1.3 Conceptual/cognitive metaphor
The hypothesis of metaphor has gone through its advancement, beginning
with the works of Aristotle, in which it was started, to the display state, when the
etymological worldview got to be human-centric, and all etymological wonders are
considered in coordinate association with an individual, his considering, with
society. The metaphor, which shows the rule of human simple considering,
involves one of the central places within the cognitive course of linguistic research.
Before alluding to the hypothesis of cognitive or conceptual metaphor, a few
definitions of a metaphor and the forms of cognition and conceptualization ought
to be given.
Metaphor is one of the means of secondary nomination, the essence of which
is the use of a word denoting a certain object (phenomenon, action, feature) to
nominate another object based on the similarity that follows from their
comparison, matching with the association. The metaphor became the object of
scientific research in antiquity. Thus, ancient theorists (Aristotle, Demetrius,
Cicero) noted that in artistic speech, metaphor is one of the key components of the
writer's style, the meaning of his work.
The ancient Greek rationalist and researcher Aristotle characterized metaphor
as a kind of a special word, depicting it as a way of reexamining the meaning of a
word based on likenesses. Aristotle noted that a metaphor speaks to the exchange
of a name from an object assigned by that name to some other object. In his
supposition, the representation partakes within the creation of a person’s
imaginative picture of the world in creative broadcasting, whereas uncovering the
quirks of the author's imaginative individuality. Aristotle's understanding of
metaphor was considered to be classic according to which metaphor was the
privilege of talk and speech.
A metaphor, as it is given in Encyclopedia Britannica is “a figure of discourse
that suggests comparison between two unlike substances, as recognized from
simile, where an unequivocal comparison flagged by the words 'like' or 'as.'”
Metaphor is a means of stating that two things are identical in comparison instead
of just similarity, usually valuable in literature for utilizing particular pictures or
concepts to state unique truths. To make the difference more vivid, let's take these
examples; “Our soldiers as brave as lion” or “Our soldiers are lion”, the former
example is simile, as you can guess it is noticeable from the word “as” and it is
comparing the soldiers to the lion while the latter one is an example of metaphor
where soldiers have the features and characteristics of a lion in literal meaning, of
course.
Cognition is a mental process of learning and obtaining knowledge as a
consequence of recognizing and processing information in one's environment.
When it comes to conceptualization, it is the process of constructing meaning
and forming concepts in the mind of a person.
Conceptual or cognitive metaphor theory deals with all these terms and how
they are connected within a human’s mind. As it has been stated above, earlier
theories, starting from antiquity, considered the metaphor mainly from the point of
view of the linguistic form (transferring to a denotation not characteristic of it) and
interpreted it as a means of embellishing speech and realizing the poetic function
of language. That is, the metaphor was studied as an exclusively linguistic
phenomenon associated with the word, and not with thought or mental operations.
The very idea that a metaphor is conceptual in nature is not entirely new. The
review devoted to the conceptual metaphor provides an insight into the history of
this phenomenon. Even Aristotle in his detailed study of figurative language said
(which for many researchers of his work will seem new) that “when metaphorizing
as the transfer of some attribute as one object to another, this process is carried out
on the basis of conceptual relations - categorical or by analogy" [Shabanova E.L,
1999, p. 161].
I. Richards in 1936 argued that “thinking is metaphorical… and from there
[thinking] comes language metaphors”, and C. Lewis suggested that understanding
one story figuratively, through another story, refers not so much to the processes of
expression, and not so much to literature, but to thinking in general and is the main
cognitive tool [Shabanova E.L, 1999, p. 161–162]).
Thus, the position on the possibility of obtaining and expressing new
knowledge through metaphors was initially expressed implicitly (the works of
Aristotle, C. Lewis, F. Nietzsche, I. Richards, etc.), was on the far periphery of
research attention. Only relatively recently it became the leading one, in the
metaphor they clearly saw “the key to understanding the foundations of thinking
and the processes of creating not only a nationally specific image of the world, but
also its universal image” [Arutyunova N. D., 1990, p. 6].
