LEXICAL METAPHOR IN THE VERSES OF JOHN’S GOSPEL IN BIBLE.
LEXICAL METAPHOR IN THE VERSES OF JOHN’S GOSPEL IN
BIBLE
A THESIS
Submited to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial
Fulfilment of the Requirement For the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
BY:
RIOSA EVALINA SILITONGA
Registration Number: 8146112034
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Jesus Christ and Most Beneficial for without His Guidance and Mercy,
this thesis would not have been completed. I give thanks to God, by whose grace I live.
My desire to hear God’s word and my calling to proclaim that word for others has been
and continues to be my motivation for studying the Bible. Thanks to be the One who
speaks the word of the kingdom and opens hearts to hear and understand it.
In the process of finishing this piece of academic writing, the writer has been
given much support and valuable knowledge from many people whose names cannot all be
listed here.
First, the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude to Prof.
Saragih M.A, Ph.D her First Adviser and Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd
Amrin
her Second
Adviser, for their valuable advice, guidance, constructive comments and precious time
spent on supervising and commenting this thesis until it appears in its present form.
Second, her special gratitude goes to Dr. Rahmad Husein M.Ed and Dr. Anni
Holila Pulungan M.Hum as the Head and Secretary of English Applied Linguistics
Study Program, to Prof. Dr. Bornok Sinaga, M.Pd as the Director of Postgraduate
School State University of Medan and all lecturers, for the valuable knowledge and
instruction they have imparted to her during the years studying and he also wishes to
express her gratitude to the Boards of examiners, Dr. Siti Aisah Gintings M.Pd, Dr. T.
Thyrhaya Zein M.A, and Dr. Rahmad Husein M.Ed who have given her some
advices when he proposed this thesis in the seminar.
Then, a very special debt of gratitude is directed to her beloved parents,
S. Silitonga (The Late) and P. Simanjuntak, together with her beloved husband Drs.
Irwanto Situmorang and her beloved daughters Ribka Novalina Situmorang, Angeline
i
Christ Ondo Situmorang, Stefany Nanda Tri Augusta Situmorang and her Son
Michael Valentino Gokrizki Situmorang for their full love, support, care, and prayers.
Finally, a special debt of gratitude is addressed to all her beloved best friends,
Elfida, Yenni, Sejati Peranginangin, Puji, Titik Iswati, Riri, Frissa, Mutia, Yoshiko,
Rika, Inda, Matrejo, Munawar and all my best friends in LTBI B-2 for their close
friendship and encouragement in finishing this thesis.
Last but not least, she must confess that she has done her utmost to accomplish this
thesis but she is been fully aware that it is still far from being perfect. Therefore, any
constructive criticisms, suggestions, or comments will be highly appreciated.
May God Bless Us!
Medan, June 2nd 2016
The writer,
Riosa Evalina Silitonga
Registration Number: 8146112034
i
ABSTRACT
Silitonga, Riosa Evalina. Lexical Metaphor in the Verses of John’s Gospel
A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School.
State University of Medan. 2016.
This study deals with lexical metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel by applying
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). The objectives of the study are to describe
the kinds of lexical metaphor used in the verses of John’s Gospel, to elaborate the
lexical metaphor used in the verses of John’s Gospel, and to reason for the use of
lexical metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel. This study was conducted by
using descriptive research. The sources of data were the New Testament of Holy
Bible, published by Biblica New International Version, 2011. The findings
indicated that firstly, there are four concepts of lexical metaphor in John’s Gospel
such as 40 (53.3%) for Noun – Noun, 28 (37.3%) for Noun-Verb [Verb-Noun], 6
(8%) for Noun- Adj, 1 (1.3%) for Noun –Preposition. Secondly, linguistics
realization of Lexical Metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel are through
comparing Noun – Noun, Noun-Verb [Verb-Noun], Noun – Adj, and Noun –
Preposition. The dominant type of lexical metaphor in John’s Gospel is NounNoun. It means that most of the lexical metaphor is compared by noun and noun
or thing and thing. Finally, the reason of the lexical metaphor used in the verses of
John’s Gospel is based on the context of situation, here is tenor. Tenor reflects the
power or status of the speakers. In this study Jesus’ metaphors are to show His
divinity. In this case, Jesus always compared Himself to another noun to show his
divinity. Jesus compared himself to bread of life, true vine, the lamb of God,
word, the truth, the way, the life, the gate, the Holy spirit, the light, a teacher, the
good shepherd, the king of Israel, the son of God, and the son of man. All these he
said to make the unbelievers believe in Jesus so they will have eternal lives. In
this study, there are new findings; firstly, some of noun-noun concept has
reiteration. Reiteration means that a form of lexical metaphor involves the
repetition. In this case, one noun is compared to more than one noun in a clause.
Secondly, the new concept found in the verses of John’s Gospel is nounpreposition concept. This concept is to view a feature of one noun being applied to
one preposition. This concept also indicates Jesus’ divinity.
ii
ABSTRAK
Silitonga, Riosa Evalina. Lexical Metaphor in the Verses of John’s Gospel.
A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School.
State University of Medan. 2016.
Tesis ini mengkaji metafora leksikal dalam ayat Injil Yohanes berdasarkan
Linguistik Fungsional Sistemik (LFS). Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk
mengetahui jenis metafora leksikal yang digunakan dalam ayat Injil Yohanes,
untuk menggambarkan metafora leksikal yang digunakan dalam ayat Injil
Yohanes, dan untuk menguraikan alasan penggunaan metafora leksikal pada ayat
Injil Yohanes. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode deskriptif.
