Metaphorical Expressions Related to God Found In Coca: A Semantic Analysis.

METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS RELATED TO GOD FOUND IN COCA : A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS

I KADEK SANJAYA

121 835 1061

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT (NON – REGULAR PROGRAM)

FACULTY OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF UDAYANA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The accomplishment of this work is a process of metamorphosis of a like a little worm idea in a wide garden guided by many bright lights and motivated by plenty supports of other plants and flowers singing a beautiful melody. This little worm would be an ugly butterfly that has no colorful wings and could not be flying without the blessings, helps, and motivation of the followings without-winged angels of the God.

First and foremost, the best gratitude is presented to the Supreme God, Ida Sang Hyang Widi Wasa for His huge priceless blessings, the ultimate love, guidance, help, protection, and for watering me with good health and providing me with a lot of encouragement so that the process of conducting the study to achieve the goal can be successfully shaped.

Successively, my huge gratitude is sent to Prof. Dr. dr. Ketut Suastika, Sp.PD.KEMD, the rector of University of Udayana. My special appreciation goes to the Dean of Faculty of Arts, Prof. Dr. Ni Luh Sutjiati Beratha, M.A.

My special grateful thanks are due to Dr. I Made Rajeg, M.Hum., the main supervisor for his kindness, great cares, and deeply important guidance to improve the weak parts of this study, as well as for introducing the basic knowledge and essence of this “Godly” metaphor, boiling my passion up to choose metaphor as the theme of this work. My special appreciations as well go to my second supervisor, Ni Ketut Sri Rahayuni, S.S., M.Hum., for giving me strong motivations and feedback to this work, and for her consistent reminder to work on it. Their guidance and supports are overly appreciated.

My thankful appreciation goes to Dr. Dra. Ida Ayu Made Puspani, M.Hum., the head of the English Department (Non-Regular Program). My huge thanks goes to my academic advisor, Dr. Ni Luh Nyoman Seri Malini, SS, M.Hum., for her encouragements, supports, and suggestions during my study. Besides, I thank all of my lecturers who have shared their knowledge to me.

Otherwise, this could be a dark and cloudy sky to see, if there were no lighted candles from home. My heartfelt gratitude touches my herculean father, Bapak Santosa, and to my beloved mother, Memek Mastrini, for keeping the candles of hope shinning in the sky so that I can keep my way to the correct direction and peaceful destination while sailing the world. Rows of thank in thousands pages would not be enough to portray how grateful I am having them both. To my sisters, thanks a lot for the inspiring messages. They dug my ideas up.

My deep gratitude flies to deceased Andrew P. Charles for being a friend, motivator, supporter, and father in the same time. I would be still blind and having no sunlight, if he did not come and open the window of mind. A big step in my life was made when I firstly met him. Every word he said, every advice I got from him, and those smiles he showed to me are still framed neatly in my mind and will never be erased by the time. I thank a lot for all supports and guidance he has been providing me when he was in the world and now he is in heaven. I really hope wind delivers all of my prayers to him and the God is always protecting and angels are accompanying him there.

I send my great thanks and appreciation to The Sutasoma Trust in London, The U.K. for having been supporting me in my study in financial needs. All guidance, ideas, hopes, and goals to finish my study would not come true without a like-Jupiter big support from the Trust. My earnest thanks touches Ibu Angela Hobart, Ibu Mandy Fish, Bapak Made Budiarta Wijaya, and all members of the Trust for working together and, up to this time, encouraging, motivating, and providing me with a lot of positive advice to be much better in the future. I am probably not able to give what I got back, but I definitely can show what the result of the process is: the knowledge itself. I really hope that the Trust and I are always in touch in our extraordinary story.

I am having a special unpaid debt to Mr. (informally Bli) Gede Primahadi Wijaya R. for being my idol that I adore very much for his works and writings, and for supplying me so many articles and books freely regarding to semantics and metaphor. The articles and books have been useful weapons to answer all questions blocking the path of thinking in working on this study. His helps and supports are really appreciated.

I would also like to lovingly thank moja piękna syrenka Alicja Irena Cichy, for her encouragement to place this study facing the sunset, supporting my dream in all the ways. I am always missing our arguing time and discussions when she told me to read the articles and finish the marked pages before going out together. “Nothing is sweeter than the togetherness we share.”

Denpasar, 15th May 2016

ABSTRACT

The past thirty six years has been seen as increasingly rapid advances in the field of metaphor. It was experienced firstly by Lakoff and Johnsen (1980), that metaphor is a property not merely in language but as well in thought and actions effortlessly in everyday life. It enlightens the way to build an idea in order to conduct a study on metaphor aimed at finding out the concepts underlying the metaphorical expressions in the corpus by the given title Metaphorical Expressions Related to God Found in COCA : A Semantic Analysis.

The data source was taken from COCA (Corpus of Contemporary America) which is currently having more than 520 million words of text. The data were collected using one keyword in context God to generate concordances. The metaphors in the concordances were identified practically using Pragglejaz’s MIP (Metaphor Identification Procedure) (2007) and supported by the Steen’s five steeps for identifying metaphor (1999, 2009). The data were analysed primarily based on the influential framework of conceptual metaphor proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980); Lakoff (1987, 1993).

