Introduction
The study of metaphors is a relatively young field in linguistics; yet, scientists have long been interested in this area. Various schools of thought have emerged, the most common being traditional and modern metaphors. The first examines metaphors from a rhetorical standpoint, while the latter examines them from a cognitive perspective. Traditional metaphor research in rhetoric can be traced back to scholars such as Aristotle and Richards.
Aristotle emphasizes that metaphors entail giving something a name that usually alludes to something else. These processes can move a metaphor from one genus to another, from one species to another, or through an analogy from one species to another (Onwukwe, 2020). According to Richards, the effectiveness of a metaphor is determined by how well the metaphorical statement and the environment in which it is utilized interact.
Traditionalists of metaphor argue that it is a rhetorical device, a word transfer, and a way to make phrases stronger and more fascinating. Metaphor research is light-years ahead of where it was in the 1980s. Lakoff and Johnson’s 1980 book, Metaphors We Live By, altered how people studied the use of metaphors in language (Păstae, 2019). This could be due to how they were taught to perceive metaphors in cognition.
In this discipline, it has been suggested that metaphor is more about cognition and action than poetry and rhetorical flourishes. Kovecses claims that rage, pride, and love are frequently represented in ordinary language (Bao, 2022). These studies demonstrate how metaphor influences people’s thinking and perception of the world. This research paper explores the use of metaphors in language and how individuals construct meaning when encountering a metaphor.
Objective
This paper outlines and analyzes the field of language research, with a particular emphasis on the analysis involved in comprehending metaphors.
Research Questions
- How do scholars define conceptual metaphors?
- What are the cognitive processes toward understanding metaphors?
- How do metaphors link with language?
Hypothesis
- Metaphors are universally understood.
- Metaphors add beauty to language and increase understanding of the message.
Literature Review
Amodal Symbol Model
The amodal symbol model of language comprehension was developed during the cognitive revolution. According to the amodal symbol model, the meanings of words and sentences can be broken down into the same types of abstract, amodal symbols that comprise a formal language (Berndt, 2022).
A banana can be considered an example to illustrate the concept. The word is abstract since it can refer to both ripe and unripe bananas. It is amodal because it can be applied to both oral and written descriptions of bananas. It is arbitrarily associated with its referents since its phonetic and orthographic traits have nothing to do with the physical or functional characteristics of the referent. To understand it, one must concentrate on the amodal qualities of the banana, such as its length, shape, color, and peel, rather than trying to recall how they have seen or used a banana in the past.
The mind perceives the sensory-motor system as an abstract information processor, implying that it has no direct connection to memory or language comprehension. One of the basic notions in language comprehension theory is that linguistic inputs are mapped onto underlying conceptual frameworks. Language users organize word phrases to determine what a speaker means by mapping the words to the semantic symbols that best represent that speaker’s meaning.
All semantic representations are merely symbols, with no genuine connection between the word and the item it represents. The conceptual system, which is assumed to be composed of these abstract, amodal symbols, is then altered in response to the new knowledge. The sensory-motor system has little to do with comprehending what is being said (Wang & Pan, 2017). The amodal symbol model’s supremacy has recently been challenged by the embodied perspective on language comprehension, which posits that understanding language depends on mental representations of perceptual, motor, and emotional events in the environment.
Language Embodiment
Before the amodal symbol model gained prominence, philosophers such as Epicurus claimed that concepts are founded on representations unique to a specific mode. This approach to ideas has captivated academics since its resurgence in the 1990s (García et al., 2019). The basic premise is that ideas are founded on systems unique to each modality and that understanding language necessitates activating high-level sensory and movement representations. A banana might also be used as an example in this case. To grasp the noun, one considers how it looks, tastes, and feels.
According to the perceptual symbol system, when people read a sentence, particularly one that describes a physical occurrence that can be quantified, they may perceive what is stated. Symbolic languages allow people to express their thoughts, feelings, and ideas as physical events or experiences (Perlovsky, 2009). This language differs from everyday language because it focuses on intensity and connection rather than time and place (García et al., 2019).
It is the only language that has survived every human civilization and period. Myths, fairy tales, and dreams have grammar and syntax that must be studied to properly comprehend their meaning. Additionally, symbols represent the majority of what humans say to one another. The symbols people use have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Instead, they serve as a substitute for something else, whether it is a genuine or an idea (Liu et al., 2017). Language can convey information about things far removed in time and space from the speaker and the environment.