Sumber data diambil dari Alkitab Perjanjian Baru yang diterbitkan oleh Biblica
New International Version tahun 2011. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa,
pertama jenis metafora leksikal dalam Injil Yohanes meliputi metafora leksikal
dengan konsep nomina – nomina yaitu 40 (53,3%), metafora leksikal dengan
konsep nomina – verba/ verba – nomina 28 (37,3%), metafora leksikal dengan
konsep nomina - adjektiva 6 (8%), dan metafora leksikal dengan konsep nomina –
kata depan 1 (1,3%). Kedua, realisasi linguistik metafora dalam ayat Injil Yohanes
adalah dengan membandingkan nomina dengan nomina, nomina dengan verba
[verba dengan nomina], nomina dengan adjektiva, dan nomina dengan preposisi.
Metafora leksikal yang dominan dalam ayat Injil Yohanes adalah metafora yang
membandingkan nomina dengan nomina lainnya. Dan akhirnya, alasan
penggunaan metafora leksikal dalam ayat-ayat Injil Yohanes adalah berdasarkan
konteks situasi, dalam tesis ini adalah pelibat. Pelibat menggambarkan status dari
si pembicara. Yesus menunjukkan kuasa atau keilahianNya dalam setiap
percakapanNya dengan orang Yahudi dan juga murid-muridNya dengan cara
membandingkan diriNya sendiri dengan benda lain. Yesus membandingkan
diriNya dengan roti hidup, pokok anggur yang benar, anak domba Allah, firman,
kebenaran, jalan, hidup, pintu gerbang, roh kudus, cahaya, guru, gembala yang
baik, Raja Israel, Anak Allah, dan Anak Manusia. Semua ini Yesus katakan untuk
membuat orang-orang tidak percaya menjadi percaya kepada Dia dan supaya
mereka memiliki hidup yang kekal. Dalam penelitian ini, ada juga penemuan baru
yaitu; pertama, beberapa konsep nomina dengan nomina lainnya mengalami
pengulangan. Dalam hal ini satu nomina dibandingkan dengan beberapa nomina
lainnya dalam satu klausa. Kedua, konsep baru ditemukan dalam ayat Injil
Yohanes yaitu konsep nomina dengan preposisi. Konsep ini juga menunjukkan
keilahian Yesus.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………. i
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………….. ii
ABSTRAK ………………………………………………………………... iii
TABLE OF CONTENT ………………………………………………….. iv
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study ................................................ 1
1.2 Problems of the Study .................................................... 6
1.3 Objectives of the Study .................................................. 6
1.4 Scope of the Study ......................................................... 6
1.5 Significance of the Study ............................................... 7
II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Theoretical Framework .................................................. 8
2.1.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics .......................... 8
2.1.2 Metaphor .............................................................. 9
2.1.2.1 Grammatical Metaphor .......................... 11
2.1.2.2 Lexical Metaphor ................................... 12
2.1.3 Kinds of Lexical Metaphor ............................... 14
2.1.4 The Context of Using Lexical Metaphor in John’s
Gospel .............................................................. 17
2.1.5 The Gospel of John ............................................ 21
2.1.6 Metaphor in the Gospel of John ........................ 27
2.2 Relevant Studies ........................................................... 31
2.3 Conceptual Framework ................................................ 34
III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design ............................................................ 37
3.2 Data and Source of the Data .......................................... 38
iv
3.3 Technique of Data Collection ……………………..…38
3.4 Instrument of Collecting Data..………………………..39
3.5 Technique of Analyzing the Data .................................. 39
3.6 Trustworthiness of the Study ......................................... 42
IV
DATA ANALYSIS, FINDING, AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Data Analysis ................................................................. 46
4.2 Findings ......................................................................... 64
4.3 Discussion................................ ……………………..…64
V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions ................................................................... 69
5.2 Suggestions .................................................................... 69
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................71
APPENDICES
v
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of the Study
It is indisputable that language determines and shapes one’s perception
of reality. Describing something in a new way, perhaps even poetically, can lead
to new discoveries and understandings, broadening and challenging conventional
categorization. One key literary and rhetorical device that exemplifies this
formational attribute of language is metaphor. More than simply a poetic flourish,
metaphors fuse together two previously disparate concepts in such a way as to
influence a culture’s way of thinking. More recently, George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By evaluates the ways in which metaphors
unconsciously inform our daily life. By describing one thing in term of another,
metaphors uniquely highlight certain qualities or characteristics, helping people
to conceptualize new meanings. In doing so, they are not only descriptive or
informational, but actually influence experience by constructing new perceptions
and perspectives.
Metaphor is one of the most common literary devices that can be found
in almost any text, and the Bible is no exception. The Bible consists of two kinds
of testament, Old Testament and New Testament. Old Testament contains 39
book names, 929 chapters and 23.214 verses while New Testament contains 27
book names, 260 chapters, and 7.959 verses. When it comes to religious
rhetorics, metaphors are essential in describing that which evades everyday
language. Metaphors are frequently invoked in biblical and religious texts to
1
2
draw out specific attributes of God and the way God relates to the world. An
example of this is the Hebrew Bible’s “titles” for God, exhibiting God’s attributes
through metaphor. For example, God is called the “Ancient One”, “Judge of all
thev earth”, “King”, and “Lord” or “Yahweh” ( Daniel 7:9, Genesis 18:25, Paslm
74:12, Genesis 4:26, Exodus 6: 2-3 ). God is frequently described through non
human metaphors as well, such as a “rock”, “shield”, even manifested in a
“whirlwind” ( 2 Samuel 22:3 Job 38:1 ) The Psalmist relies on metaphors and
figurative language to fully express the depth of his emotions, evidencing a
dynamic and often times, personal way of relating to the divine. In his book on
metaphors in the Psalms, William Brown describes the Psalms as operating at the
level of the imagination, often “swiveling the universe on the hinges of a single
image” that is shared by the surrounding culture. These metaphors open up new
avenues of understanding and relating to God, and by implication, understanding
oneself.
