive strategies), however, the conceptual mapping stresses the negative properties of bees – their painful sting that can be deadly to allergic people. See Talebinejad & Dastjerdi (2005) for a discussion about the negative
and positive aspects of animal behavior which are mapped onto that of people.
569
Nadežda R. Silaški
the investors as a target domain. Here are some examples of metaphorical terms
for different kinds of investors, together with the conceptual mappings on which
they are based:
– lemming – lemmings are known for periodic mass migrations that occasionally end in drowning → an investor that follows the crowd into an investment that will inevitably end unsuccessfully.
– ostrich – ostriches are known to stick their head in the ground in response to a dangerous situation → an investor who ignores important pieces of
information, which have the ability to impact them or the market in which they
operate.
– pig – pigs in the farmyard are said to overindulge in feed → an investor who is often seen as greedy, having forgotten their original investment strategy to focus on securing unrealistic future gains.
– sheep – sheep are followers and are known for their relying on a shepherd for guidance → an investor who lacks a focused trading strategy and trades
on the suggestions of others, including friends, family and financial advisers.
– shark – sharks are known for their greed and hunting instinct → an investor that is hostile to the target firm’s management and that is interested in taking over the firm.4
The above terms are part of the jargon used by economists who coin
them to more easily differentiate between various types of investors. CharterisBlack (2000: 163) claims, however, that in this case, “the motivation behind the
choice of animal metaphors is [...] to present the economist as an outside expert”, which “puts him in a position of control in so far as he has developed a
colourful set of metaphorical terms” which he uses to refer to various intangible
intricacies of the trading and investing practice. The same author also claims
that this procedure is based on an illusion that people, just like animals, may be
sorted out into neat categories, as well as an attempt to simplify often complicated and incomprehensible workings of trading practices.
3.2. INSTITUTIONS ARE ANIMALS
As we have already mentioned, it is not only people who are conceptualised as animals, but also inanimate concepts, such as institutions, markets, companies and products, may be metaphorically structured in terms of animal characteristics. In the INSTITUTIONS ARE ANIMALS metaphor, with its several submetaphors, salient traits of animals are projected onto nonhuman entities which
are thus zoomorphised. It is a rather common strategy in economic discourse
4
The same conceptual mapping occurs in the term loan shark (a person or entity that charges borrowers interest above an established legal rate, whose lendings are
often backed with threats of violence or damage to a person’s reputation as a way to ensure the loans are repaid) as well as the terms shark repellant (a measure taken by a
company to fend off an unwanted or hostile takeover attempt) and shark watcher (a firm
specialising in the early detection of takeovers).
570
Animal Metaphors in Some Business-Related Terms in English
that more abstract phenomena are “made tangible and given meaning through
the use of conventional knowledge about the existence and behaviour of living
things” (Charteris-Black 2000: 158-159). In the following three sections we
shall illustrate conceptual mappings in three submetaphors of a broader INSTITUTIONS ARE ANIMALS metaphor.
3.2.1. MARKETS ARE ANIMALS
The MARKETS ARE ANIMALS metaphor is made explicit in the MARKET
MOVEMENTS ARE ANIMAL MOVEMENTS metaphor. In this metaphor the way animals move and attack has been foregrounded as the most salient feature of animals and chosen to function metonymically. The way animals move or attack
are mapped onto the ways markets move in terms of upward and downward
market trends, or, alternatively, market stagnation. Thus, a deer market is a flat
market, characterised by low activity and investors’ uncertaintly and unwillingness to buy or sell, as they are waiting for a sign of which way the market is going to end up moving – the market is perceived as unable or unwilling to move
due to uncertainty – like deer who freeze when “caught in the headlights” of a
vehicle. A bear market is characterised by a downward trend – a market condition in which the prices of securities are falling. The opposite is a bull market,
characterised by an upward trend in the price of securities. In the latter two metaphors, the conceptual mappings are most likely based on the knowledge about
the ways bulls and bears attack – a bull attacks with its horns from bottom up,
while a bear attacks with its paw from above, downward, the features selected
as the most salient ones in the metonymic transfer.
3.2.2. COMPANIES ARE ANIMALS
Gorillas are the largest of the living primates, thus the most salient characteristic of a gorilla, its size, is mapped onto another inanimate concept, a
company – a gorilla is a large company that dominates an industry. Gazelles are
known as swift animals, able to reach high speed. Thus, the most salient characteristic of a gazelle, its ability to run very fast, is projected onto a company (a
gazelle), so that the ability of a company to grow at an unusually high annual rate is metaphorically seen as swiftness of a gazelle. In its literal sense, the term
lame duck refers to a duck which is unable to keep up with its flock, making it a
target for predators. The duck’s lameness and its inability to proceed is mapped
onto a company who has defaulted on its debts or has gone bankrupt due to the
stock market. Several other examples illustrate the same submetaphor:
– turkey – a turkey is considered inept or stupid person → a start-up
company that may subsequently go bankrupt.
– elephants – elephants are the second largest mammals in the world →
an elephant is a large institution that has the funds to make high volume trades,
thus having decisive influence on the price of the underlying financial asset.