Since the middle of the XX century, metaphor begins to be studied as "a way
creation of a linguistic picture of the world, resulting from cognitive manipulation
of the meanings of reality already available in the language, which are not given in
direct sensations” [Teliya V.N., 1988, p. 3]. The theory of conceptual metaphor
begins to take shape.
In modern linguistic developments to denote this phenomenon uses two
equivalent terms - conceptual metaphor and cognitive metaphor. The first is
focused on the connection with the terms conceptualization and concept, the
second is associated with the concept of cognitivism. This work uses the term
conceptual metaphor, which is due to its traditional nature, connection with the
original concept of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson.
The founders of the theory of conceptual metaphor are considered to be J.
Lakoff and M. Johnson, whose work “Metaphors we live by” (1980) became the
base for most researchers of the phenomenon of metaphor. According to the
concept of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson, “... a metaphor permeates our entire daily life
and manifests itself not only in language, but also in thinking and action. Our
everyday conceptual system, within which we think and act, is metaphorical in its
essence" [Lakoff D/Johnsen M, 2004 p. 387].
The merit of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson lies in the explication of the fact that
the metaphor is not limited to the sphere of language, as previously thought, but
also extends to the sphere of thinking. As it is mentioned above, “the processes of
human thought are largely metaphorical. … Metaphors as linguistic expressions
become possible precisely because there are metaphors in the conceptual system of
a person,” [Lakoff D/Johnsen M, 2004, p. 390].
Moreover, both linguists attempted to demonstrate that our thoughts and, as a
result, our actions are metaphorical in character, and that our whole world
perception and cognition are built on metaphors. Because people think, imagine,
and act in a subconscious and instinctive manner, these cognitive metaphors can be
tracked mostly through language, which is the instrument we use to represent our
conceptual world picture.
In general, the suppositions by Lacoff G. and Johnsen M. can be presented as
follows:
 Conceptual metaphors can be observed in language in our everyday life.
 Conceptual metaphors shape not just our communication, but also the way
we think and act. So they are not mainly the property of words, but rather of
concepts.
 Thought
itself is fundamentally metaphorical in nature and, thus, our
conceptual system is metaphorical.
 Cognitive metaphors are prevalent in communication. We do not just use
them in language, but we actually perceive and act in accordance with these
metaphors.
The main provisions of the theory of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson are becoming
widespread and are beginning to be actively developed within the framework of a
new cognitive approach to linguistic facts. Interest in the metaphor of cognitive
science "is associated with its presentation as a linguistic phenomenon that reflects
the basic cognitive process" [Petrov V.V., 1990, p. 139], the metaphor begins to be
considered as “a global property of the language, one of the ways of thinking about
the world and knowledge of the world” [Balashova J.I, 1998, p. 3]. Thus, metaphor
is given central role in understanding and structuring reality.
To these Zoltan Kövecses in his book “Metaphor: A Commonsense
Introduction” includes such criteria as: “metaphors are utilized for understanding
concepts, but not basically for aesthetic purposes because mostly they are utilized
by ordinary people rather that writers and, moreover, metaphors are not more often
than not based on likeness. Metaphors, in this way, are “inevitable to prepare of
human thought and reasoning”. The author proposes that numerous “dead
metaphors” are so actually joined into our discourse that we don't understand and
don't indeed consider them being metaphors, though once they might have been
those. In such cases as “a nearby department of this organization” and “cultivating
business relationships” the words in italics don't appear to be unprecedented for
ordinary discourse and to bear solid metaphoric meaning, be that as it may, their
more careful examination uncovers their metaphorical nature. So, to a few degree
we cannot title this kind of metaphors “dead”, as they oversee our considering
forms and are met regularly in our discourse. [Kövecses, Z., 2002, p, 10]
Besides, it is claimed by Mathias W. Madsen in his work “Cognitive
Metaphor Theory and the Metaphysics of Immediacy”, (2016) that cognitive
metaphors allude to common human recognition as they appear to be comparable
all through countries. So the standards of the brain working, being fundamentally
the same for all people, in this way, base on metaphorical considering, building
kind of cognitive mapping with the assistance of conceptual spaces. Still, in spite
of its notoriety, numerous researchers question this hypothesis as need of more
proofs by Madsen M. to bolster his theory. [Madsen, M.W., 2016]
Generally, the theory was investigated by Johnson M. (1987), Lakoff G.