The results show that the study covers all types of the conceptual metaphor, Structural, Orientational, and Ontological Metaphors, as well as their related figure, i.e. personification. In terms of conceptual metaphor underlying the linguistic expression related to God, it was found that God is more frequently physicalized as a human. For example GOD IS A HUMAN.

Keywords: God, conceptual metaphor, target domain, source domain, metaphorical expressions, mappings

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... i

ABSTRACT ... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Problems of the Study ... 5

1.3 Aims of the Study ... 5

1.4 Scope of Discussion ... 6

1.5 Research Method ... 6

1.5.1 Data Source ... 6

1.5.2 Method and Technique of Collecting Data ... 7

1.5.3 Method and Technique of Analyzing Data ... 9

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 31

2.1 Review of Literature ... 31

2.2 Concepts ... 34

2.2.1 The Concepts of Metaphor and Conceptual Metaphor ... 35

2.2.2 The Concepts of Metaphorical Expression ... 35

2.3 Theoretical Framework ... 36

2.3.1.1 Structural Metaphor ... 37

2.3.1.2 Orientational Metaphor ... 38

2.3.1.3 Ontological Metaphor ... 39

2.3.1.4 Personification ... 41

2.3.2 Metaphorical Identification Procedure ... 41

CHAPTER III METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS RELATED TO GOD FOUND IN COCA : A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS ... 43

3.1 Overview ... 43

3.2 Structural Metaphor ... 44

3.2.1 GOD IS A GIFT ... 44

3.2.2 GOD IS A WARRIOR ... 47

3.2.3 GOD IS A WAY ... 52

3.2.4 GOD IS A RULE ... 55

3.2.5 GOD IS A LORD ... 58

3.2.6 GOD IS LIGHT ... 62

3.2.7 GOD IS A KING ... 66

3.2.8 GOD IS A JUDGE ... 70

3.2.9 GOD IS A HEALER ... 73

3.2.10 GOD IS A DESTROYER ... 78

3.3 Orientational Metaphor ... 81

3.3.1 GOD IS UP/ABOVE ... 82

3.4 Ontological Metaphor ... 85

3.4.1 GOD IS AN ENTITY ... 85

3.4.3 GOD IS A SOURCE ... 91 3.5 Personification ... 94 3.5.1 GOD IS A HUMAN ... 94

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION ... 98

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 100 APPENDICES

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Metaphor is a major area of interest within the field of semantics. As how metaphor is an integral part in poetry in order to beautify words and sentences of poetry. In addition, metaphors are essential parts in poetry writing that makes it distinct from other texts. Consequently, readers need to have sufficient knowledge in metaphor in order to understand the poetry easier. Similarly, metaphorical expressions are used in daily language or conversations, as well. Whether it is written or spoken. Basically, in daily spoken language, there are two different concepts which are used in order to produce a metaphorical expression. Moreover, in classical theories of language, metaphors are related to literary works only. Ordinary people who had no education in literary works and were not writer of literary works, could not use metaphors and metaphors could not be used in daily conversation. Lakoff (1993:202) states that “Metaphorical expressions were assumed to be mutually exclusive with the realm of ordinary everyday language: everyday language had no metaphor”. Furthermore, metaphor is seen as a conscious and deliberate use of words, and requires special talent to be able to do it.

However, a modern theory of metaphor that was introduced by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) who have considered the traditional view of metaphor itself and emphasized that metaphor is used in everyday language and daily activities of people. In addition, they found that metaphors are not merely found in language,

but also used in thought and action. Lakoff and Johnson (1980:3) further state that “Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature”. Moreover, metaphor is used effortlessly and unconsciously by ordinary people, not merely by special talented people (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980 in Kövecses, 2002: viii). Finally, Lakoff and Johnson state that Conceptual Metaphor theory is a fundamental property of doing research in metaphorical expression.

Working on the topic of metaphors, theoretically two division areas of metaphors would be touched. They are living and dead metaphors. Basically, living metaphors and dead metaphors are based on the existence of their metaphorical values or characters. Additionally, a living metaphor is a figure of speech which is understood with a consciousness of their nature as a substitution for their literal equivalent. Its original imagery is still felt as a metaphorical expression that has an implicit meaning. On the other hand, a dead metaphor is a figure of speech which has lost its original imagery of its meaning due to extensive, repetitive, and popular usage. Because dead metaphors have a conventional meaning that differs from the original, they can be understood without knowing their earlier connotation.

Concerning the knowledge of metaphor, practically there is a huge number of people speak using metaphors consciously or unconsciously. As mentioned previously, the contributions of metaphors in communication are in order to beautify words and sentences used, as a decorative part, and understand abstract concepts easier, since metaphor allows speakers understand abstract concepts in terms of entities and substances. Another reason is in order to gain some

variations in communication by utilising lexical choice metaphorically. Furthermore, metaphor takes an important role in daily language nowadays.

In this study, investigating the word ‘God’ is a continuing concern within metaphorical expression in its use. God is related to a belief of human beings in a group or community which concerns with the culture of the group or community. In addition, among cultures in the world concern the God in some different ways. As Rajeg and Primahadi Wijaya R. (2015: 6) stated that “God is Human”. This result in metaphorical expression of God could be different in the western culture, where it could be found in COCA (The Corpus of Contemporary American English). Recently, researchers have shown an increased interest in corpus based-study.

