Definition of Terms INTRODUCTION

9 blendthe source and target concepts together in very different ways to create quite new or developing meanings.

3. The Occurrence of Metaphor

In order to identify the occurrence of metaphor, Richards 1965 makes a distinction between three aspects of metaphor. The first aspect is vehicle, the items used metaphorically. The second aspect is tenor, the metaphorical meaning of the vehicle. The last aspect is ground, the basis for the metaphorical extension. Richards 1965 also provides the example of the aspect distinction. The example is the foot of the mountainphrase. In the phrase, the word foot is the vehicle. T he tenor is something like “lower portion” which is the intended meaning of the vehicle. The ground is the spatial parallel between the canonical position of the foot relative to the rest of human body, and the lower parts of a mountain relative to the rest of the mountain. The example provided by Richards focuses the attention on the fact that there must be some essential connection between tenor and vehicle. The example helps the researcher to realize the connections in each metaphorical expression. The different part is that in this research, the researcher only takes the expressions containing the meanings of the metaphors with verb. Being equivalent with Richards’ idea, the researcher rejects the idea that metaphors can be generally translated into literal language, pointing out that there is an interaction between meanings that cannot be reproduced in literal language. A word cannot be used to mean just anything, but the nature of the connection. 10

4. The Approaches to Metaphor

The researcher summarizes the approaches to metaphor proposed by several researchers. a Approach to Metaphor by Haas Haas 1962 argues that the meaning of a word constitutes a semantic field. The possible contexts of the word are organized in terms of normality. The most normal context forms the “core” region of the field, while the least normal context forms the “periphery”. When two words are brought into interaction, there will be a new semantic field created. The core is formed by the contexts with the highest joint degree of normality for both words. The new semantic field defines a new meaning, the metaphoric one. In order to understand the concept of “core- periphery” clearly, the researcher cites an example provided by Haas 1962. The example refers to the metaphor leg of the table. Haas 1962 explains that the word leg is transferred to new contexts from its nor mal context “the leg of the man or animal” to the given new context “the leg of the table”. Both “leg” in each context share similar characteristic. Though the leg of the table does not move, stretch, or hurt, they are still found to be long or short, they stand on and support, may be broken or cut. The approaches to metaphor by Haas 1962 can be applied in this research analyzing the terms of semantic features, eliminatingincompatible features from a composite expression, and allowing only compatible features to form part of the resultant meaning of the expression. 11 b Approach to Metaphor by Black Dealing with the approach to metaphor, Black 1962 pictures the mechanism of metaphor by involving the projection of a set of associative implications derived from one entity or the secondary subject on to another entity or the primary subject. Black 1962 enables the readers to understand his theory by providing the example. Marriage is a zero-sum game. In the example given by Black 1962, the primary subject is marriage and the secondary subject is zero-sum game. The relevant associated implications of the secondary subject might be as follows. i A game is a contest ii between two opponents iiiin which one player can win only at the expense of the other. The metaphor works by imposing the same implications on to the primary subject as: iv A marriage is a sustained struggle v between two contestants vi in which the rewards of one contestant are gained only at the other’s expense. The concept of the implications is not necessarily identical for the primary and secondary subjects. The secondary subject is intended to be the inference for the primary subject. Black and Lakoff have similar views of the workings of metaphor in which Lakoff and Johnson 1980 picture the structure of the metaphor as “source domain” on to a “target domain”.