But sometimes the metaphors in the verses of Bible makes the Bible’s
readers do not understand or misunderstand about the meaning. It is becaused
almost the verses are metaphorical expressions and has many interpretation. For
example, the metaphor of ‘water’ has many interpretation. As in John 3:5 writes
that ‘ Jesus answered, very truly I tell you, no one can enter the Kingdom of
God unless they are born of Water and Spirit’. In this verse, born of water
means water baptism. In both the Old and New Testaments, the word “water” is
used for salvation and eternal life, which God offers humankind through fait in
his Son ( Isa 12:3; 55:1; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:1 Revelation 22:17 ). In
3
John 4:10-15, part of Jesus discourse with the Samaritan woman at the well, he
speaks metaphorically of his salvation as “living water” and as “a spring of water
welling up to eternal life”.
The gospel of John is one of the book names in Bible, actually it is
written in the New Testament. This book has many metaphors. It extends
metaphors originally reserved for the Jewish God “Yahweh” through its
descriptions of God’s son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit he sends to those who
believe in him, even the description of His followers. Jesus describes himself in
the gospel as the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Good Shepherd, the Bread of
life, the Vine, etc. It is used to show that he as God has role plays in the lives of
those who would believe in him ( John 14:6, 10:11, 6:35 ). Then Jesus as God’s
son also describes His followers as the branches and the salt of the earth. The
gospel lend itself to examining how metaphors function to define and describe
Jesus ‘relationship with the world, showing him to serve as an extension of God’s
presence as described in the Holy Bible. It can be seen as Jesus answered, “I am
the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
me.” (John 14:6)
The Italic words of metaphor in the previously need interpreting and
understand the meaning from two perspectives. Jesus often uses metaphor in
conveying his message. He often compares himself to another thing. As in the
verse above, Jesus compares himself to the way, the truth, and life. Jesus as
God’s son establishes himself as not only the pathway to God, but also as truth
and life itself. In verse, I am the vine, you are the branches. If you remain in me
4
and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing ( John
15:5 ), Jesus does not talk the vine and the branches as a part of the tree, but also
give a comparing himself as the vine and calls his followers branches of the vine,
in that they are extensions of Himself. Also, Jesus states his followers will ”bear
much fruit, “ meaning good things will come as a result of their faith. In verse, I
am the bread of life; he who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in
me will never thirst ( John 6:35 ). In this metaphor, Jesus compares Himself to
bread. The bread of life is symbolic idea that Jesus offers eternal fulfillment. Like
bread sustains us in life., ‘Jesus’ metaphor suggests that He can sustains His
followers in a spiritual sense. Furthermore, in verse I am the light of the world; he
who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life. Jesus
calls himself the light of world. In the Bible, light refers to salvation, and
darkness refers to sinfulness.
All the verses in the previous can be understood through investigating the
meaning of metaphor based on Systemic Functional Linguistics. The way of
using the unusual form of linguistics can be analyzed with Systemic Functional
Linguistics or SFL. The functional view of metaphor as ways of controlling the
social and natural environment to the more recent theories that sees metaphor as
processes by which we understand and structure one domain of experience in
terms of another domain of a different kind ( Duranti, 1997 : 38 ).
In SFL theory, language is viewed as a social semiotics. There are two
poles of coding experience, the unmarked or congruent which is also known as a
usual representation whereas the marked or incongruent one is called the unusual
5
or the metaphorical representation ( Saragih 2001: 162 ). Then Halliday ( 1994 )
elaborated that metaphor in SFL form is a general form is a general form of
interpretations as the representative of social symptoms that involves the shifts of
meanings. One of the characteristics of language as a social symptom according
to SFL is that language is functional in social context. Firstly, language is
structured appropriately with the human needs of language. Secondly, the
functions of language itself include three points, to picture, to exchange and to
combine
human’s
experience.
These
three
functions
called
language
metafunctions.
A language user changes their experience in life (non-linguistics
experience) into linguistics experience. Non-linguistics experience could be the
reality or event that happens in daily life. The experience realized into linguistics
experience by three elements, they are process, participants, and circumstances..
Seeing the Bible, especially the John’s Gospel has many metaphors and
the Bible’s readers often find difficulty in understanding the real meaning of
metaphors, this study is very interesting to discuss because it will give a deep
understanding for the readers to get the message of the God’s words in the Bible.
The researcher will conduct a study of lexical metaphor in the Gospel of John
with reference to Systemic Functional Linguistics. The theory of metaphor in
SFL is appropriate to investigate and analyze the unusual form of linguistics or
metaphor in the verses of John Gospel. And by analyzing the lexical metaphor, it
is hoped that the Bible’s readers will easy to understand the message of God.
6
1.2
Problems of the Study
In line with the background, the problems are formulated as follows.
( 1 ) What kinds of lexical metaphor are used in the Gospel of John ?
( 2 ) How are the lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John ?
( 3 ) Why is the lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John ?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
Based on the problems of the study, the objectives of the research are
( 1 ) to find out the kinds of lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John,
( 2 ) to describe the lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John, and
( 3 ) to elaborate the reason for the use of lexical metaphor in the Gospel of John.
1.4 Scope of the Study
To avoid the blur discussion to the research, a limitation will be needed
as the scope of the study. The scope of the study will be limited in terms of the
lexical metaphor in the verses of John Gospel in Bible.
