TO THE ISSUE OF SOME METAPHORICAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF FIRE EXPRESSING EMOTIONS
TO THE ISSUE OF SOME METAPHORICAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF FIRE EXPRESSING EMOTIONS
Abstract
The article discusses the metaphorical conceptualization of “FIRE” within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), which posits that metaphors are fundamental to human thought and language. Introduced by Lakoff and Johnson, CMT explores how abstract concepts are understood through more concrete domains.
The purpose of the article is to provide theoretical background and conduct research of metaphorical representations of the FIRE concept, which serves as a source domain in various metaphorical expressions related to emotions. The primary of the study is a conceptual-taxonomic analysis. As a source domain, FIRE embodies characteristics such as intensity and energy, often associated with strong emotions like anger or enthusiasm. Due to the ambiguity of the concept under study, it can provide both “positive” and “negative” CM.
Thus, the concept of FIRE is integral to understanding various emotional states through metaphorical language, reflecting its significance in both linguistic expression and cognitive processing.
1. Introduction
Concepts can manifest themselves through various linguistic means, with particularly vivid representations often found in the study of metaphors. Some concepts possess ambiguity: they can serve as both a source domain and a target domain.
This article aims to explore FIRE as a source domain for a diverse array of emotional metaphors, and to highlight specific features of how the concept of FIRE in relation to emotions is metaphorically represented in the English language.
The primary focus of the article will include fundamental aspects of conceptual metaphor theory (CMT), key characteristics of FIRE, its role as a source domain, and the metaphorical frameworks associated with FIRE.
2. Research methods and principles
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) was initially presented to the academic community by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson in their seminal work, “Metaphors We Live By”, published in 1980
. The theory has been significantly advanced and popularized through the contributions of scholars such as V. Evans, Z. Kövecses, and R. Gibbs , , .CMT in both domestic and foreign linguistics has been developing in several directions:
1. Defining the essence of the processes of conceptualization and categorization (G. Lakoff, M. Johnson, V. Evans, J. Grady, Z. Kövecses, S. Perry; N.N. Boldyrev, Z.D. Popova and I.A. Sternin).
2. Considering the phenomenon of the concept as a result of the process of conceptualization (Z. Kövecses; E.S. Kubryakova, V.A. Maslova, V.I. Karasik, Yu.S. Stepanov, S.G. Vorkachev, Z.D. Popova and I.A. Sternin).
3. The relationship of metaphor with the basic linguocultural concepts “concept”, “picture of the world” (E. Sapir and B. Whorf, E. S. Kubryakova, S. G. Ter-Minasova, Z. D. Popova and I. A. Sternin, V. N. Telia, V. I. Karasik).
While the authors mentioned above, along with many others, focus on different facets of CMT, they all rely on its foundational concepts: concept, conceptual metaphor, and conceptual domains.
V. Evans defines concepts as relatively stable cognitive entities that consist of fundamental units of knowledge derived from perceptual experiences. The author highlights that these concepts are formed through perceptual experiences from early life, contributing to their stability as cognitive entities
.In cognitive linguistics, a conceptual metaphor (CM) is understood as the process of comprehending one conceptual domain through the lens of another conceptual domain
, in other way called cross-domain mappings. However, J. Mácha claims that metaphorical mappings are not arbitrary but, on the contrary, rather fixed .Conceptual metaphor, as noted by V. Evans in alignment with the foundational theorists J. Lakoff and M. Johnson, transcends being merely a stylistic feature of language; it inherently embodies a metaphorical essence
. The process of constructing meaning with the help of language is called conceptualization . J. Grady uses the term “conceptualization” in the meaning of “representation”, i.e. the author is talking about the metaphorical representation of the concept, and not about the cognitive process .Thus, the role of language is that it is a means of access to fundamental knowledge and also contributes to complex processes of concept integration.