A corpus is a collection of machine-readable, authentic text, samples, and representative of a particular language or language variety. The word corpus was formed from a Greek word, corpora, meant as body. Corpus linguistics uses language naturally, whether it is spoken, academic, newspaper, magazine, fiction, etc. There are some advantages by using corpus in doing a research, they are generate and verify new linguistics hypotheses, provide textual evidence in text-based humanities and social science subject, and testing existing linguistics theory and hypotheses. Additionally, a corpus can be more comprehensive and balance. A corpus, as well, is showing what is typical and common. Moreover, it can store and recall all the information that has been stored in a short time, providing a real communication context as examples. Furthermore, it is giving more objective evidence and frequency of words.

Hence, the desire and relevancy to view metaphor as a part of linguistics semantically and grounded on those new perspectives by Lakoff and Johnson. Since the enthusiasm to learn and get a good understanding and comparison of metaphor successively were built up. Furthermore, communication is an important part in a culture which consists of interaction among individuals, individual and group, or among groups that must be there the same conceptual system of human kind use in thinking and action. Also, language is one of many evidences that showing the existence of a culture itself.

Herein, the data would be picked from COCA, in this respect, the metaphorical expression related to God. Furthermore research, further investigation of the conceptual metaphor types was strengthened by seeking out and analyzing as well the meaning brought inside the metaphorical expression. Finally, refers to what would be searched and analyzed in this research, was the types of metaphorical expression based on the conceptual metaphors related to God found in COCA.

The aims of this study are, generally, in order to describe what metaphor is all about and in order to realize the knowledge. Especially, the aims are in order to find out and analyze as well the metaphorical concepts of metaphorical expression related to God, based on the conceptual metaphor by Lakoff and Johnson, found in COCA, and to disclose the meaning of the metaphorical expression covered within the text.

1.2 Problems of the Study

In respect of what has been mentioned in the preceding part, the problems of the study were formulated about conducting research into the metaphorical expressions within the word God found in COCA. This study is aimed to address the following research questions:

1. What metaphorical expressions related to God are found in COCA? 2. What conceptual metaphors underlay the metaphorical expressions?

1.3 Aims of the Study

Every purposeful action has its own destination in a particular purpose. This study is as well having some purposes in order to comprehend the concerning subject matter being discussed. Moreover, based on the problems of the study above, the aims of the study are proposed generally in order to describe what metaphor is all about and to realize the knowledge. Specifically, in regard to the problems mentioned above, the aims of this study are

1. To identify the metaphorical expressions related to God found in COCA. 2. To analyze and disclose the conceptual metaphor underlying the

metaphorical expressions related to God found in COCA.

1.4 Scope of Discussions

Realising that the topic has so wide range of knowledge, the study would be specified and not to cross boundaries. The focus of this study is on:

2. The types of conceptual metaphor that would be presented in the form of mapping table, as Structural metaphor, Orientational Metaphor, and Ontological metaphor. In addition, Personification which related to metaphor is as well considered in the analysis.

1.5 Research Method

A research must consist of approach, technique, procedure, and methodology in order to reveal a phenomenon of knowledge. Methodology is done in a study in order to give an idea of how to carry out a research. Sudaryanto (1993: 10) stated that “methodology is the way having to be done; technique is the way of carrying out the methodology”. Moreover, the research method applied here provides the data source, data collection, and data analysis.

1.5.1 Data Source

Theoretically, all the data used in the study can be considered as primary data, since all the data would be taken directly from a primary source, in this respect, COCA (Corpus of Contemporary America). The data for this study would be collected using corpus based-study.

As what has been mentioned previously, a corpus is a collection of machine-readable, authentic text, samples, and representative of a particular language or language variety. Additionally, the word corpus was formed from a Greek word, corpora, meant as body. Corpus linguistics uses language naturally, whether it is spoken, academic, newspaper, magazine, fiction, etc. The characteristics of corpus make this study exploratory and interpretative in nature.

Recently, researchers have shown an increased interest in corpus based-study. There are some advantages by using corpus in doing a research, they are generate and verify new linguistics hypotheses, provide textual evidence in text-based humanities and social science subject, and testing existing linguistics theory and hypotheses. Moreover, a corpus can be more comprehensive and balance. A corpus, as well, is showing what is typical and common. It can store and recall all the information that has been stored in a short time, providing a real communication context as examples. Furthermore, it is giving more objective evidences and frequency of words.

1.5.2 Method and Technique of Collecting Data

The observation method is the best method to use within the study. Sudaryanto (1993: 133) proposed that “observation method means observing the language use”. Mahsun (2005: 90) stated that “the idea of this method is not just observing the language use orally, but also the use of language in written form”.

Considering the technique used in collecting the data, this study would adopt more the observation method proposed by Sudaryanto (1993: 133-135), since metaphorical expressions have something to do with a language use, and Mahsun (2005: 90) that showing written language is observed as well in a study, in this case using COCA as a data source. Therefore, the observation method and note-taking technique would be applied within the study. Additionally, as mentioned previously that the expressions picked from COCA are expressions that have target domain and source domain in them metaphorically.

Picture 1 – the concordance of the word “God” as the KWIC in COCA

This study uses a qualitative study approach to investigate whether or not there are metaphorical expressions related to God in COCA from 1000 data taken from it. In addition, the inductive approach would be applied in the study. The inductive approach was applied when supporting the theory applied on the data being analysed (Bungin, 2008: 28). Moreover, within the study, firstly the metaphorical expressions related to God would be found and analysed in order to support the theory of conceptual metaphor by Lakoff and Johnson (1980).