There are three aspects which done in this study, firstly is the kinds of
lexical metaphor used in John Gospel, secondly the way of lexical metaphor
used in John Gospel and the third is the context for the use of lexical metaphor in
John Gospel. The focus of context is context of situation, that is tenor especially
reflected by status/power. This study applies the concept theories of the Systemic
Functional Linguistics (SFL) proposed by Halliday.
7
1.5 Significance of the Study
A research that is conducted should show some applicable results, so that it
can contribute some ideas that can enhance the quality of the knowledge. The
findings of the study are expected to be useful theoretically and practically for
those who are interested in analyzing metaphor especially lexical metaphor in
written text.
( 1 ) Theoretically, the readers can enlarge their knowledge on theories of
Systemic functional linguistics in order to interpret the meaning of lexical
metaphor.
( 2 ) Practically
a. As a reference for the university students who are interested in
investigating lexical metaphor in other field.
b. For the Bible’s readers, the result of this study can realize them for the
demand on Bible are not only to guide the reader to believe the God’s
power, but also to understand the information which can improve their
understanding about moral teaching and bring them into positive
thinking to always thanks toward God’s blessing in human’s live.
c. In addition, the findings of this research are expected to gain benefit
because it provides some valuable information particularly to another
researcher who would like to conduct an in-depth study on lexical
metaphor.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Having analyzed the data, conclusions are drawn as the following:
( 1 ) There are four kinds of lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John. The
four kinds of lexical metaphor are noun-noun concept, noun-verb concept,
noun-adjective concept, and noun-preposition concept.
( 2 ) The ways of using the lexical metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel are
through comparing noun with noun, noun with verb, noun with adjective,
and noun with preposition.
( 3 ) The use of lexical metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel is highly
depends on the context of situation, here is the tenor. Jesus tends to use
metaphor to show his power or divinity.
5.2 Suggestions
With reference to the conclusions, suggestions are staged as the following:
( 1 ) It is suggested to other researchers to find the new findings related to lexical
metaphor with reference to systemic functional linguistics theory.
( 2 ) It is suggested to :
a). Christian teachers, it is important to explain the meaning of metaphor in
Bible as clear as to avoid students’ confusion about the Jesus’ divinity.
b). Sunday School’s teacher, to describe as clear as the meaning of metaphor
in Bible, especially Jesus’ divinity to Sunday School’s children so that
69
70
they have true information.
( 3 ) For other researchers, it is suggested to conduct a study related to
investigating the lexical metaphor with reference to SFL theory in other field
such as poetry, novel, etc.
REFERENCES
Ary, D. J and Razerviech, H. 1979. Introduction to Research and Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Method : United State of America.
Berg, B. L. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 6th Edition.
San Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007.
Brown, R. 1997. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible.
ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
Bogdan, R. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. USA: Library of Congress
Cataloging
Carson, D.A. 1991. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament
Commentary Series. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-80283683-0.
Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, F.A. 2005. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church. New York: Oxford University Press.
Denzin, N.K. 1978: The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological
Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill
Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic Antrophology, Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press.
Ginting, S.A 2012. Metafora Leksikal dalam Novel Larung, Suatu Kajian
Linguistik Fungsional Sistematik. Medan : Universitas Sumatera Utara.
Goatly, A. 1999. Literary : The Language of Metaphor. New York: Rutledge
Halliday, M.A.K. 1984. Language as code and language as behavior: A
systemicfunctional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of
dialogue. In: Fawcett, Robin P., M.A.K. Halliday, Sydney M. Lamb and
Adam Makkai (eds.) The Semiotics of Culture and Language. Vol. 1:
Language as social semiotic. (Open Linguistics Series). London: Pinter. 335
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold,
1985.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Function of Language. London : Edward Arnold.
71
72
Halliday, M.A.K & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. 3rd edition. London: Arnold
Hill, B. 2012. Making comparison: metaphor-simile in Fiction. Diasesk June 6,
Holmes, J. 2001. An Introduction to sociolinguistics. United Kingdom : Longman
Krippendroff, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Lakoff, G and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphor We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Leezenberg, M. 2001. Context of Metaphor. Nederlands: Ersevier
Lincoln, Y. S, and Guba, M. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. California : Sage
Publication
Malina.B. 1985. The Gospel of John in Sociolinguistic Perspective, Berkeley,
California: Centre for Hermeneutical Studies.
Martin, J. R. 2001. Language, Register and Genre. in a Burns and C. Caffin
(Eds.). Analysing English in a Global Context. London:
Routlege/Macquarie University
Miles, M, Huberman, A. M & Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis,
Thousands Oaks, CA : Sage Publishing Company.
Moriarty, J. 2011 'Qualitative Methods Overview', London: NIHR School for
Social Care Research.
Orthony, A. 1993. Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pasaribu, R. L 2013. Lexical Metaphor in Bon Jovi’s Selected Song. Medan :
Universitas Negeri Medan.
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Method. Beverly Hills,
CA : Sage Publication.
Saragih, A. 2010. Variations and Functional Varieties of Language. Medan.
Saragih, A. 2010. Introducing Systemic Functional Grammar of English. Medan:
Unimed
Saragih, A. 2011. Semiotik Bahasa. Medan: PPs Unimed/Universitas Sumatera
Utara
73
Stern, G. 2010. A Metaphor in Context. USA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Stern, J. 2000. Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London,
England: The MIT Press
Straus, M and Corbin. 1990. Qualitative Data Analysis. California: Sage
Publication.
Sugiyono, 2008. Metode Penelitian Kunatitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung
Alfabeta.
Triartha, F. 2012. An Analysis of Metaphor in People Magazine’s Advertisement.
Medan : Universitas Negeri Medan.
