Document Type : Research Articles

Authors

1 Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language, Faculty of Letters & Humanities, Shahrekord University, Iran

2 Ph.D. Candidate in TEFL, Department of English Language, Faculty of Letters & Humanities, Shahrekord University, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language, Faculty of Letters & Humanities, Shahrekord University, Iran

Abstract

In the last 2 decades, studies on conceptual metaphors have profoundly increased. The development in this field was followed by Lakoff and Johnson's (1980b) work on describing the conceptual role played by metaphors and their correspondence with language and thought. This study aimed to compare conceptual metaphors in Persian and English through a corpus-based approach as well as examining both the universality and culture-specificity of conceptual metaphors within Persian/English and describe in detail the Persian conception of some metaphorical concepts from the cognitive perspective. The cognitive theory of metaphor was resorted to and applied to a cross-cultural analysis of a randomly selected set of conceptual metaphors in English and Persian. To analyze the data, 12 conceptual metaphors introduced by Wright (1999) were investigated and gathered. Then, the metaphorical expressions in the 2 languages were grouped under their source and target domains. Results pointed to the fact that whereas there is a certain degree of universality in terms of the predominant conceptual metaphors, there are also variations between the 2 languages for cultural and linguistic reasons.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Article Title [فارسی]

مطالعه شناختی استعارات مفهومی در انگلیسی و فارسی: جهان شمول یا خاصِ فرهنگ؟

Authors [فارسی]

  • محمود هاشمیان 1
  • راضیه سالمی 2
  • علی اکبر جعفرپور 3

1 دانشگاه شهرکرد

2 دانشگاه شهرکرد

3 دانشگاه شهرکرد

Abstract [فارسی]

در 2 دهه اخیر، مطالعات بسیاری بر استعارات مفهومی صورت گرفته است.  تحولات در این زمینه به دنبال انتشار کتاب لیکاف و جانسن با عنوان استعاره هایی که با آنان زندگی می کنیم(۱۹۸۰)، نقش مفهومی استعارات و ارتباط بین زبان و اندیشه را توصیف می کند. این مطالعه با هدف مقایسه استعارات مفهومی در زبان فارسی و انگلیسی از طریق رویکرد مبتنی بر پیکره و همچنین بررسی فراگیر بودن و تفاوت فرهنگی در استعارات مفهومی و به طور دقیق تر به درک برخی مفاهیم استعاری و معادل آنان در فارسی از دیدگاه شناختی می پردازد. نظریه شناختی استعاره به تحلیل مقایسه ای فرهنگی از مجموعه ای که به صورت تصادفی از استعارات مفهومی به زبان انگلیسی و فارسی انتخاب شده است، می پردازد. این تحلیل بر مبنای داده های زبانشناسی منتخب از استعارات مفهومی کتاب ساختار اصطلاحات نوشته ی رایت (۱۹۹۰) انجام شد. سپس، اصطلاحات استعاری در هر 2 زبان تحت دامنه مبدا و مقصد در هر استعاره گروه بندی شدند. نتایج حاکی از این واقعیت است که اگرچه تا حد بسیار زیادی استعارات مفهومی فراگیر هستند، اما تفاوت های بسیاری بین این 2 زبان به دلایل زبانشناسی و فرهنگی وجود دارد.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • نظریه شناختی-معنایی استعارات
  • استعارات مفهومی
  • جهان شمولی یا خاصِ فرهنگ استعارات مفهومی
Anvary, H. (2004). Farhang-e- kenayat-e -sokhan. Tehran, Iran: Sokhan.
Bisang, W., Hock, H. H., & Winter, W. (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bratoz, S. (2012). Slovenian and US elections in metaphors: A cross-linguistic perspective. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 5(2), 120-136.
Carter, R. (1997). Investigating English discourse: Language, literacy, and literature. London: Routledge.
Dehkhoda, A. (1960). Amsal-al-hekam. Tehran, Iran: Amir Kabir.
Deignan, A. (2008). Corpus linguistic data and conceptual metaphor theory. In M. S. Zanotto, L. Cameron, & M. C. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use (pp. 149-163). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Fiumara, G. C. (1995). The metaphoric process: Connections between language and life. London: Routledge.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Houng, P. T., & Nhan, D. T. (2011). The metaphor Love Is A Journey in English and Vietnamese. TRUONG DAI HOC VIEH, 40, 11-20.
Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion Concepts. New York, NY: Springer New York.
Kövecses, Z. (1991). Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6(1), 29-47.
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: Pragmatics and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Conceptual metaphor theory. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor (pp.13-27). Oxford: Routledge.
Lakoff, G. (1992). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980a). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453-486.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980b). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lixia, W., & Eng, W. B. (2012). A corpus-based study on snake metaphors in Mandarin Chinese and British English. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 311-324.
Lv, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Universality and variation of conceptual metaphor of love in Chinese and English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(2), 355-359.
Matsuki, K. (1995). Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In J. Taylor & R. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 137-151). Berlin: Gruyter.
McGlone, M. S. (2007). What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language & Communication, 27, 109-126.
Patterson, K. J. (2017). When is a metaphor not a metaphor? An investigation into lexical characteristics of metaphoricity among uncertain cases. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(2), 103-117.
Pérez, R. G. (2008). A cross-cultural analysis of heart metaphors. Revista Alicantina de EstudiosInglese, 21, 25-56.
PirzadPazhak, S., Pazhakh, A., & Hayati, A. (2012). A comparative study of basic emotions in English and Persian literary texts. International Education Studies, 5(1), 200-207.
Safarnejad, F., Ho-Abdullah, I., & MatAwal, N. (2014). A cognitive study of happiness metaphors in Persian and English. Procedia ̶ Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 110-117.
Sharifian, F. (2008). Conceptualizations of del ‘heart-stomach’ in Persian. In Sharifian, F. et al. (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 247-267). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Siahaan, P. (2008). Did he break your heart or your liver? A contrastive study on metaphorical concepts from the source domain organ in English and in Indonesian. In Sharifian, F. et al. (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 45-75). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stern, J. (2000). Metaphor in context. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wright, J. (1999). Idioms organiser: Organised by metaphor, topic, and key word. UK: Thomson Heinle.
Yu, N. (1995). Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 59-92.
Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor in Chinese: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yu, N., Yu, L., & Lee, Y. C. (2017). Primary metaphors: Importance as size and weight in a comparative perspective, Metaphor and Symbol, 32(4). 231-249.