(1987), Lakoff G. and Turner M. (1989), and later on with some different
interpretation by other scientists such as Gibbs R. (1990, 1992), Way E. (1991),
Steen G. (1994), and Kövecses Z. (2002).
As it was said, the conceptual metaphor is based on similarity drawn between
two different concepts. The concept that's being depicted is named a target
domain. The concept, in terms of which the target domain is depicted, from which
metaphorical expressions are drawn, is named a source domain. Target domains
are as a rule more abstract and incorporate such concepts as feeling, thought,
relations, social organizations and other human involvement. Source domains are
for the most part more specific and allude to activities and objects, such as
ventures, nourishment, plants, buildings, etc.
Kövecses Z. in his book “Metaphor: A Practical Introduction” investigated
several kinds of source domains and proposed the most common ones. These
include:
 human body based on the application of such expressions as “the heart of
the problem; to shoulder a responsibility; the head of the department”;
 health and illness (a healthy society; a sick mind; she hurt my feelings);
 animals (via usage of such animals as a brute, a tiger, a dog, a sly, fox, a
bitch, a cow, a snake, when describing the character and the behavior of certain
people);
 plants (a budding beauty; he cultivated his friendship with her; the fruit of
her labor; exports flourished last year);
 buildings and constructions (a towering genius; he’s in ruins financially;
she constructed a coherent argument);
 machines
and tools (the machine of democracy; conceptual tools; she
produces a book every year); games and sport (to toy with the idea; he tried to
checkmate her; he’s a heavyweight politician);
 money and business (spend your time wisely; I tried to save some energy;
she invested a lot in the relationship);
 cooking and food (what’s your recipe for success? that’s a watered-down
idea; he cooked up a story that nobody believed);
 heat and cold (in the heat of passion; a cold reception; an icy stare; a warm
welcome);
 light and darkness (a dark mood; she brightened up);
 forces (she swept me off my feet; you’re driving me nuts; don’t push me!);
 movements and direction (he went crazy; she solved the problem step by
step; inflation is soaring; our economy is galloping ahead). [Kövecses, Z., 2002, p,
34-38]
The most common target domains, according to the author, are as follows
below. Here it should be noted that in the examples provided in italics are
highlighted the words connected to the source domains, while the general phrases
have meanings within the target domains.
 emotion (she was deeply moved; he was bursting with joy; he unleashed his
anger);
 desire
(she is hungry for knowledge; I am starved for affection; he’s
burning to go);
 morality (I’ll pay you back for this; she resisted the temptation; he’s a
straight shooter; he’s a shady character);
 thought (she’s grinding out new ideas; he hammered the point home; he
searched for the memory; I see your point);
 society/nation (what do we owe society? neighboring countries; a friendly
nation);
 politics (they forced the opposition out of the House; the president plays
hardball);
 economy (Germany built a strong economy; the growth of the economy;
they pruned the budget);
 human
relations (their friendship is in full flower; it’s a budding
relationship; they had to work on their relationship);
 communication
(you are putting too many ideas into a single sentence;
that’s a dense paragraph; she gave me a lot of information);
 time (the time will come when…; Christmas is coming up soon; time flies);
 life and death (the baby will arrive soon; grandpa is gone; his father passed
away);
 religion (when God is referred to as Father, Shepherd, King, etc. and the
believers are seen as God’s children, sheep, subjects, etc.);
 events and actions (he went crazy; she turned thirty last month; you’re
driving me nuts). [Kövecses, Z., 2002, p, 39-42]
One more term alludes to the joins that exist between two domains and is
called cognitive mapping. These are orderly correspondences between the
constituencies of the target domain and the source domain. The method of mapping
is based on the information structures that are built in our brain and uncover certain
background knowledge and associations between two domains and the way they
may be connected to each other. A few highlights that are assumed to be
characteristic for target domains are in reality those of the source domains, which
we utilize unknowingly in our language. The specified pre-linguistic affiliations
are moreover named image schemas and are depicted as structures inside cognitive
forms, which set up designs of understanding and thinking. The image schemas are
associated with space, time, moving, controlling, and other concepts associated
with the human body and brain.
