20
Sentence 1 lion that features animals symbolized by a moving creature denoted by feature + Animate whereas in the sentence 2 the feature was canceled
because of the lion in the sentence 2 are not animals as expressed in the sentence 1 in this case the lion do not feature + Animate.
D. Kinds of Metaphor
George Lakofff, Mark Johnson in their book Metaphors, We Live By 1980 and Zoltan Kövecses in his book, Metaphor: A Practicial Introduction
2010 divided metaphors into three types, they are: structural metaphor, orientational metaphor and ontological metaphor.
34
However, Kövecses classified for the purposes of clearer exposition, conceptual metaphors can be classified
according to the cognitive functions that they perform. There are explanations about three types of metaphors:
1. Structural Metaphor
In this kind of metaphor, the source domain provides a relatively rich knowledge structure for the target concept. In other words, the cognitive
function of these metaphors is to enable speakers to understand target A by means of the structure of source B.
35
Meanwhile, according to Lakoff to give of what it could mean for a concept to be metaphorical and for such a concept
34
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980,p 37.
35
Ibid .,
21
“ARGUMENT IS WAR”. This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions
36
: “ARGUMENT IS WAR”
Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point my argument. I demolished
his argument. Many of the things in arguing are partially structured by the concept of
war. In fact, as it can be seen, people do not just talk about arguments in term of war but it influences from they thought because that conceptual structures.
Someone can actually win or lose arguments, plan and use strategies. If a position is indefensible, it can abandon and take a new line of attack.
However, in this sense Argument is War structures the action performs in arguing and of course the term it is influenced by culture. Therefore, there is
similarity between conceptual system and experience. The way people talk about argument that way because they conceive that way and they act
according to the way they conceive things. From the example above there is similarity between the concept of Argument and the concept of War.
Lakoff and Johnson believe that mappings are not based on similarities but on the correlating elements in source and target domain. To make it clearer,
the writer takes the example from metaphorical concept “Argument is War”
and the explanation of source, target and mappings will be put on the table below:
36
George Lakoff , Op. Cit.,p.4