571
Nadežda R. Silaški
3.2.3. PRODUCTS ARE ANIMALS
The PRODUCTS ARE ANIMALS metaphor follows the same type of conceptual mappings present in the previous metaphors, i.e. “the ‘logic’ associated
with the ‘source’ is generally preserved in the metaphorical understanding of the
‘target’” (Lakoff 1990, quoted in Boers 2000: 138). In other words, the correspondences that constitute the PRODUCTS ARE ANIMALS metaphor map our
knowledge about certain animals onto knowledge about products, which allows
us to reason about products using the knowledge we employ to reason about
these types of animals:
– cash cow – a cow connotes nourishment, plenty, nurturing, while a
dairy cow produces milk over the course of its life and requires little maintenance → a cash cow is a product that requires minimal advertising and promotional
expenditures but continues to generate revenues year after year.
– golden goose – a goose produces a lot of meat and, if properly fattened, a lot of very expensive liver → a golden goose is a profitable product
which produces a lot of sales revenue.
– turkey – a turkey in English frequently means an inept, undesirable or
stupid person. Via metonymic transfer (THING FOR THE PERSON DOING IT), a turkey in financial vocabulary has come to mean an investment that has performed
poorly, an unwise purchase.
– dog – the term dog is used to refer to a dull unattractive unpleasant
girl or woman → a dog is a property that, as a result of factors such as poor condition, poor location or poor design, is slow to sell, therefore being perceived as
an unattractive and undesirable possession.5
4. Pedagogical implications
The explicative role of metaphor in vocabulary teaching to ESP students
has long been recognised by a number of methodologists.6 They all stress the
importance of metaphors in vocabulary acquisition, pointing out one particular
technique: groupings of words according to a particular metaphor, which gives
rise to a whole set of expressions which are all based on that same metaphor, i.e.
“metaphorical sets”, as Dudley-Evans and St John (1998: 84) call them. These
sets help students simplify the vocabulary that would otherwise be too complicated to understand. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to raise “metapho5
Strangely enough, we do not come across a conceptual mapping regarding
dogs in which loyalty, devotion and guardianship, being the most salient properties of
dogs (at least as dogs are perceived in Serbian), are mapped onto people. Metaphorically
motivated English dog terms in business (e.g. Dogs of the Dow, go to the dogs, dog-eatdog, cats and dogs, etc.) seem to stress negatively evaluated aspects of a dog’s behaviour – a dog is regarded as “a despised entity” (Talebinejad & Dastjerdi 2005: 139).
6
See e.g. Henderson (1982), Dudley-Evans & St John (1998), Charteris-Black
(2000).
572
Animal Metaphors in Some Business-Related Terms in English
ric awareness on the part of the language learner [by drawing] their attention to
the source domain or to the origin of unfamiliar figurative expressions” (Boers
2000: 140). This is, according to the same author, best achieved by making “explicit reference to the literal sense or origin, grouping figurative expressions under their source domains, and questioning the validity of the underlying analogies” (Boers 2000: 145).
Such an approach to vocabulary teaching/learning has already been proved very fruitful7. In the case of the ANIMAL metaphor in general, and the PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS metaphor in particular, this technique of vocabulary teaching
to ESP students whose native tongue is Serbian, is further facilitated by the fact
that English and Serbian seem to frequently (though not always) share the same
cognitive and cultural models, i.e. humans are frequently conceptualised as animals and the same properties of animals are mapped onto the same types of people (that is, the choice of the most salient properties seems to be based on the
identical cognitive principles and cultural models) in both languages.
Littlemore (2003: 273) points out that metaphors are “typically culturally-loaded expressions, whose meaning has to be inferred through reference to
shared cultural knowledge”, and that “[c]onfusion is particularly likely to arise
when, for cultural reasons, the speaker and listener attach different connotations
to the source domains” (Littlemore 2003: 274). Since ANIMAL metaphors involve transference of meanings, these meanings may be culturally dependent and
“[o]ne reason why students tend to misinterpret metaphors may be that they use
different cultural references when attempting to interpret them” (Littlemore
2003: 273), when “the aspects of the source domain that are drawn on to create
metaphorical expressions may not be those aspects that are most salient to current speakers” (Deignan 2003: 267). Fortunately, as our analysis has hopefully
shown, both in English and Serbian there are a number of cross-domain mappings generated by unique cultural stereotypes, which facilitates teaching special lexis with animal-related words to Serbian ESP students.8 In cases, however, when animal metaphors are not easily understood by the speakers of Serbian due to the missing metonymic link as a result of the culturally conditioned
choice of different salient properties of an animal to stand for that animal (the
prime example of this are dog metaphors in business), it is necessary to carefully explain and make students aware of the metonymic link which originally
formed the basis for an expression to be understood as metaphor.
7
See White (2003), who shows that the student group exposed to a cognitive
linguistic approach to learning vocabulary as opposed to another group given a more
conventional vocabulary explanation, showed a clear advantage with regard to “memorisation, recall and test performance” (White 2003: 147).