1.5.3 Method and Technique of Analyzing Data

Bungin (2008: 78) stated that “the methods of collecting data in qualitative research become and are also related with the method of analyzing data because after the data has been collected, essentially, the researchers have also stayed in step with analyzing the data.

Additionally, in analyzing the data, the method used was Content Analysis

(Bungin, 2008: 155-159). This Content Analysis has something to do with content of communication; in this respect are the metaphorical expressions related to God

found in COCA. Moreover, the Content Analysis covers the efforts of: classifying symbols used in the communication, using criteria in classifying, and employing particular analysis technique in analyzing.

Considering the characteristics of the data analyzed as the non-numerical data or qualitative data, therefore, the analysis of the data would be done by using descriptive qualitative analysis.

Chronologically, the technique of analyzing the data used in the study can be presented and done as bellow:

1. Firstly, the symbols used in the communication, in this case the metaphorical expressions related to God found in COCA would be identified. The identification of the symbols would be illuminated by using reading skill and applying the theory and method used.

2. After the identification of the symbols, then, the data would be categorized and described based on the conceptual metaphor types by applying the theory proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Kövecses (2002). 3. The next step would be done by revealing the meaning of the metaphorical

expressions found.

4. Finally, the result would be achieved and presented through Informal Method meaning that it is presented through words and sentences instead of using symbols (Sudaryanto, 1993: 145).

Moreover, in this present study, the method and technique of analyzing data would be led by firstly the Pragglejaz’s MIP (Metaphor Identification Procedure) (2007) and completed by the Steen’s five steeps (1999, 2009) in order to map the expression mentioned metaphorically by using the Steen’s formulas.

The methods following the process, in this section, would be divided into two main parts as an example of analyzing, since implicitly the first steep of the Steen’s five steeps consists of the Pragglejaz’s MIP. The aim is in order to make the analyzing process clear step by step. Otherwise, in the coming section of the analysis in this study, the process would be made shorter by applying the Steen’s five steeps only in order to keep the path of the analysis as transparent as possible and focusing on the mapping of the conceptual metaphor.

In order to result an analysis which is accurate and different from previous works in metaphorical expression, this present study as well considers top – down and bottom – up approach in the process of the data analysis. Working with top – down approach spent some times in order to look for some metaphorical concepts, as it is the first step of this approach. In addition, top – down approach would start the analysis from existing metaphorical concepts, analyzing them, and proving their existence in the use in the expressions. On the other hand, bottom – up approach goes through its analysis in an opposite way. Moreover, bottom – up approach considers metaphorical concepts, analyses them in order to find metaphorical concepts which perhaps are new from existing expressions or metaphorical expressions. Furthermore, these two approaches are used in this present study, depending on the result of the analysis, by mentioning them in the explanation following the analysis of the expressions picked from the COCA.

The Pragglejaz’s MIP (2007) proposes a procedure in order to identify and decide concerning to metaphorically used words in a context. The steps of the MIP can be applied by following these four steps.

1. Read the entire text – discourse to establish a general understanding of the meaning.

2. Determine the lexical units in the text – discourse.

3. a. For each lexical unit in the text, establish its meaning in context, that is, how it applies to an entity, relation, or attribute, in the situation evoked by the text (contextual meaning). Take into account what comes before and after the lexical unit.

b. For each lexical unit, determine if it has a more basic contemporary meaning in other contexts than the one in the given context. For our purpose, basic meanings tend to be;

- More concrete (what they evoke is easier to imagine, see, hear, feel, smell, and taste)

- Related to bodily action

- More precise (as opposed to vague) - Historically older

Basic meanings are not necessarily the most frequent meanings of the lexical unit.

c. If the lexical unit has a more basic current – contemporary meaning in other contexts than the given context, decide whether the

contextual meaning contrast with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it.

Now, a demonstration of a sentence using the MIP would be done. The sentence related to God was found in COCA from a magazine in 2000 under the title “Christian Century” that was written by Mark G. Toulouse.

“Faith can find God even while war rages”

In step 2, the sentence was identified using slashes in order to indicate the boundaries among the lexical units.

/ Faith / can / find / God / even / while / war / rages /

The discussion concerning the sentence was arrived in step 3 of the procedure. It was started from the beginning of the sentence and turned word by word in sequence. For each lexical unit, the outline of the decision was presented following each lexical unit and used a dictionary (discussed later) in order to reveal the meaning, and the final decision would be mentioned directly whether the unit is used metaphorically in the context of the sentence.

Faith

(a) Contextual meaning: in this context, the word “faith” indicates a noun which is a real noun. Otherwise, the word “faith” is an abstract noun that cannot do human activities / actions, such as; find. However, in this context, using of the verb phrase “can find” is showing that the word “faith” is acting likely a human.

(b) Basic meaning: according to Macmillan Dictionary, the noun phrase “faith” does mean strong belief in or trust of someone or something. On the other hand, as picked from Longman Dictionary, the meaning is supported as well as a strong feeling of trust or confidence in someone or something.

(c) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning and can be understood by comparison with it. Comparing the two meanings, contextual and basic meaning, gives an understanding that in the context, the noun phrase “faith” is described as creature or human having such a belief or trusting someone or something.