Watt, B. 2000. Linguistic Authority, Language ideology, and Metaphor. German :
WdeG
Winner and Gardner. 2001. Metaphor. New York : Oxford university press
BIBLE
A THESIS
Submited to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial
Fulfilment of the Requirement For the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
BY:
RIOSA EVALINA SILITONGA
Registration Number: 8146112034
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Jesus Christ and Most Beneficial for without His Guidance and Mercy,
this thesis would not have been completed. I give thanks to God, by whose grace I live.
My desire to hear God’s word and my calling to proclaim that word for others has been
and continues to be my motivation for studying the Bible. Thanks to be the One who
speaks the word of the kingdom and opens hearts to hear and understand it.
In the process of finishing this piece of academic writing, the writer has been
given much support and valuable knowledge from many people whose names cannot all be
listed here.
First, the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude to Prof.
Saragih M.A, Ph.D her First Adviser and Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd
Amrin
her Second
Adviser, for their valuable advice, guidance, constructive comments and precious time
spent on supervising and commenting this thesis until it appears in its present form.
Second, her special gratitude goes to Dr. Rahmad Husein M.Ed and Dr. Anni
Holila Pulungan M.Hum as the Head and Secretary of English Applied Linguistics
Study Program, to Prof. Dr. Bornok Sinaga, M.Pd as the Director of Postgraduate
School State University of Medan and all lecturers, for the valuable knowledge and
instruction they have imparted to her during the years studying and he also wishes to
express her gratitude to the Boards of examiners, Dr. Siti Aisah Gintings M.Pd, Dr. T.
Thyrhaya Zein M.A, and Dr. Rahmad Husein M.Ed who have given her some
advices when he proposed this thesis in the seminar.
Then, a very special debt of gratitude is directed to her beloved parents,
S. Silitonga (The Late) and P. Simanjuntak, together with her beloved husband Drs.
Irwanto Situmorang and her beloved daughters Ribka Novalina Situmorang, Angeline
i
Christ Ondo Situmorang, Stefany Nanda Tri Augusta Situmorang and her Son
Michael Valentino Gokrizki Situmorang for their full love, support, care, and prayers.
Finally, a special debt of gratitude is addressed to all her beloved best friends,
Elfida, Yenni, Sejati Peranginangin, Puji, Titik Iswati, Riri, Frissa, Mutia, Yoshiko,
Rika, Inda, Matrejo, Munawar and all my best friends in LTBI B-2 for their close
friendship and encouragement in finishing this thesis.
Last but not least, she must confess that she has done her utmost to accomplish this
thesis but she is been fully aware that it is still far from being perfect. Therefore, any
constructive criticisms, suggestions, or comments will be highly appreciated.
May God Bless Us!
Medan, June 2nd 2016
The writer,
Riosa Evalina Silitonga
Registration Number: 8146112034
i
ABSTRACT
Silitonga, Riosa Evalina. Lexical Metaphor in the Verses of John’s Gospel
A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School.
State University of Medan. 2016.
This study deals with lexical metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel by applying
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). The objectives of the study are to describe
the kinds of lexical metaphor used in the verses of John’s Gospel, to elaborate the
lexical metaphor used in the verses of John’s Gospel, and to reason for the use of
lexical metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel. This study was conducted by
using descriptive research. The sources of data were the New Testament of Holy
Bible, published by Biblica New International Version, 2011. The findings
indicated that firstly, there are four concepts of lexical metaphor in John’s Gospel
such as 40 (53.3%) for Noun – Noun, 28 (37.3%) for Noun-Verb [Verb-Noun], 6
(8%) for Noun- Adj, 1 (1.3%) for Noun –Preposition. Secondly, linguistics
realization of Lexical Metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel are through
comparing Noun – Noun, Noun-Verb [Verb-Noun], Noun – Adj, and Noun –
Preposition. The dominant type of lexical metaphor in John’s Gospel is NounNoun. It means that most of the lexical metaphor is compared by noun and noun
or thing and thing. Finally, the reason of the lexical metaphor used in the verses of
John’s Gospel is based on the context of situation, here is tenor. Tenor reflects the
power or status of the speakers. In this study Jesus’ metaphors are to show His
divinity. In this case, Jesus always compared Himself to another noun to show his
divinity. Jesus compared himself to bread of life, true vine, the lamb of God,
word, the truth, the way, the life, the gate, the Holy spirit, the light, a teacher, the
good shepherd, the king of Israel, the son of God, and the son of man. All these he
said to make the unbelievers believe in Jesus so they will have eternal lives. In
this study, there are new findings; firstly, some of noun-noun concept has
reiteration. Reiteration means that a form of lexical metaphor involves the
repetition. In this case, one noun is compared to more than one noun in a clause.
Secondly, the new concept found in the verses of John’s Gospel is nounpreposition concept. This concept is to view a feature of one noun being applied to
one preposition. This concept also indicates Jesus’ divinity.
ii
ABSTRAK
Silitonga, Riosa Evalina. Lexical Metaphor in the Verses of John’s Gospel.
A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School.
State University of Medan. 2016.
Tesis ini mengkaji metafora leksikal dalam ayat Injil Yohanes berdasarkan
Linguistik Fungsional Sistemik (LFS). Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk
mengetahui jenis metafora leksikal yang digunakan dalam ayat Injil Yohanes,
untuk menggambarkan metafora leksikal yang digunakan dalam ayat Injil
Yohanes, dan untuk menguraikan alasan penggunaan metafora leksikal pada ayat
Injil Yohanes. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode deskriptif.