To demonstrate the relations between the target domain and the source
domain, we may allude to the foremost prevalent conceptual metaphor utilized by
Lacoff G. and Johnsen M. in their book and afterward by different linguists to
draw a case of the conceptual metaphor: ARGUMENT IS WAR. This cognitive
metaphor can be demonstrated by expressions we utilize in our standard discourse,
such as:
 Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument.
His criticisms were right on target. I demolished his argument. I've never
won an argument with him. You disagree? Okay, shoot! If you use that
strategy, he'll wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments.
[Lacoff, G. & Johnsen, M., 1980/2003. – p. 9.]
The words in italics connected to argument are really characteristic for warfare.
We utilize them unwittingly, in this way, distinguishing that our rival within the
argument is our verbal “enemy” we “fight” with. We win or defeat the ground
within the argument, secure our position and protect our points. This does not
presuppose hostility in common life that has small to do with the argument, but
inside the connected situation the associations are driven and communicated within
the language without conscious understanding.
Lacoff G. and Johnsen M. propose that these affiliations communicated
linguistically base on the conceptual world picture of the nation and, in this way,
on culture. A few possible people which will see contention in terms of dance or
performance would have a very diverse way of conducting it, utilizing moderate
and respectful turn-taking, carrying on as on-screen characters and getting stylish
delight from the method. It ought to be understood that such conceptual
representation as ARGUMENT IS WAR isn't fair a metaphor inside one phrase, it
bases on multifold expressions in language that are drawn from our cognition and
conceptualization. It may be a vision of the method of argument in common and
acting in agreement with this vision. This recognizes conceptual metaphor from
traditional see on representation, which characterizes it as an absolutely linguistic
phenomenon based on the similitude of two things utilized for a few aesthetic and
stylish purposes by uncommonly gifted and capable in literary language people.
Types of Conceptual Metaphors
It was depicted before that conceptual metaphor uncovers metaphoric
affiliations in our brain. Two domains connected may not fundamentally (and
indeed most regularly do not) have similitudes in their casual meaning, be that as it
may, the subconscious likeness based on mental and social characteristics and
consequent behavior makes us create verbal expressions that apply words
inalienable for a source domain in terms of a target domain. This metaphorical
utilization is so natural that we don't realize it until language expressions are
analyzed.
There are several types of cognitive metaphors build on different perception
of target and source domains and relations between them. Lacoff G. and
Johnsen M. in their book “Metaphors We Live By” subdivided conceptual
metaphors into the following types:
 Structural metaphor
 Orientational metaphor
 Ontological metaphor
 Container metaphor
The first type metaphor is structural metaphor, and it has been exemplified
here prior, when alluding to ARGUMENT IS WAR. Inside this type of metaphor
one more complex concept that's ordinarily more theoretical (target domain) is
presented in terms of another concept that's more concrete (source domain). The
joins between two concepts can be drawn on the base of the world recognition,
views and values, convictions and suppositions. The investigation of everyday
discourse illustrates this metaphorical representation inside each culture, and the
similitude of world perception concerning particular focuses produces the same
structural metaphors communicated within the language.
Jon Goss in his work “Marketing the Modern Marketing”, 1995, states that
structural metaphors don't got to be expressly communicated within the language,
they are utilized as certain guides to construct the meaning and activity inside the
setting, where they work . This implies that auxiliary allegories are built on the
similitude of context, to which the compared concepts may be alluded. This
recognition is national and is reflected within the language of the country uses.