Metaphorically used? Yes.

can

(a) Contextual meaning: an auxiliary verb “can” in this context, is indicating an ability of doing something. In this case, the subject is able to find something. Additionally, it is showing that the subject knows how to do something.

(b) Basic meaning: according to Macmillan Dictionary, the auxiliary verb “can” means to have the ability or means to do something. On the other hand, it is mentioned as well that this “can” means to have the necessary ability, knowledge, money, or equipment to do something. According to Longman Dictionary, it is meant as to be able to do something or to know how to do something, in terms of ability.

(c) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning.

find

(a) Contextual meaning: in this context, the word “find” indicates a verb coming together with the meaning of to discover, to gain as the object of desire or effort, or to point out. In this case, to discover, to gain, or to point out the “God” itself.

(b) Basic meaning: according to Macmillan Dictionary, the verb phrase “find” is meant as to discover something, or to see where it is by searching for it. Supported by Longman Dictionary, it is meant as to discover, see, or get something that you have been searching for.

(c) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning. There is no comparison.

Metaphorically used? No.

God

(a) Contextual meaning: in this context, the word “God” indicates something thinkable physically to be discovered or found by the subject. Most of the cultures in the earth are describing the God as a light. In addition, Hinduism describes the God (their main God) as a light without picture and understanding of His appearance. At all cases, what should be found from the God prominently is His way, path, or understanding.

(b) Basic meaning: Macmillan Dictionary mentions that the word “God” basically means one of the male spirits or beings with special powers that people

in some religions believe in and worship. In addition, it is also captured as something that someone thinks is very important and allows to control their life. Similar as Macmillan, Longman Dictionary is as well stating the basic meaning of the word “God” as the spirit or being who Christians, Jews, Muslims etc pray to, and who they believe created the universe. Moreover, it is mentioning as well that a male spirit or being who is believed by some religions to control the world or part of it, or who represents a particular quality.

(c) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: implicitly, those meanings seem tend to have one perception. However, contextually, the word “God” is captured more than merely male or female spirit with special powers that someone in some religions believe in and worship. It is more than that. A good imaginative thinking will disclose it. It might be imaginary. In fact, that is the power of metaphor in this present study, related to God. It depends on how the stress is put and developed.

Metaphorically used? Yes.

even

(a) Contextual meaning: in this context, the adverb “even” indicates an implication of an extreme example in the case mentioned, as compared to the implied reality. In this case, there is a comparison of time between the subject (faith) finding something and another subject (war) does something.

(b) Basic meaning: Macmillan Dictionary has some statements according to the adverb “even”, they are used for showing that you are saying something that is surprising, used for adding a more extreme word or phrase to emphasize

what you have just said, and used for emphasizing that although something is big, good, bad etc, something else is bigger, better, worse etc. Supported by Longman Dictionary, the adverb “even” is meant as to be used to emphasize something that is unexpected or surprising in what you are saying.

(c) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: there is no any comparison found between the meanings. The contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning.

Metaphorically used? No.

while

(a) Contextual meaning: in this context, the conjunction “while” shows two things (finding God and war rages) are happening in the same time. This “while” indicates more than one thing happening during the same time.

(b) Basic meaning: found in Macmillan Dictionary, the conjunction “while” is meant as at a moment during the time that something is happening, or at the same time that something is happening. Borrowed by Longman Dictionary, this conjunction means as during the time that something is happening, or all the time that something is happening.

(c) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: The contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning.

war

(a) Contextual meaning: in this context, the noun phrase “war” indicates people who are in a great fight. On the other way, this “war” indicates a large – scale conflict between ethnic, or other groups. More deeply, this “war” is not showing literal meaning as mentioned in dictionaries. It acts as a figurative language as something thoughtful and has anger as a human being.

(b) Basic meaning: based on Macmillan Dictionary, this noun phrase “war” is stated as fighting between two or more countries that involves the use of armed forces and usually continues for a long time. On the other hand, Longman Dictionary mentions the meaning of this noun phrase as when there is a fighting between two or more countries or between opposing groups within a country, involving large numbers of soldiers and weapons.

(c) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: followed by the verb phrase “rages”, the meaning of this “war” does not merely stop in the basic meaning. There is another context that leads us to an understanding as “war” is not merely a condition, is a human, or group of humans, gather together, and do such a violent activities, in this respect is raging. Finally, the contextual meaning is not the same as the basic meaning, and can be understood by comparison with it.

Metaphorically used? Yes.

rages

(a) Contextual meaning: in this context, the verb phrase “rages” indicates a condition of being very violent, uncontrolled, and full of anger. The word “rage” in this sentence shows a movement with great violence as well, as a storm.

(b) Basic meaning: according to Macmillan Dictionary, the verb phrase “rage” does mean as a very strong feeling of anger, or violent behaviour in a public situation. For example, road rage is violent behaviour by drivers. Supported by Longman Dictionary, this “rage” does mean as a strong feeling of uncontrollable anger.

(c) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning. There is no any comparison found in the discourse.

Metaphorically used? No.

In summary of the process, 3 out of 8 lexical units are judged as being used metaphorically. In the previous process, the procedure using the Pragglejaz’s MIP was done step by step in order to show and describe how the procedure works and the decision made. Decisions must be made even though some words are used metaphorically in the expression, according to the contextual aspect.

