14 lexical unit can be marked as metaphorical. By following the metaphor
identification procedure, the researcher can easily predict the expression containing metaphorical meaning. Although the prediction can be done easily, the
researcher still consults dictionaries to find the metaphorical meaning found in the expression.
6. Metaphor and meaning
The existence of metaphor is not something that can be easily confined. Although metaphor occurs in the language people use, it needs effort to
differentiate the literary and metaphorical meaning of the language. Goatly 1997 argues that the only difference between literal language and metaphorical
language is that literal language sticks on conventional criteria for classification, whereas in metaphorical language, the similarities and the criteria for
interpretation are relatively unconventional. In this research, the unconventional metaphor deals with indirect use of language.
Goatly 1997:14 explains that the perception and cognition pass the speaker’s thought and not directly accessible to anyone except the speaker. The
speaker proceeds the thought to form the proposition, which is the most relevant for conveying the thoughts. In order to communicate the proposition, the speaker
has to make it accessible to the hearer by using language code. Then, the hearer can interpret it by guessing what thought of the speaker want to convey. From the
idea conveyed by Goatly 1997, the researcher concludes that the larger the gap between proposition expressed and the meaning intended, the more metaphorical
the utterance will be.
15 According to Cruse 2000, an important aspect of conceptual structure is
that concept only makes sense when viewed against the background of certain domain. The extended meaning may be so entrenched and familiar a part of a
language that an involved figure of speech such as metaphor cannot be felt at all. That case will be said as naturalized word or expression. Cruse 2000 provides
the examples of naturalization.
He’s in love. It’s hard to put into words.
Those expressions are quite familiar so that the existence of metaphor is no longer felt. The term love in the first expression is considered as a condition
where someone can be involved. In the second expression, the term put into word becomes naturalized. Literary, something cannot be put into words since the
concept of words is abstract.
7. Metaphor and Metonymy
The occurrence of metaphor is closely related with the occurrence of metonymy. Since an expression can contain more than one meaning, there is
possibility that the expression has metaphor and metonymy senses. According to Jakobson and Halle 1956, metaphor is based on resemblance whereas metonymy
is based on similarity without too much twist as association. Black 1962 states metaphor involves the use of one domain as an analogical model to structure the
conception of another domain. In other words, the occurrence of metaphor involves two distinct conceptual domains. Metonymy, on the other hand, relies on
an association between two components within a single domain. In order to
16 understand the case of metonymy clearly, the researcher takes an example
provided by Lakoffand Johnson 1980.
He’s got a Picasso in his den.
The metonymy concept of that expression is PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT. When someone thinks of Picasso, it is not only the work alone that
being considered, but also in terms of its relation to the artist such as his conception of art, his technique, and his role in art history.
8. Domain Concept
The domain concept may become the obstacle in interpreting the metaphor concept. Since this research will analyze the data based on the theory of
Lakoffand Johnson 1980, the researcher takes the explanation of domain concept based on the Lakoff’swork too. According to Kovecses 1986, there are two
kinds of correspondences involved in metaphor. The first kind is ontological which involves entities in the two domains. The second kind is epistemic which
involves relations of knowledge about the entities. This can be illustrated using the metaphor concept example of ANGER IS HEAT OF FLUID IN
CONTAINER proposed by Kovecses 1986.
17
Table 2.1 The Ontological and Epistemic Correspondences
i Ontological correspondences
Source: HEAT OF FLUID Container
Heat of fluid Heat scale
Pressure in container Agitation of boiling fluid
Limit of container’s resistance
Explosion
Target: ANGER Body
Anger Anger scale
Experienced pressure Experienced agitation
Limit of person’s ability to suppress anger
Loss of control ii
Epistemic correspondences Source: HEAT OF FLUID
When fluid in a container is heated beyond a certain
limit, pressure increases to the point at which container
explodes. Controlled release of
pressure may occur, which reduces danger of explosion.
Target: ANGER When anger increases
beyond a certain limit, “pressure” increases to point
at which person loses control.
The research notices that the mapping from source to target domain is partial.In the ANGER IS HEAT OF FLUID IN CONTAINER metaphor concept,
there is possibility that some aspects of HEAT OF FLUID IN CONTAINER do not have correspondence with the aspects of ANGER. As an example, HEAT OF
FLUID IN CONTAINER may have “cooking” aspect of boiling and simmering
inwhich “cooking” aspect has no correspondence in the ANGER domain.The
difference in intensity between boil and simmer in a heated liquid carries over to indicate corresponding differences in degree of anger in to boil with anger and to
simmer with anger. From the explanation, the researcher concludes that a conceptual metaphor cannot be reduced to a finite set of expressions.