Sumber data diambil dari Alkitab Perjanjian Baru yang diterbitkan oleh Biblica
New International Version tahun 2011. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa,
pertama jenis metafora leksikal dalam Injil Yohanes meliputi metafora leksikal
dengan konsep nomina – nomina yaitu 40 (53,3%), metafora leksikal dengan
konsep nomina – verba/ verba – nomina 28 (37,3%), metafora leksikal dengan
konsep nomina - adjektiva 6 (8%), dan metafora leksikal dengan konsep nomina –
kata depan 1 (1,3%). Kedua, realisasi linguistik metafora dalam ayat Injil Yohanes
adalah dengan membandingkan nomina dengan nomina, nomina dengan verba
[verba dengan nomina], nomina dengan adjektiva, dan nomina dengan preposisi.
Metafora leksikal yang dominan dalam ayat Injil Yohanes adalah metafora yang
membandingkan nomina dengan nomina lainnya. Dan akhirnya, alasan
penggunaan metafora leksikal dalam ayat-ayat Injil Yohanes adalah berdasarkan
konteks situasi, dalam tesis ini adalah pelibat. Pelibat menggambarkan status dari
si pembicara. Yesus menunjukkan kuasa atau keilahianNya dalam setiap
percakapanNya dengan orang Yahudi dan juga murid-muridNya dengan cara
membandingkan diriNya sendiri dengan benda lain. Yesus membandingkan
diriNya dengan roti hidup, pokok anggur yang benar, anak domba Allah, firman,
kebenaran, jalan, hidup, pintu gerbang, roh kudus, cahaya, guru, gembala yang
baik, Raja Israel, Anak Allah, dan Anak Manusia. Semua ini Yesus katakan untuk
membuat orang-orang tidak percaya menjadi percaya kepada Dia dan supaya
mereka memiliki hidup yang kekal. Dalam penelitian ini, ada juga penemuan baru
yaitu; pertama, beberapa konsep nomina dengan nomina lainnya mengalami
pengulangan. Dalam hal ini satu nomina dibandingkan dengan beberapa nomina
lainnya dalam satu klausa. Kedua, konsep baru ditemukan dalam ayat Injil
Yohanes yaitu konsep nomina dengan preposisi. Konsep ini juga menunjukkan
keilahian Yesus.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………. i
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………….. ii
ABSTRAK ………………………………………………………………... iii
TABLE OF CONTENT ………………………………………………….. iv
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study ................................................ 1
1.2 Problems of the Study .................................................... 6
1.3 Objectives of the Study .................................................. 6
1.4 Scope of the Study ......................................................... 6
1.5 Significance of the Study ............................................... 7
II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Theoretical Framework .................................................. 8
2.1.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics .......................... 8
2.1.2 Metaphor .............................................................. 9
2.1.2.1 Grammatical Metaphor .......................... 11
2.1.2.2 Lexical Metaphor ................................... 12
2.1.3 Kinds of Lexical Metaphor ............................... 14
2.1.4 The Context of Using Lexical Metaphor in John’s
Gospel .............................................................. 17
2.1.5 The Gospel of John ............................................ 21
2.1.6 Metaphor in the Gospel of John ........................ 27
2.2 Relevant Studies ........................................................... 31
2.3 Conceptual Framework ................................................ 34
III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design ............................................................ 37
3.2 Data and Source of the Data .......................................... 38
iv
3.3 Technique of Data Collection ……………………..…38
3.4 Instrument of Collecting Data..………………………..39
3.5 Technique of Analyzing the Data .................................. 39
3.6 Trustworthiness of the Study ......................................... 42
IV
DATA ANALYSIS, FINDING, AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Data Analysis ................................................................. 46
4.2 Findings ......................................................................... 64
4.3 Discussion................................ ……………………..…64
V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions ................................................................... 69
5.2 Suggestions .................................................................... 69
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................71
APPENDICES
v
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of the Study
It is indisputable that language determines and shapes one’s perception
of reality. Describing something in a new way, perhaps even poetically, can lead
to new discoveries and understandings, broadening and challenging conventional
categorization. One key literary and rhetorical device that exemplifies this
formational attribute of language is metaphor. More than simply a poetic flourish,
metaphors fuse together two previously disparate concepts in such a way as to
influence a culture’s way of thinking. More recently, George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By evaluates the ways in which metaphors
unconsciously inform our daily life. By describing one thing in term of another,
metaphors uniquely highlight certain qualities or characteristics, helping people
to conceptualize new meanings. In doing so, they are not only descriptive or
informational, but actually influence experience by constructing new perceptions
and perspectives.
Metaphor is one of the most common literary devices that can be found
in almost any text, and the Bible is no exception. The Bible consists of two kinds
of testament, Old Testament and New Testament. Old Testament contains 39
book names, 929 chapters and 23.214 verses while New Testament contains 27
book names, 260 chapters, and 7.959 verses. When it comes to religious
rhetorics, metaphors are essential in describing that which evades everyday
language. Metaphors are frequently invoked in biblical and religious texts to
1
2
draw out specific attributes of God and the way God relates to the world. An
example of this is the Hebrew Bible’s “titles” for God, exhibiting God’s attributes
through metaphor. For example, God is called the “Ancient One”, “Judge of all
thev earth”, “King”, and “Lord” or “Yahweh” ( Daniel 7:9, Genesis 18:25, Paslm
74:12, Genesis 4:26, Exodus 6: 2-3 ). God is frequently described through non
human metaphors as well, such as a “rock”, “shield”, even manifested in a
“whirlwind” ( 2 Samuel 22:3 Job 38:1 ) The Psalmist relies on metaphors and
figurative language to fully express the depth of his emotions, evidencing a
dynamic and often times, personal way of relating to the divine. In his book on
metaphors in the Psalms, William Brown describes the Psalms as operating at the
level of the imagination, often “swiveling the universe on the hinges of a single
image” that is shared by the surrounding culture. These metaphors open up new
avenues of understanding and relating to God, and by implication, understanding
oneself.
