Revisiting the Role of Social Dimensions in Metaphorical Conceptualization: Implications for Comparative Literature and Translation

Abstract

Cross-cultural and within-culture variation in conceptual metaphors is a much-debated subject in Cognitive Linguistics research. The theory points out that such variation occurs on a series of dimensions, like social, ethnic, regional, stylistic and subcultural dimensions. The social dimensions consist of the separation of society into people, youthful and old, and working class and average workers. The purpose of this study was to undertake a deeper look at the distinctions caused in metaphorical conceptualization due to the attitude each individual or group of individuals possesses, especially with regard to the economic status of each group. To this end, twenty individuals were selected, with the only variable existing amongst them being their financial status. Each person was asked to write three paragraphs on three separate topics, adding up to sixty paragraphs, in an attempt to try and determine differences in metaphorical conceptualization. The results reveal interesting insights largely supporting the thinking in the theory on individual and cross-cultural variation in Conceptual Metaphors rooted in social agents’ financial statuses. Other research like the current one would contribute to our Cognitive Linguistics understanding of the social dimensions of Conceptual Metaphor variation and universality. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE According to established Cognitive Linguistics literature, metaphors are engrained into linguistic meaning-making language and are an inseparable part of most acts of linguistic communication. Even laymen with no theoretical knowledge of metaphors can still utilize and identify Conceptual Metaphors (henceforth CMs) with ease and accuracy. A large number of CMs revolving around human bodily functions and neurological aspects are universal across many languages (Kövecses, 2005). The neurological parts of the brain corresponding to the concept “up”, also correspond to the concept “more”, making grounds for the UP IS MORE metaphor (Lakoff, 2008). Likewise, the ANGER IS HEAT metaphor exists in many languages due to its being rooted in human physiology, FEAR IS LOSS OF COULOUR being of a similar nature. Other examples evidencing the universality of metaphors are more common in daily life; however, variation in metaphorical conceptualization should also be taken into account, whether it be within-culture or cross-cultural. Metaphor variation can come in many shapes and forms. Kövecses (2005) sheds light on this by arguing how a sole focus on ethnic dimensions may point to diverse ethnic classes building their metaphorical conceptualizations of a certain target domain on different source domains that are, nonetheless, congruent. One illustration of this, he contends, is Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.9n.1p.18 the Black American English usage of ‘nitty-gritty’ (meaning ‘important’) versus the standard white use of ‘bottom-line’ for IMPORTANCE as target domain. In both, we have the metaphor IMPORTANT IS CENTRAL at work; however, these vary in clear ways from the specific-level source domains. The ethnic factor may likewise assume a significant part in making “talking styles” that are exceptionally metaphorical. One such talking style is “playing the handfuls” in Black English Vernacular (Kochman, 1981). Essentially, embracing a regional point of view, we can note dialects like Dutch and those like Afrikaans that are derived from it, spoken in certain regions of South Africa. Dirven (1994) investigates this circumstance, analysing newspapers circulated in Afrikaans and exploring the regular metaphors in them in an attempt to see what degree of overlap there is between these metaphors and those manifested in equivalent Dutch texts. His investigation is a systematic comparison of normally and conventionally used Dutch and new Afrikaans metaphors. In the depiction of “nature” metaphors, he calls attention to the common metaphors incorporating pictures of water, light, shadow, lightning, tremor, sand, stars, wind, and mists and to the fact that this represent the normal naturally received and cognitive setting of the Low Countries (Dirven, 1994) or other northern European countries. A strange element of Dutch nature metaphors is that they never rely on animals. Contrary to this moderately International Journal of Comparative Literature & Translation Studies