The orientational metaphor is the second form of cognitive metaphor to be
discovered. These metaphors deal with categories like up-down, in-out, front-back,
on-off, deep-shallow, central-peripheral, and so on, and arrange the entire
conceptual system in spatial connections with one another. Because our brains use
these orientations depending on how our bodies move and feel in the environment,
we utilize the same categories for our sensations and emotions implicitly. G.
Lacoff and M. Johnsen argue that orientational metaphors are not the same for all
countries, and that they are dependent on national characteristics and a world view
impacted by cultural perspectives.
The function of this type can be seen in the following example;
HIGH STATUS IS UP; LOW STATUS IS DOWN
 He has a lofty position. She'll rise to the top. He’s at the peak of his career.
He’s climbing the ladder. He has little upward mobility. He’s at the bottom
of the social hierarchy. She fell in status. [Lacoff, G. & Johnsen, M.,
1980/2003. – p. 17.]
It's possible that unpleasant emotions or professional troubles are linked to the fear
of falling, which is always terrifying and harmful both physically and ethically, or
to exhaustion brought on by the tough yet inspirational climb up or the transition to
a sleeping posture. At the same time, rising or remaining in a straight stance
represents alertness, and so energy, and is related with approaching a goal, a peak.
Another example that is based on spatial linkages "up-down," but has a
different experience platform: is FORESEEABLE FUTURE EVENTS ARE
UP (and AHEAD);
 All upcoming events are listed in the paper. What's coming up this week?
I'm afraid of what's up ahead of us. What’s up? [Lacoff, G. & Johnsen, M.,
1980/2003. – p. 17.]
According to Lacoff G. and Johnsen M., our physical ability to stare regularly
in front of ourselves with our head up also presupposes the application of up
and ahead to the idea of future. And when the item approaches us from afar, it
grows larger, imaginably "expanding" in size and increasing in height. As a
result, future occurrences figuratively grow more obvious before our mental
eyesight as they get closer.
As a result, the authors argue that, while "up-down" relationships have
the same meaning in reality, their foundations may change when it comes to
diverse conceptual metaphors. This is dependent on our previous experience
with the items in question. Indeed, under the conceptual metaphor MORE IS
UP; LESS IS DOWN, we might imagine an increase in quantity as a pile
becoming larger and higher, and a drop in quantity as a lowering.
Unconsciously, this view may be applied to uncountable things and abstract
conceptions, even though their quantity cannot be increased or decreased.
Ontological metaphor is one of the most common varieties of cognitive
metaphor, yet it is also one of the least observed by listeners. It is founded on
the idea of interpreting unmeasured items or experiences as entities and
substances that can be quantified, located, referred to, and therefore classified.
This conceivable framework bestows on abstract entities aids our perception
of them, allowing us to establish our relationship and position with them. In
everyday life, people generally interact with tangible things, adopting their
motions, activities, and interactions with them. As a result, our minds think of
abstract concepts and conceptions in the same way.
We refer to mind as an object, for example, yet it is abstract and has not
been thoroughly examined. Mind is identified as a tangible item that may
have some impact and is positioned in space as some type of object in
statements like "to clear one's mind; my mind is rusty; mind-blowing idea; on
one's mind; in the back of one's mind." Objectification is most typically used
to assist concretize experiences or ideas that aren't completely comprehended,
allowing for a greater comprehension.
In their book, Lacoff G. and Johnsen M. advocated that some abstract
concepts be defined as entities, allowing us to refer to, measure, identify their
characteristics, interact with, and appear to comprehend them in line with:
 Referring
My fear of insects is driving my wife crazy. That was a beautiful catch.
We are working toward peace. The middle class is powerful silent force
in American politics. The honor of our country is at stake in this war.
 Quantifying
It will take a lot of patience to finish this book. There is so much hatred
in the world. DuPont has a lot of political power in Delaware. You’ve
got too much hostility in you. Pete Rose has a lot of hustle and baseball
know-how.
 Identifying Aspects
The ugly side of his personality comes out under pressure. The brutality
of war dehumanizes us all. I can’t keep up with the pace of modern life.