But sometimes the metaphors in the verses of Bible makes the Bible’s
readers do not understand or misunderstand about the meaning. It is becaused
almost the verses are metaphorical expressions and has many interpretation. For
example, the metaphor of ‘water’ has many interpretation. As in John 3:5 writes
that ‘ Jesus answered, very truly I tell you, no one can enter the Kingdom of
God unless they are born of Water and Spirit’. In this verse, born of water
means water baptism. In both the Old and New Testaments, the word “water” is
used for salvation and eternal life, which God offers humankind through fait in
his Son ( Isa 12:3; 55:1; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:1 Revelation 22:17 ). In
3
John 4:10-15, part of Jesus discourse with the Samaritan woman at the well, he
speaks metaphorically of his salvation as “living water” and as “a spring of water
welling up to eternal life”.
The gospel of John is one of the book names in Bible, actually it is
written in the New Testament. This book has many metaphors. It extends
metaphors originally reserved for the Jewish God “Yahweh” through its
descriptions of God’s son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit he sends to those who
believe in him, even the description of His followers. Jesus describes himself in
the gospel as the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Good Shepherd, the Bread of
life, the Vine, etc. It is used to show that he as God has role plays in the lives of
those who would believe in him ( John 14:6, 10:11, 6:35 ). Then Jesus as God’s
son also describes His followers as the branches and the salt of the earth. The
gospel lend itself to examining how metaphors function to define and describe
Jesus ‘relationship with the world, showing him to serve as an extension of God’s
presence as described in the Holy Bible. It can be seen as Jesus answered, “I am
the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
me.” (John 14:6)
The Italic words of metaphor in the previously need interpreting and
understand the meaning from two perspectives. Jesus often uses metaphor in
conveying his message. He often compares himself to another thing. As in the
verse above, Jesus compares himself to the way, the truth, and life. Jesus as
God’s son establishes himself as not only the pathway to God, but also as truth
and life itself. In verse, I am the vine, you are the branches. If you remain in me
4
and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing ( John
15:5 ), Jesus does not talk the vine and the branches as a part of the tree, but also
give a comparing himself as the vine and calls his followers branches of the vine,
in that they are extensions of Himself. Also, Jesus states his followers will ”bear
much fruit, “ meaning good things will come as a result of their faith. In verse, I
am the bread of life; he who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in
me will never thirst ( John 6:35 ). In this metaphor, Jesus compares Himself to
bread. The bread of life is symbolic idea that Jesus offers eternal fulfillment. Like
bread sustains us in life., ‘Jesus’ metaphor suggests that He can sustains His
followers in a spiritual sense. Furthermore, in verse I am the light of the world; he
who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life. Jesus
calls himself the light of world. In the Bible, light refers to salvation, and
darkness refers to sinfulness.
All the verses in the previous can be understood through investigating the
meaning of metaphor based on Systemic Functional Linguistics. The way of
using the unusual form of linguistics can be analyzed with Systemic Functional
Linguistics or SFL. The functional view of metaphor as ways of controlling the
social and natural environment to the more recent theories that sees metaphor as
processes by which we understand and structure one domain of experience in
terms of another domain of a different kind ( Duranti, 1997 : 38 ).
In SFL theory, language is viewed as a social semiotics. There are two
poles of coding experience, the unmarked or congruent which is also known as a
usual representation whereas the marked or incongruent one is called the unusual
5
or the metaphorical representation ( Saragih 2001: 162 ). Then Halliday ( 1994 )
elaborated that metaphor in SFL form is a general form is a general form of
interpretations as the representative of social symptoms that involves the shifts of
meanings. One of the characteristics of language as a social symptom according
to SFL is that language is functional in social context. Firstly, language is
structured appropriately with the human needs of language. Secondly, the
functions of language itself include three points, to picture, to exchange and to
combine
human’s
experience.
These
three
functions
called
language
metafunctions.
A language user changes their experience in life (non-linguistics
experience) into linguistics experience. Non-linguistics experience could be the
reality or event that happens in daily life. The experience realized into linguistics
experience by three elements, they are process, participants, and circumstances..
Seeing the Bible, especially the John’s Gospel has many metaphors and
the Bible’s readers often find difficulty in understanding the real meaning of
metaphors, this study is very interesting to discuss because it will give a deep
understanding for the readers to get the message of the God’s words in the Bible.
The researcher will conduct a study of lexical metaphor in the Gospel of John
with reference to Systemic Functional Linguistics. The theory of metaphor in
SFL is appropriate to investigate and analyze the unusual form of linguistics or
metaphor in the verses of John Gospel. And by analyzing the lexical metaphor, it
is hoped that the Bible’s readers will easy to understand the message of God.
6
1.2
Problems of the Study
In line with the background, the problems are formulated as follows.
( 1 ) What kinds of lexical metaphor are used in the Gospel of John ?
( 2 ) How are the lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John ?
( 3 ) Why is the lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John ?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
Based on the problems of the study, the objectives of the research are
( 1 ) to find out the kinds of lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John,
( 2 ) to describe the lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John, and
( 3 ) to elaborate the reason for the use of lexical metaphor in the Gospel of John.
1.4 Scope of the Study
To avoid the blur discussion to the research, a limitation will be needed
as the scope of the study. The scope of the study will be limited in terms of the
lexical metaphor in the verses of John Gospel in Bible.
There are three aspects which done in this study, firstly is the kinds of
lexical metaphor used in John Gospel, secondly the way of lexical metaphor
used in John Gospel and the third is the context for the use of lexical metaphor in
John Gospel. The focus of context is context of situation, that is tenor especially
reflected by status/power. This study applies the concept theories of the Systemic
Functional Linguistics (SFL) proposed by Halliday.