The first sounds people made with their voices were most likely imitations of animal and natural sounds. Even though this simple means of communicating has survived for thousands of years, it has had to be modified as populations have grown and people have begun to work more organized, for example, in farming. People recognized that they required more names and symbols for an increasing number of things as they learned more about farming and raising animals as pets.
Objects were frequently utilized instead of others, as there were no written symbols at the time. A farmer, for example, might have placed a stone in a box for each of his chicks. As technology advanced, it became more challenging to keep track of the physical items that served as substitutes for their symbolic counterparts. More abstract symbols and written words were utilized to express a concept or item. Even though these modifications occurred thousands of years ago, the foundations of some words in the present language can still be found in much more tangible and plain ways.
Conceptual Metaphor
Cognitive semantics examines the role of metaphors in language, with a focus on how the mind functions. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a metaphor is a figure of speech that connects two things that appear to have nothing in common. From this viewpoint, a person’s use of metaphors in speech is determined by the set of ideas they can comprehend and understand. However, people’s conceptual systems cannot be examined directly because they are formed by thought and experience (Santana & de Vega, 2011). This section aims to explain conceptual metaphors and their significance to the mind by investigating the idea that conceptual metaphors are groups of mappings that involve cognitive representations.
Cognitive semantics is a set of ideas based on figurative language and is an important subfield of cognitive linguistics. This dataset examines how a person’s life experiences, mental framework, and language use in everyday speech interact. As a result, scholars have devoted significant time and effort to investigating the processes and conceptual frameworks that help people make sense of things. Consequently, cognitive semantics researchers have developed several principles, including the notion that conceptual structures are built into the language and the conceptual nature of semantic structures (Santana & de Vega, 2011). Others include the discussion of meaning in the context of a comprehensive aspect and the emphasis on conceptualization as the process of meaning construction.
One of the primary goals of the research is to understand the concept of perception in relation to figurative language, such as metaphors. Cognitive semantics researchers developed the conceptual metaphor hypothesis to explain how this figure of speech helps people make connections between seemingly unrelated ideas. It is equally important to study metaphors in general as it is to study specific metaphors used in speech. Conceptual metaphors make sense when one area of thought is examined and comprehended in relation to another (Wang & Pan, 2017).
The conceptual metaphor directly represents the first two principles of cognitive semantics: embodied cognition and perceiving semantic structures as concepts. According to Kintsch and Bowles (2002), a conceptual metaphor is defined by the abstract connections between two ideas or things rather than the words used to describe them. The study’s author provided examples of figurative language employing the ‘people are plants’ analogy. “She is blooming” and “he is a budding journalist” are two examples. To explain the concept that ‘people are plants,’ theorists developed a specialized language that can be used in the context of conceptual metaphor theory.
Cross-domain mappings are central to Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory. According to the conceptual metaphor, these speech figures describe mappings between stable connections in the human mind and the external world. These mappings include conceptual correspondences. They establish a link between the source and target domains by demonstrating how the speaker’s and listener’s body-based perceptions of reality or situation are similar.
From this perspective, “swallowing a compromise,” “my friend is a butterfly,” and “seeing is knowing” are all examples of conceptual metaphors with explicit mappings. The first example figuratively means to accept or face a challenge that may arise in a situation. The second may be used to highlight the beauty of the butterfly in an individual through direct comparison. Lastly, one action is compared to another to give weight to the latter. As a result, conceptual metaphors can be considered a unique way of making mental connections between ideas.
Conceptual Metaphors and Cognition
Metaphors can be viewed from both a linguistic and a cognitive perspective, but conceptual metaphors can only be examined in terms of cognition and the processes that accompany them. This shows that the relationship between conceptual metaphor and cognition is well-known and well-defined (Danesi, 2018; Qian, 2016). When investigating this, it is important to pay attention to the details of this contact and how it happens. When people learn a language, they create mental models that reveal how they perceive the natural and social world from their unique perspective. Hence, metaphors can be used to describe abstract ideas in communication.
Conceptual metaphors are linked to cognition because they are stored in the mind as a pool of possible words to describe things. People often use these ideas without realizing their whole meaning, but many do so as metaphors and idioms. Danesi (2018) states that native English speakers employ approximately 3,000 metaphors and 7,000 idioms when speaking. He adds that metaphors are systematic and, as such, reflect an unconscious conceptual-figurative system of thought that controls language choices in everyday communication, not just in special situations. Native speakers find it easy to use conceptual metaphors because, over time, their brains have formed certain conceptual paradigms through observation, perception, and language use.