His emotional health has deteriorated recently.
 Identifying Causes
The pressure of his responsibilities caused his breakdown. He did it out
of anger. Our influence in the world has declined because of our lack of
moral fiber. Internal dissension cost them the pennant.
 Setting Goals and Motivating Actions
 He went to New York to seek fame and fortune. Here’s what you have to do
to insure financial security. I’m changing my way of life so that I can find
true happiness. The FBI will act quickly in the face of a threat to national
security. [Lacoff, G. & Johnsen, M., 1980/2003. – p. 24.]
These examples qualify, quantify, identify, and assign human traits to abstract
and non-physical phenomena. The goal is to make sense of our experiences so
that we may better comprehend them.
Container metaphor is another form of mental metaphor to consider.
This metaphor is based on our physical view of the world and ourselves as
containers that have a "in-out" orientation. It starts with people's perceptions
of the rooms they're in, then moves on to districts, cities, nations, and the
entire planet, each of which is viewed as a container with spatial qualities and
the ability to be in or out. In a similar way, these container properties, limits,
and quantities are also provided to some objects or abstract ideas. For
instance, when using language like "she is in love; to fall in love; deep love;
to fall out of love," as if expressing it as something capable of going in and
out, a totally abstract idea like love might be referred to as a container.
Furthermore, parts or features of our body also may be perceived as
containers. For instance, the expressions used with heart have spatial
characteristics as kind of a box, where something can be placed or taken from: “his
heart is vacant; heart full of pain/love/hate; in my heart I know that she is right;
keep in one’s heart”.
 The same container features can be applied to activities, movements,
substances: “In washing the window, I splashed water all over the floor.
How did Jerry get out of washing the windows? Outside of washing the
windows, what else did you do? How did you get into window-washing as a
profession? He's immersed in washing the windows right now.”
[Lacoff, G. & Johnsen, M., 1980/2003. – p. 27.]
So in this chapter, it has been investigated what is the metaphor, the
introduction of conceptual metaphor and types of metaphor. As it has been
noted before the conceptual metaphor has been introduced by Lacoff G. and
Johnsen M with the introduction of their book called “Metaphors We Live
By” (1980). There also has been an attempt to investigate the types of
conceptual metaphor suggested by Lacoff G. and Johnsen M, and according
to them there overall 4 types of conceptual metaphor; structural- one concept
is structurally metaphorically mentioned lined up in terms of another,
ontological- understanding experience in terms of objects, substances and
substances, which allows you to isolate some parts experience and interpret
them as discrete entities or substances any single type, orientational organization of a whole system of concepts according to model of some other
system, container - representing meanings as content specific language units.
REFERENCES
1. Arutyunova N. D. Metaphor / N. D. Arutyunova // Linguistic encyclopedic
vocabulary. - Moscow, 1990.
2. Balashova J.I. Metaphor in diachrony / J.I. Balashova. - Saratov: Saratov
Publishing House. State University, 1998. - 216 p.
3. Kövecses, Z. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. – Oxford University Press,
2002. – p. 10.
4. Lacoff, G. & Johnsen, M. Metaphors We Live By. – Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1980/2003. – 256 p.
5. Madsen, M.W. Cognitive Metaphor Theory and the Metaphysics of
Immediacy. Cognitive Science, 40(4). – 2016. – p. 881–908
6. Petrov V.V. Metaphor: from semantic representations to cognitive analysis /
V.V Petrov // Questions of linguistics. - 1990. - No 3.
7. Teliya V.N., Metaphor as a model of meaning production and its expressiveevaluative function / V.N Teliya // Metaphor in language and text. –
Moscow, 1988; Telia V.N Metaphorization and its role in creating a
linguistic picture of the world / V.N Teliya // The role of the human factor in
language. Language and picture of the world / B. A. Serebrennikov. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. - S. 173-207.
8. Shabanova E. L. Conceptual metaphor: trends in research (review) / E. L.
Shabanova // Abstract. magazine Ser. "Linguistics". –1999. - No 1. - S. 158176.