8
We can claim this only in the case of specialised business and financial vocabulary. For differences in the conceptualisation of human behaviour in terms of animal
behaviour between English and Serbian found in the corpus of more general texts, see
e.g. Prodanović-Stankić (2004).
573
Nadežda R. Silaški
5. Conclusion
In this paper an attempt has been made to demonstrate the pervasiveness of the ANIMAL metaphor in the conceptualisation of certain human and inanimate phenomena in the world of business and economics and to explain the
functioning of metaphors and metonymies in the coining of business and financial terms in English. We have classified the PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS and INSTITUTIONS ARE ANIMALS metaphors into several submetaphors and illustrated them
with examples of animal names used metaphorically, with a clear metonymic
basis. Finally, we pointed out the importance of raising metaphor awareness on
the part of business and economics students as a tool of providing “tertiary learners with the knowledge that will enhance both their understanding of academic
texts and their stylistic awareness” (Charteris-Black 2000:150). In order to attain the necessary skill with specialised business and financial vocabulary in English, students need to develop their “metaphoric competence” (Low 1988) so as
to be able to understand a deeper motivation behind the terms they need to master.
References
Барселона 2000: A. Barcelona, Introduction. The Cognitive theory of metaphor
and metonymy, in: A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the
Crossroads, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–28.
Боерс 2000: F. Boers, Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading,
English for Specific Purposes, 19/2, 97–195.
Вајт 2003: M. White, Metaphor and economics: the case of growth, English for
Specific Purposes, 22/2, 131–151.
Дадли-Еванс, Сент Џон 1998: T. Dudley-Evans, M. J. St John, Developments
in English for specific purposes: a multi-disciplinary approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Дејнан 2003: A. Deignan, Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect
link, Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 255–271.
Кевечеш 2002: Z. Kövecses, Metaphor. A Practical Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Лејкоф, Тернер 1989: G. Lakoff, M. Turner, More than Cool Reason. A Field
Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Лејкоф, Џонсон 1980: G. Lakoff, M. Johnson, Metaphors we live by, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Литлмор 2003: J. Littlemore, The Effect of Cultural Background on Metaphor
Interpretation, Metaphor and Symbol, 18/4, 273–288.
Лоу 1988: G. D. Low, On teaching metaphor, Applied Linguistics, 9/2, 125–
147.
574
Animal Metaphors in Some Business-Related Terms in English
Продановић-Станкић 2004: D. Prodanović-Stankić, Metafore s nazivima životinja u engleskom i srpskom jeziku, Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju
i lingvistiku, XLVII/1–2, 131–145.
Раден 2000: G. Radden, How metonymic are metaphors?, in: A Barcelona (ed.),
Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
93–105.
Раден, Кевечеш 1999: G. Radden, Z. Kövecses, Towards a theory of metonymy, in: K.U. Panther, G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language
and Thought, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 17–59.
Силашки, Ђуровић 2010: N. Silaški, T. Đurović, Catching inflation by the tail
– Animal metaphoric imagery in the conceptualisation of INFLATION in
English, Ibérica, 20 (Fall 2010), 57–80
Талебинеџад, Дастџерди 2005: M. R.Talebinejad, H. V. Dastjerdi, A CrossCultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!, Metaphor and Symbol, 20/2, 133–150.
Халупка-Решетар, Радић 2003: S. Halupka-Rešetar, B. Radić, Animal names
used in adressing people in Serbian, Journal of Pragmatics, 35/12,
1891–1902.
Хендерсон 1982: W. Henderson, Metaphor in Economics, Economics (Winter),
147-53.
Хсие 2006: S. C. Hsieh, A corpus-based study on animal expressions in Mandarin Chinese and German, Journal of Pragmatics, 38/12, 2206–2222.
Чартерис-Блек 2000: J. Charteris-Black, Metaphor and Vocabulary Teaching
in ESP Economics, English for Specific Purposes, 19/2, 149–165.
Чартерис-Блек 2004: J. Charteris-Black, Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
575
Nadežda R. Silaški
Надежда Р. Силашки
МЕТАФОРЕ СА НАЗИВОМ ЖИВОТИЊЕ У ПОСЛОВНОЈ
ТЕРМИНОЛОГИЈИ НА ЕНГЛЕСКОМ ЈЕЗИКУ
Резиме
Са становишта теорије појмовне метафоре (Лејкоф и Џонсон 1980)
и појмовне метонимије (Раден и Кевечеш 1999, Барселона 2000) у раду говоримо о метафорама с називима животиња као когнитивном механизму
помоћу ког се концептуализују људи и институције у свету пословања и
финансија у енглеском језику. Метафоре општије природе људи су животиње и институције су животиње илуструјемо и категоришемо у неколико подметафора (инвеститори су животиње, производи су животиње,
компаније су животиње) са циљем да покажемо како се карактеристична
својства животиња и препознатљиви обрасци њиховог понашања (циљни
домен) метафорички преносе на учеснике на тржишту (изворни домен) у
процесу творбе вокабулара. Поред тога, бавимо се и педагошким импликацијама по наставу енглеског језика струке, указујући на потребу да усвајање специфичног вокабулара код студената економије, кад је то могуће, буде засновано на појмовној метафори.
576