Speakers are constantly filling their minds with new information they have learned about specific cultures and languages. According to Qian (2016), a conceptual metaphor is made when a person’s mind compares and contrasts the ideas, descriptions, and traits of one concept or domain with those of another concept or domain. From this perspective, it is essential to consider the production’s language or cultural context when analyzing conceptual structures and systems.
The relationship between conceptual metaphors and thought can be explained by the idea that a conceptual metaphor shows a person’s ways of thinking that are shared and understandable in a given language or culture. Due to these differences in language and culture, some metaphors and idioms are more commonly used in specific languages than others. Furthermore, metaphors like “people are plants” and “people are animals” have universal conceptual meanings. This makes conceptual metaphors different from other metaphors that come from cognition.
It is also important to note that many abstract ideas are easier to understand when compared to more concrete, physical experiences. As abstract ideas are common and easily understood by most people, they are often used to create metaphors for complex concepts. Based on this viewpoint, abstract ideas could be used to represent both the source domain and the target domain. Feldman found that when a body of information becomes well-known, it could be used to grasp new original ideas (Perlovsky, 2006).
As a result, people often compare water’s properties to those of time and light, such as how light seeps in or how time passes. These conceptual metaphors are a natural byproduct of how people think since each person’s experiences, emotions, and observations shape their thoughts (Perlovsky, 2006). The setup could serve as a framework for identifying cognitive parallels to describe a new experience by connecting several abstract ideas or concepts (Qian, 2016). In this framework, the conceptual sets to which the chosen words belong are more important than the words used to describe a thing or a phenomenon.
Overall, conceptual metaphors have a special connection to cognition because they reveal how a person thinks in terms of abstract ideas and concepts. Since mappings between domains in these metaphors are standard, they are easily understood in one cultural and linguistic context and on a broader scale. Members of a particular culture share them with the world. While formed in one region, they have been spread, understood, and accepted for use even in entirely different cultures.
Conceptual Metaphor Theory’s Critique
Although academics have argued that conceptual metaphors are a natural part of how people think, the key premises of the theory have been criticized in research on cognitive semantics. Conceptual metaphor theory has critics who argue that its supporters often use a single metaphor example to support their arguments and hypotheses. It may be challenging to determine the contexts in which these comments were made and whether they employ conceptual metaphors.
A counterargument to this harsh review is that speakers do not always emphasize the symbolic meaning of common conceptual analogies. However, those who support the theory argue that figurative language is often used unconsciously and stems from a person’s underlying conceptual framework (Perlovsky, 2006). People’s thoughts and the words they choose to use automatically reflect this idea, whether or not they are aware of doing so.
One more argument against the idea is that statements and phrases should be studied primarily as pieces of language, rather than mental constructions, even when people use metaphors to discuss ideas. For this reason, it is not safe to assume that a person is thinking metaphorically about an idea or an event just because they use a metaphor to describe it. In response to this criticism, supporters of the conceptual metaphor theory argue that the focus should be on the fact that people tend to hold onto certain sets of mental concepts (Qian, 2016).
People often draw on abstract ideas from these systems, even when they are not trying to use figurative language to describe a specific experience. As a result, people often use conceptual metaphors in their speech to discuss thinking and reasoning, similar to what they are saying. On the other hand, conceptual metaphors come from thought and analysis, not just language use. Therefore, they should be seen as more complex than their simpler verbal counterparts.
Even though linguists are interested in this field of study, conceptual metaphors and the theory behind them have been heavily criticized by academics. While the theory and data are not perfect, conceptual metaphors are closely related to how people think (Qian, 2016). The theory’s supporters argue that a person’s mental state should be taken into account when analyzing language use.
Therefore, it is essential to recall that conceptual metaphors play a crucial role in emphasizing the significance of cognition and conceptualization in language use, or in adopting a psychological stance rather than a purely linguistic one when communicating (Liu et al., 2017). If they fail to consider this, they may fail in communication because the message is not conveyed correctly.
Main Studies Completed
Metaphors We Live By (1980), written by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, is considered the starting point for the study of conceptual metaphor. It describes conceptual metaphors in English and provides a theoretical explanation of conceptual systems and their link to language metaphors. The book paved the way for the study of conceptual metaphor and spawned a broader body of literature that transcends borders and languages. In the years that followed, many scholars built upon the book’s foundation to establish the current extensive body of research in the field.
The article “Translating the Metaphors We Live By” discusses the difficulties and consequences of translating “Metaphors We Live By” into French, Italian, and Spanish (Lakoff & Johnson, 2008). It also discusses how conceptual metaphor theory can be applied to several languages. Although the book provides a comprehensive cross-cultural examination of metaphors, it focuses on the difficulty of interpreting metaphors rather than on the differences in the languages of interest.