Leaving the MIP a moment while keeping the procedures and the result in our mind, now as the second process of the present analysis, the Steen’s Five Steps would be introduced and demonstrated using the same sentence as the MIP demonstration did.

The second process would be enlightened by the Steen’s Five Steps. In these five steps, Steen (1999, 2009) proposes that “The procedure is meant to constrain the relation between linguistic and conceptual metaphor”. Additionally, the Steen’s Five Steps can be applied in analysing conceptual metaphor in the expressions and in order to find linguistics evidences. Surprisingly, these five steps can be an analyst’s weapon in the analysis whether using bottom – up

approach or top – down approach. Moreover, the top – down approach would presume the existing conceptual metaphor, in this respect, related to God, and searching for linguistic expressions as its evidences. On the other hand, the bottom – up approach has no specific conceptual metaphor to be followed and herein, the metaphor is identified before the conceptual mapping (see Krennmayr 2013: 7, 8). Finally, the Steen’s Five Steps (1999, 2009) are proposed as follow:

1. Metaphor focus identification 2. Metaphorical idea identification 3. Nonliteral comparison identification 4. Nonliteral analogy identification 5. Nonliteral mapping identification

As Steen (1999: 59) states that “Ultimately, the cognitive linguist has to begin with stretches of discourse and determine which linguistic expressions are metaphorical and related to which conceptual metaphors, and this is no trivial matter”. It indicates that in this procedure Steen considers the metaphorical analysis, as well from a cognitive linguistics perspective. In addition, the first point of the Steen’s Five Steps was revealed by concerning what Steen stated. It was named as “Metaphor focus identification”, since a line of discourse should be focused or prepared by knowing which linguistic expression in the discourse is metaphorically used. Moreover, another procedure, which is called as the MIP, re-enlightens the path of the thinking of this study. Considering that the aim between the MIP and the first step of the Steen’s Five Steps are similar which is to identify and make a decision in order to disclose and classify whether a lexical unit in a discourse or linguistics expression is being used metaphorically giving another

more complex and well-arranged procedure in order to properly work through this analysis.

Moving to the second step of the Steen’s Five Steps which is named as “Metaphorical idea identification”, it is the moment to pour more deeply idea of the result of the first identification in step 1. Steen (1999: 62) proposed that “What makes a focus into a focus is the fact that it expresses a concept which is to be related to another concept to which it cannot be applied in a literal fashion: 'riding on' cannot be literally applied to 'mermaids' doing something to 'waves', and 'the royal court' cannot be literally applied to 'lions'”. Moreover, Steen (1999: 62) proposed that “As these are general aspects of discourse analysis which are not limited to metaphor, and propositional analysis was specially designed to cater for them, it is now time to turn to propositional analysis”. Finally, the second step appears together with propositional analysis and classifies the result from step 1 into some propositions. The propositions are symbolized using the letter “P” with a number following after it. For instance, some propositions would be shown in the following (see Steen, 1999: 62).

“I have seen the mermaids riding seawards on the waves”. P1 (SEE P2)

P2 (RIDE-ON MERMAIDS WAVES) P3 (DIRECTION P2 SEAWARDS)

In step 3 (Nonliteral comparison identification), the analysis comes into a comparative structure (see Miller, 1993). Additionally, this third step is “highly mechanical” (Steen, 1999: 67). There are three re-write rules in this step 3, it is depending on the metaphor itself, whether it is nominal, verbal, or sentential (see

Semino et al, 2004). The framework of step 3 is mentioned in the following section. There are two versions of the framework. Both of them are introduced here.

1. The Steen’s Five Steps 1999 version

As an example, the sentence I have seen the mermaids riding seawards on the waves was taken from T.S. Eliot, The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock' as the result from the second step (see Steen, 1999: 60, 67; Semino et al, 2004: 1276).

(Ride-on Mermaids Waves) ̶> (ӠF) (Ӡy,y')

{SIM [F(Mermaids, Waves), Ride-on (y,y')]} Steen paraphrases this framework as follow: “There is an activity (or relation) F and two entities y and y ' such that there is a similarity between mermaids and waves ' doing F' on the one hand and y riding on y' on the other (1999: 67).

2. The Steen’s Five Steps 2009 version

The 1999 version and the 2009 version are similar in concept and practice. The one that makes them different is the second comparison happening. It depends on how many entities are being analysed. If in the 1999 version, there will be two entities waiting for the analysis. Otherwise, in another version, there is merely one entity being analysed. In the present study, the analysis would surely apply the 2009 version of the procedure. As the introduction, the 2009 version is mentioned as follow: (see Kreenmayr, 2013: 13)

Text: “Now sleeps the crimson petal” Step 3 (identification of open comparison):

SIM {ӠF, Ӡa

[F (Crimson petal)]t [Sleep (a)]}s

t= target domain s= source domain

Continuing to step 4 named as “Nonliteral analogy identification”. This step is highly interpretative, since it involves filling in the empty slots from the output of step 3 so as to arrive at a complete nonliteral analogy (borrowed from Semino et al, 2004: 1276). As Steen (1999: 68) proposed that “The fourth step handles the reconstruction of the complete nonliteral comparison statement by inferring the implied concepts for the empty slots”. Herein, how the two versions of the step are being applied following the reconstruction.

