How metaphors work
December 27th, 2008According to Lakoff a metaphor involves the mapping of a source domain, or some of its elements, to a target domain, which often follows the pattern TARGET-DOMAIN IS SOURCE-DOMAIN, or TARGET-DOMAIN AS SOURCE DOMAIN (1993:207). To make it more clear, an exemplary mapping of the metaphor ‘love is a journey’ is provided, where the lovers represent passengers, their love is the means of transport, the welfare of the relationship equals the destination of the journey and possible feuds between partners are like obstacles on the road. What is more, Lakoff suggests that “The metaphor is not just a matter of language, but of thought and reason. The language is secondary” ( Lakoff, 1993:208). Such metaphors and mappings of one domain onto another, as he goes on to say, are schematic and constitute a rigid component of our comprehension and perception of certain concepts, which explains why language users are able to make sense of various linguistic representations of one conceptual metaphor.
Before mappings are described in more detail a few words need to be said about the nature of domains. According to Taylor (2002:439) a domain is configuration of knowledge important to the characterization of the meaning of a semantic unit. Moreover, as he points out, depending on their complexity domains might be simple, or, as he calls them, ‘basic’ which refer to concepts such as colors, space and time. Those are called basic as they cannot be reduced to any other simpler conceptions, while the complex domains include, for example, typical event scenarios, social practices or rules of a game.
In mappings, the linguistic items in both source and target domains are on the superordinate level of meaning, rather than on the basic level. Even if it were possible to find metaphors which are conceptualized at the basic level, they are not numerous and are all included in one wider hypernym, therefore, it is assumed that the superordinate categories are mapped and the subordinate ones are only their specific instances. In the studies aimed at falsifying this theory it has been found that the linguistic evidence supports this hypothesis, thus it seems to be correct. What is more, it is now claimed that the reason why the superordinate categories are mapped is that they increase the chances of mapping “rich conceptual structures in the source domains onto the target domain, since it permits many basic level instances, each of which is information rich” (Lakoff, 1993:212).
A thorough insight into the ways mappings occur led to certain interesting conclusions as to how mappings are restricted. That is to say, there are certain abstract concepts which, when they are expressed metaphorically, never take advantage of some source domains, but always revolve around a fixed number of possible references. The recognition of such limitations led Lakoff to formulate what he called the invariance principle: “metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology (that is, the image schema structure) of the source domain, in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain” (Lakoff, 1993:213). According to the author of this definition it is the structure of the target domain that confines the possibilities for mappings. Thus, for example, death is always depicted as a devourer, destroyer or reaper, but never as a gardener, shopkeeper, or writer. What is more, Lakoff claims that the inherent construction of the target domain inevitably restrains what can be mapped, which explains why it is possible to give somebody a kiss without him having it afterwards. Similarly, we can give someone a break, or a kick, yet it is well known that such things can be given, but not possessed (Green, Evans, 2006:302; Lakoff, 1993:216).
Lakoff in his theory of mapping one domain onto another focused on the conventionalized language use, that is metaphors which are apparent in everyday speech of language users who oftentimes are not aware of using metaphorical expressions. Adopting a slightly different approach to the matter of metaphors Turner in collaboration with Fauconnier formulated a “conceptual blending theory”. Their conceptual blending theory accounts for spontaneous mental processes which result in brief and innovative metaphorical phrases. In fact, it is very similar to Lakoff’s theory apart from the terminology used in its explanation and supposed application in genuine communication (Coulson, 2005:34, Taylor, 2002:189).
In conceptual blending theory there are no domains to be mapped, but there are mental spaces which can be thought of as impermanent containers of crucial information about a topic in question (domain). These mental spaces consist of elements representing meaningful linguistic units and frames which represent relationships between them. Mappings in conceptual blending theory are abstract correspondences among elements in different mental spaces. Also cultural models are of great importance in this view as they are associated with the socially significant topics (Taylor, 2002:189).
The entire conceptual blending theory revolves around the notion of a conceptual integration network which explains how those innovative and short-lived metaphorical expressions are created. In the network there are numerous mental spaces in which the processes of blending take place. The network has two or more input spaces which are “structured by information from discrete cognitive domains” (Taylor, 2002:190). There is also a generic space containing the selection of aspects shared by the inputs, and the last one is the blended space which “contains selected aspects of structure from each input space along with any emergent structure that arises out of the imaginative processes of blending” (Taylor, 2002:190).
This theory clarifies how it happens that metaphorical expressions often have meanings or implications which cannot be traced back to the source or the target domain. Taylor (2002:192) provides the exemplary sentence “That surgeon is a butcher” to show that the metaphor used states that the surgeon is incompetent in spite of the fact that the word butcher itself does not have such implication. Therefore it seems that apart from the professions there is something more that is beingmapped. There is the mapping between surgeon and butcher and the patient and a dead animal, together with a scalpel and a cleaver. In order to make it as transparent as possible a table illustrating the mental spaces in the surgeon as butcher blend is provided (Taylor, 2002:193):
The above table shows the role of particular spaces, how the blending occurs and what is the most significant in it. Therefore, it is the butcher’s goal and tool that are more important in this case than the butcher himself. This shows how selective the blends are and how much information that is not overtly expressed in the sentence is important for its comprehension. pdf