The source highlights the universality of metaphors and the limitations of using some metaphors in some cultures. Olivera and Pedro (1998) argue that literal translations of metaphors from a source language generate new metaphors and, as a result, new conceptual systems in the target language. Their work contends persuasively that metaphorical language can be translated from one language to another. The authors make the audacious claim that these newly provided metaphors lead to the emergence of new conceptual systems, but they do not substantiate it with empirical evidence. However, the study also points out that many cross-cultural metaphor comparisons fail to account for the etymological histories of the metaphors.
Metaphors were initially utilized in Aristotle’s writings, where they evolved into writing tools. The person, what he or she believes, and the social situation in which he or she lives are central to current linguistic theory. Beknazarova et al. (2021) argue that the metaphor, which illustrates how humans think in terms of analogies, is one of the most significant aspects of the cognitive direction in linguistic research. According to these authors, metaphor is a fundamental way of thinking because it allows people to explain, describe, and learn about one set of concepts by applying what we know about another group. The research is novel because metaphor was previously considered an atypical use, a shorter comparison, or, at best, a subject of semantic study.
Previous authors have not considered the origins of metaphors, their meanings, the processes by which they are created, or their role in the functioning of the mind. Overall, the authors demonstrate the relationship between metaphor and the advancement of cognitive linguistics. The fact that the research demonstrates that metaphors are more than just a linguistic phenomenon, but also a fundamental way of thinking, underscores the research’s utility.
Another notable study by Fischer and Marquardt (2022) focused on linking metaphors with experiential futures and critical futures studies. When considering the implications of multiple possible futures, the experiential shift in the fields of futures studies and experiential futures stresses the value of people’s multisensory interactions and behavior in addition to their cognitive mental models. Proponents of experiential futures hope to make the otherwise intangible concept of the future more accessible by providing individuals with physical artifacts and immersive experiences.
Despite their extensive research, they confirmed the conclusions of Lakoff and Johnson, the pioneers in this field. Metaphors exist to relate one thing to another, producing meaning, and are widely applicable in communication. According to Lakoff and Johnson, this determines how people see and interact with the world.
Neurons
Nerve cells communicate with one another using both electrical and chemical signals. Electrical signals from charged particles allow neurons to communicate quickly within the cell. Neurons communicate with one another via tiny gaps known as synapses. Due to these gaps, the specialized parts of the two cells are only a few nanometers apart, facilitating easier chemical communication. The release of chemicals by these cells causes the transfer of information as received.
Communication through metaphors is not like a common exchange of information. Translation occurs in the mind through the interaction of different cells, allowing the intended information from the speaker to be received. Neurons play a crucial role in the interpretation of metaphors, facilitating effective communication.
Compared to more theoretical approaches, concrete thinking is grounded in real-world examples and experiences. According to Lakoff (2014), concrete characteristics and behaviours exist in the real world and can be experienced directly. ‘Abstract’ denotes things that are difficult to perceive, such as feelings, goals, ideas, or how one perceives something else, including social organization and systems of thought.
Since the brain utilizes neural circuitry to process information and cognition, it views both as physical objects. Thus, the divide between “concrete” and “abstract” ideas has vanished. In contrast to conceptual metaphor theory, which sought to explain the abstract in terms of the concrete, brain metaphor theory aimed to define the abstract through the concrete by linking neural circuitry to neural circuitry.
As the human brain is intricately wired, it can store and retrieve knowledge through hundreds of embodied metaphor mapping circuits, resulting in a rich conceptual foundation. Most of the time, people will not even notice they are there. Since these connections are not the same on both sides, thought processes can flow from one section of the brain to another (Lakoff, 2014).
In a metaphorical sense, each circuit represents a different style of thinking. Although the circuits are symbolic in content, they demonstrate a truth. There are genuine linkages in real life that begin as early as childhood, both in the physical environment and through social interactions (Lakoff, 2014).
When people from different cultures experience similar experiences, their metaphor mappings are often comparable. These abilities appear to be acquired by neural learning based on experience. The mappings’ asymmetry appears to be created by spike-timing-dependent plasticity, which informs individuals about the origin of the metaphor and its intended direction. Before and apart from acquiring language, a person needs to understand simple metaphors for the grammatical form to develop.