1. The Steen’s Five Steps 1999 version (see Steen, 1999: 67)

(RIDE-ON MERMAIDS WAVES) ̶> SIM[Float (Mermaids, Waves), Ride-on (Jockey, Horse)] In this interpretation and filling in the empty slots from step 3, there are two parts done in the analysis: the focus interpretation, whereby a literal expression replaces the metaphorical focus in the framework (in this respect Float is replacing F as the literal counterpart of Ride-on) and the vehicle identification, whereby some elements of the source domain are chosen based on the metaphorical focus to replace the empty slots represented by y and y’ (in this case Jockey and Horse

2. The Steen’s Five Steps 2009 version (see Kreenmayr, 2013: 13)

Step 4 (identification of analogical structure): SIM{[Be-inactive (Crimson petal)]t

[Sleep (Human)]}s

t= target domain s= source domain

Explicitly, the unknown concepts in the target domain and source domain represented by the letter F and a, are filled in by the target concept Be-inactive and the source concept Human based on the metaphorical focus intuitively.

The last but not least of the Steen’s Five Steps is step 5. This step is named as “Nonliteral mapping identification”. According to Steen (1999: 71), he states that “The last step in the procedure is to identify the complete nonliteral mapping. This is done by filling out the conceptual structure of the two sides of the nonliteral analogy, the source and the target domain”. For example of step 5, a metaphorical mapping done by Kreenmayr would be surprisingly led our path of thinking to a better understanding of the whole steps and framework (see Kreenmayr, 2013: 13, 14).

Step 5 (identification of cross-domain mapping): SLEEP > BE-INACTIVE

HUMAN > CRIMSON PETAL Inferences:

GOAL OF SLEEP > GOAL OF BE-INACTIVE

TIME OF SLEEP > TIME OF BE-INACTIVE: NIGHT

(SLEEP is mapped onto BE-INACTIVE and HUMAN is mapped onto CRIMSON PETAL).

A demonstration of the Steen’s Five Steps (the 2009 version) rises in the next part of this section in order to give a better understanding of the method used in the present study. In addition, this demonstration would be done as similar as working on the real data using the Steen’s Five Steps and top – down approach intuitively, instead of bottom – up approach. Moreover, in order to support the valid and trusted result, the use of some dictionaries would be enlightening the discussion. Finally, we come to the existing conceptual metaphor, in this case, the one that relates to God. The concept is GOD IS LOVE. The demonstration would be showing how the concept is followed and the evidence was found by using some supports from the Oxford Dictionary.

Text: Faith can find God even while war rages. Step 1: (using the Praglejazz’s MIP)

S1: Faith, God S2 : war

The sentence was found in COCA, with the word “God” as the KWIC (Key Word in Context). Herein, the sentence is a complex sentence; consist of two independent clauses, separated by the adverb “even” and the conjunction “while” as what was mentioned in the process of applying the MIP above. In addition, the letter “S” stands for sentence, since there are two sentences, so that “S1” and “S2” were picked as their names. Moreover, by using the Praglejazz’s MIP in the first step of the Steen’s Five Steps, the decisions were made and surprisingly it was found that two lexical units in the S1 and another lexical unit in S2 are metaphorically used. As a reminder that in this study, the metaphorical expression related to God would be emphasized and focused. To follow

permanently the scope of discussion mentioned in the previous chapter, the metaphorical unit “war” in the S2 is having its own process of the Steen’s Five Steps, instead of being combined with the focused matter.

Step 2:

S1: P1 (Faith, God) P2 (can, P1) S2: P1 (war, rage) P2 (Time P1 while)

In this step 2, the lexical units decided as metaphors were classified and categorized in propositions, symbolized as “P” followed by the number. Additionally, in this proposition, any verb or noun phrase is written as its infinitive form or singular form.

Step 3:

S1: SIM {ƷF, Ʒa [F (Faith)]t [God (a)]}s S2: SIM {ƷF, Ʒa

[F (rage)]t [war (a)]}s

In step 3, the propositions were worked mechanically by putting them in this “mathematical” formula as mentioned above in the demonstration. In addition, “SIM” stand for similarity, the letter “F” stands for the focus of the

metaphor being analyzed and “a” is taking the role as the empty slot that needs to be filled in by another metaphorical concept and will be discussed as another metaphorical mapping. Moreover, the target concept and source concept are shown by the subscript letters (t) and (s) .

Step 4:

S1: SIM

[Love (Faith)] [God (Human)]}

S2: SIM

[Be-very violent (War)] [Rage (Fighting people)]}

In this step 4, it is such an interpretative step of the steps. There are interpretations done and would be the future mapping in step 5. In addition, the empty slots in step 3 were being filled in by some concepts. Straight to the rule, the meaning of the noun phrase or lexical unit “God” in Oxford Dictionary is meant as person or thing that is greatly admired or loved. Therefore, in S1, the letter “F” was replaced by LOVE as the basic meaning mentioned by the dictionary and contextually, the meaning is believable that it can deliver the context nicely. Moreover, another noun phrase in S1, “Faith” intuitively was replaced by human contextually. Furthermore, in S2, the letter “F” was replaced by BE-VERY VIOLENT as the basic meaning of “Rage” mentioned in the Macmillan Dictionary as a very strong feeling of anger, or violent behaviour in a public situation. Therefore, the “BE-VERY VIOLENT” was choosen to fulfill the

empty slot in “F”. finally, the noun phrase “war” was replaced by FIGHTING PEOPLE, as it is mentioned in Longman Dictionary, war is fighting between two or more countries or between opposing groups within a country, involving large numbers of soldiers and weapons. Therefore, the FIGHTING PEOPLE was believed that it can fulfill the slot.