Z. Kövecses defines a conceptual domain as any organized structure of experience. In the context of conceptual metaphors, two specific domains are identified: the source domain and the target domain. The source domain is the conceptual area from which we derive metaphorical expressions to comprehend another conceptual area, known as the target domain, which is the domain that is being interpreted through this metaphorical lens.
This idea may well be illustrated on the example of CM LIFE IS A JOURNEY, where JOURNEY represents a source domain and LIFE performs as a target domain. It means that we understand LIFE in terms of JOURNEY, and this CM gives rise to such linguistic expressions as to be without direction in life, to be at a crossroads in life, to go through a lot in life
.J. Grady notes that the basis of the concept belonging to the source sphere in a metaphorical pair is empirical (perceptual, physical) experience
. Thus, more concrete things usually represent the source sphere, while more abstract things are understood in their terms.The study presented was carried out on the basis of conceptual-taxonomic analysis developed by N.N. Boldyrev
.3. Main results
To analyze conceptual domains effectively, it is crucial to define the lexical meaning of a coherent word and to identify the role of the described phenomenon in human life. In order to perform this step, the dictionary entries have been analyzed.
FIRE is typically recognized as a source of light and heat, often associated with expanding dietary options and linked to a wide range of emotions and states — both positive and negative: passion, inspiration, imagination, torture
; strong criticism, anger/enthusiasm . However, the concept can be considered ambivalent as its “positive” significance neighbors its “negative” one: a destructive burning, torture and even death .Besides, if one is to speak about the significance of FIRE, it can be pointed out that it is considered to have been the main source of social abilities' development in mankind
. Furthermore, according to the culturologists’ researches, worshipping to FIRE was one of the earliest forms of humans’ belief system development, which started in the times of primitive society . Thus, the meaning of the concept cannot be overestimated.Then 255 metaphorical representations of FIRE as a source domain for expressing emotions were analyzed and grouped on the basis of the emotion / group of emotions they reveal
, , , .FIRE seems to be an essential component of the source domain for metaphors that convey emotions and states, such as:
· enthusiasm — It’s been amazing the whole time, but everybody was just on fire ; She spoke with a spark in her eye that lit up the room ;
· curiosity and a very strong desire to achieve something — You need fire in your belly if you want to make it in the music business ;
· feeling of success and achievement — Keep it up. You're on fire! ;
· anger — Frustrated ambitions can fuel the fire of anger and resentment ;
· criticism — She directed her fire against the new education policy ;
· impetuosity — But Kardashian has never shied away from keeping many irons on the fire ;
· passion — They burned with passion for the art they created ;
· suspicion — He got his fingers burned investing in that scam ;
· unpredictability — His thoughts were a fire’s flicker, shifting without any clear pattern ;
· intensification of the feeling — The speaker fanned the flames of hope among the audience .
Thus, as can be seen from the sample, FIRE reveals itself as a rich source domain for CM in focus. It is worth noticing that the metaphorical representations under study show the ambivalence of FIRE — it can be used to describe positive emotions as well as negative ones. However, there is a single feature which is common for both representations – it is the intensity of the representation. This fact finds its ground in the primary meaning of the word FIRE.
The classification cannot be considered to be exhaustive, however, it presents the main groups according to which the above-mentioned metaphors can be distinguished.
4. Conclusion
It is worth noticing that FIRE in the examples under study is perceived ambiguously, as both positive and negative emotions can be conveyed in the given CM. Moreover, the concept itself allows to predict or to figure out the principle according to which such “emotional” metaphors are created, as it is based on the primary meaning of the word FIRE. However, one significant fact is remarkable — whether positive or negative, the emotion or state should be strong enough and shown explicitly.
This high frequency use of the FIRE concept as a source domain for CM related to emotions can possibly be explained by the fact that the concept of FIRE is a highly significant element of the conceptual and belief systems, what accounts for its being essential to both the domains of CM. The given example ultimately illustrates how metaphors shape our understanding of complex emotional experiences through the lens of familiar, concrete concepts.