Language is not the only medium for complex metaphorical reasoning. It can also be found in the visual and performing arts, including but not limited to mathematics, science, paintings, cinema, and dance, as well as in ethics and political theory (Lakoff, 2014). The flexibility of language enables the expression of a wide range of complex metaphorical ideas.
Lakoff developed a notion known as neural cascades, which holds that connections to and from many brain areas define the complex metaphorical interpretations of shapes people are accustomed to seeing. Metaphorical inferences can be made since metaphor mapping circuits are activated when the brain simulates at least partially understood events. These circuits demonstrate how the conditions to be duplicated are comprehended. Although language structure allows for infinitely complicated metaphorical thoughts, they are grasped by putting simple ideas and metaphors into action.
Conclusion
The assessment of the literature on conceptual metaphor theory, cognitive semantics in general, and the link between conceptual metaphors and cognition concludes that some metaphors should be considered as internal thought processes rather than language. In addition to being utilized in speech, conceptual metaphors have a mental representation as a collection of mappings or correspondences. From this perspective, these metaphors are intimately tied to thinking, as they depict the outcomes of particular cognitive processes that researchers characterize as producing cross-domain mappings. Despite various shortcomings in the conceptual metaphor theory, applying this theoretical framework is necessary to understand how individuals use language from both a linguistic and a psychological or cognitive perspective. Several individuals who want to learn more about how humans use language study cognitive semantics in conjunction with cognitive linguistics.
To comprehend how metaphors are employed, one must examine this tendency via the assumptions and presuppositions of conceptual metaphor theory. Academics should be interested in what the general public has to say about metaphors and cognition, especially when it comes to conceptual systems and structures. However, the key assumptions and statements made by academics who endorse conceptual metaphor theory are not supported by sufficient data.
In any event, current research and data on conceptual metaphors and individual thought suggest that the relationship investigated in this work is direct. Metaphors, as a figurative language, express information in novel or interesting ways. However, there are significant distinctions between these three types of metaphors and language-based and visual metaphors. Visual and verbal metaphors encompass various types of semantic information, facilitating easy comparisons of similar ideas. Another significant finding was that spoken and visual metaphors use physical representations, but visual metaphors are more specific and unique because they use distinct ideas.
References
Bao, N. P. T. (2022). The conventionality and novelty of metaphorical expressions in British and American love poetry: A cognitive approach. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 5(11), 01-12.
Beknazarova, U. U., Almautova, A. B., Yelemessova, S. M., & Abadildayeva, S. K. (2021). The cognitive function of a conceptual metaphor and its methodological foundations. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(3), 1312-1324.
Berndt, E. (2022). Hybrid models of cognition: The influence of modal and amodal cues in language processing tasks (Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen).
Danesi, M. (2018). Language, society, and new media: Sociolinguistics today (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fischer, N., & Marquardt, K. (2022). Playing with metaphors. Connecting experiential futures and critical futures studies. Journal of Futures Studies, 27(1), 61-72.
García, A. M., Moguilner, S., Torquati, K., García-Marco, E., Herrera, E., Muñoz, E.,… & Ibáñez, A. (2019). How meaning unfolds in neural time: Embodied reactivations can precede multimodal semantic effects during language processing. Neuroimage, 197, 439-449.
Kintsch, W., & Bowles, A. R. (2002). Metaphor comprehension: What makes a metaphor difficult to understand? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(4), 249-262.
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Liu, P. Q., Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2017). Can illness be bright? Metaphor comprehension depends on linguistic and embodied factors. Semantic Scholar. Web.
Olivera, F., & Pedro, A. (1998). Metaphor and translation: A case study in the field of economics. Translation: Linguistic and Cultural Orientations. Valladolid: SAE.
Onwukwe, C. (2020). Anthropolinguistic analysis of Igbo metaphorical expressions. Anthropos, 115(1), 107-113.
Păstae, O. M. (2019). The conceptual metaphor of joy. The Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education, 12(1), 139-177.
Perlovsky, L. (2009). Language and emotions: Emotional Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. Neural Networks, 22(5-6), 518-526.
Perlovsky, L. I. (2006). Toward physics of the mind: Concepts, emotions, consciousness, and symbols. Physics of Life Reviews, 3(1), 23-55.
Qian, L. (2016). Metonymic-based metaphor – A case study on the cognitive interpretation of “heart” in English and Chinese. Higher Education Studies, 6(4), 131-137.
Santana, E., & De Vega, M. (2011). Metaphors are embodied, and so are their literal counterparts. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 90.
Wang, H., & Pan, Y. (2017). A brief review of embodied language comprehension. Editorial Team, 30.