7
1.5 Significance of the Study
A research that is conducted should show some applicable results, so that it
can contribute some ideas that can enhance the quality of the knowledge. The
findings of the study are expected to be useful theoretically and practically for
those who are interested in analyzing metaphor especially lexical metaphor in
written text.
( 1 ) Theoretically, the readers can enlarge their knowledge on theories of
Systemic functional linguistics in order to interpret the meaning of lexical
metaphor.
( 2 ) Practically
a. As a reference for the university students who are interested in
investigating lexical metaphor in other field.
b. For the Bible’s readers, the result of this study can realize them for the
demand on Bible are not only to guide the reader to believe the God’s
power, but also to understand the information which can improve their
understanding about moral teaching and bring them into positive
thinking to always thanks toward God’s blessing in human’s live.
c. In addition, the findings of this research are expected to gain benefit
because it provides some valuable information particularly to another
researcher who would like to conduct an in-depth study on lexical
metaphor.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Having analyzed the data, conclusions are drawn as the following:
( 1 ) There are four kinds of lexical metaphor used in the Gospel of John. The
four kinds of lexical metaphor are noun-noun concept, noun-verb concept,
noun-adjective concept, and noun-preposition concept.
( 2 ) The ways of using the lexical metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel are
through comparing noun with noun, noun with verb, noun with adjective,
and noun with preposition.
( 3 ) The use of lexical metaphor in the verses of John’s Gospel is highly
depends on the context of situation, here is the tenor. Jesus tends to use
metaphor to show his power or divinity.
5.2 Suggestions
With reference to the conclusions, suggestions are staged as the following:
( 1 ) It is suggested to other researchers to find the new findings related to lexical
metaphor with reference to systemic functional linguistics theory.
( 2 ) It is suggested to :
a). Christian teachers, it is important to explain the meaning of metaphor in
Bible as clear as to avoid students’ confusion about the Jesus’ divinity.
b). Sunday School’s teacher, to describe as clear as the meaning of metaphor
in Bible, especially Jesus’ divinity to Sunday School’s children so that
69
70
they have true information.
( 3 ) For other researchers, it is suggested to conduct a study related to
investigating the lexical metaphor with reference to SFL theory in other field
such as poetry, novel, etc.
REFERENCES
Ary, D. J and Razerviech, H. 1979. Introduction to Research and Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Method : United State of America.
Berg, B. L. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 6th Edition.
San Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007.
Brown, R. 1997. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible.
ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
Bogdan, R. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. USA: Library of Congress
Cataloging
Carson, D.A. 1991. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament
Commentary Series. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-80283683-0.
Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, F.A. 2005. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church. New York: Oxford University Press.
Denzin, N.K. 1978: The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological
Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill
Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic Antrophology, Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press.
Ginting, S.A 2012. Metafora Leksikal dalam Novel Larung, Suatu Kajian
Linguistik Fungsional Sistematik. Medan : Universitas Sumatera Utara.
Goatly, A. 1999. Literary : The Language of Metaphor. New York: Rutledge
Halliday, M.A.K. 1984. Language as code and language as behavior: A
systemicfunctional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of
dialogue. In: Fawcett, Robin P., M.A.K. Halliday, Sydney M. Lamb and
Adam Makkai (eds.) The Semiotics of Culture and Language. Vol. 1:
Language as social semiotic. (Open Linguistics Series). London: Pinter. 335
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold,
1985.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Function of Language. London : Edward Arnold.
71
72
Halliday, M.A.K & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. 3rd edition. London: Arnold
Hill, B. 2012. Making comparison: metaphor-simile in Fiction. Diasesk June 6,
Holmes, J. 2001. An Introduction to sociolinguistics. United Kingdom : Longman
Krippendroff, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Lakoff, G and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphor We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Leezenberg, M. 2001. Context of Metaphor. Nederlands: Ersevier
Lincoln, Y. S, and Guba, M. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. California : Sage
Publication
Malina.B. 1985. The Gospel of John in Sociolinguistic Perspective, Berkeley,
California: Centre for Hermeneutical Studies.
Martin, J. R. 2001. Language, Register and Genre. in a Burns and C. Caffin
(Eds.). Analysing English in a Global Context. London:
Routlege/Macquarie University
Miles, M, Huberman, A. M & Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis,
Thousands Oaks, CA : Sage Publishing Company.
Moriarty, J. 2011 'Qualitative Methods Overview', London: NIHR School for
Social Care Research.
Orthony, A. 1993. Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pasaribu, R. L 2013. Lexical Metaphor in Bon Jovi’s Selected Song. Medan :
Universitas Negeri Medan.
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Method. Beverly Hills,
CA : Sage Publication.
Saragih, A. 2010. Variations and Functional Varieties of Language. Medan.
Saragih, A. 2010. Introducing Systemic Functional Grammar of English. Medan:
Unimed
Saragih, A. 2011. Semiotik Bahasa. Medan: PPs Unimed/Universitas Sumatera
Utara
73
Stern, G. 2010. A Metaphor in Context. USA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Stern, J. 2000. Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London,
England: The MIT Press
Straus, M and Corbin. 1990. Qualitative Data Analysis. California: Sage
Publication.
Sugiyono, 2008. Metode Penelitian Kunatitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung
Alfabeta.
Triartha, F. 2012. An Analysis of Metaphor in People Magazine’s Advertisement.
Medan : Universitas Negeri Medan.
Watt, B. 2000. Linguistic Authority, Language ideology, and Metaphor. German :
WdeG
Winner and Gardner. 2001. Metaphor. New York : Oxford university press