Step 5:

S1: GOD > LOVE S2: RAGE > BE-VERY VIOLENT FAITH > HUMAN WAR > FIGHTING PEOPLE Inferences:

S1: Finding God > Finding Love S2: Being Rage > Being Very Violent Having Faith > Being Human War > Fighting People

We arrived at the end of the process; it is in step 5. Four decisions were picked as the result of the process. And, in addition, the concepts were re-described in the inferences part as the extension of the mapping. This analysis path proposed the evidence of the conceptual metaphor, exist in the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses (Genesis 24:12, 14, 24:27, 32:10, 39:21, Exodus 15:13, 34:6), it is GOD IS LOVE. Moreover, the result proposes that “God” is mapped onto “Love”, “Faith” is mapped onto “Human”, “Rage” is mapped onto “Being Very Violent”, and “War” is mapped onto “Fighting People”. Therefore, the preceding conceptual metaphor, GOD IS LOVE is proven correct and still used nowadays as a conceptual metaphor (living metaphor). Furthermore, the future analysis would be done as what has been experienced in the demonstration of the Steen’s Five Steps.

Last but not least of how the data would be analyzed in the present study, some questions would be proposed in order to reveal and prove the correspondences of target and source domains in the discourse being analyzed. The questions are stated as real world knowledge (see Ahrens 2010: 7, 9, 10). The using of these questions to disclose the metaphorical concept in the discourse departs from Lakoff and Johnson statement (1980:3) that “Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature”. Therefore, there is a link between these real world knowledge questions and the theory used in this present study. The questions being used merely in structural metaphor are mentioned as the following;

The real world knowledge [proposed to the source domain found]

1. What entities does the source domain have?

2. What qualities does the source domain or the entities in the source domain have?

3a. What does the source domain do?

b. What can someone do to or in the source domain?

The real world knowledge [matching up the actual mappings/ correspondences that exist between the target and source domain of a metaphorical concept]

1. What entities does the source domain have that are mapped to the target domain?

2. What qualities does the source domain or the entity in the source domain have that are mapped to the target domain?

3a. What does the source domain do that is mapped to the target domain?

b. What can someone do to (or in) the source domain that is mapped to the target

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Review of Literatures

In order to provide more knowledge on metaphor, it is precisely important to reconsider several studies including undergraduate theses and national journal having been conducted previously correlated with the topic of metaphor.

Pramasari (1998) in her undergraduate thesis entitled “English Metaphorical Expressions and Their Equivalence in Indonesia”, the metaphorical expressions found in novel Bloodline were picked up as the data in the analysis. In contrast, the present study would use a corpus, in this case COCA as the data source. Additionally, in the same manner, she applied the theory of conceptual metaphor by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and supported by the three types of conceptual metaphor, as well as the present study would examine. Within the undergraduate thesis, Pramasari (1998) was using a novel that so many researchers use in their research, however the present study would be using COCA that provide more update data. Moreover, Pramasari (1998) had not examined the novel in the terms of the three types of the conceptual metaphor. Therefore, the desire and concern to be deeper in the three types of the conceptual metaphor are increasing till the peak of them. It is going to be a further study about metaphorical expressions followed by those three types.

Another undergraduate thesis of metaphor study done previously by Dewi (2008) is under the title “The Translation of Metaphors in the Da Vinci Code

Novel by Dan Brown into Indonesian”. Similar like the first undergraduate thesis by Pramasari (1998), the undergraduate thesis by Dewi (2008) used a novel entitled Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown in her study. In her study, she applied a theory of Larson in order to translate the metaphorical expressions found in the novel. In seeking the meaning and the translation of the metaphorical expressions, she found that the metaphorical expressions were most translated into simile by using like or as. In addition, Dewi’s (2008) study had not analysed the three types of the conceptual metaphor. Dewi (2008) in her study should apply the theory of metaphor by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) in order to reveal the meaning of the metaphor and enrich the analysis of her study in translation of the expressions. Moreover, the present study would take this chance in order to disclose the meaning of the metaphorical expression by applying the conceptual metaphor proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), the three types of conceptual metaphors completed by Kövecses (2002; 2005), and powered by Lakoff (1987; 1993).

A latest study in relation to metaphor, the topic of the present study as well, was accomplished by Primahadi Wijaya (2009) entitled “Metaphorical Expressions in the Songs by My Chemical Romance: a Semantic Analysis”. In the same manner, the topic discussed in Primahadi’s (2009) undergraduate thesis is the same with the topic in the present study; it is metaphorical expressions and the three conceptual metaphors proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), taken from

Metaphors We Live By, namely Structural, Orientational, and Ontological Metaphor. In addition, he picked up the data from the 12 chosen songs by My Chemical Romance as its data source. However, the present study would pick up the data from a corpus, COCA, as its data source that enriches the data of the

study by updated and huge words and sentences collection. Therefore, it could be a great turning point in applying a corpus used in a study in order to find the data, in this case the metaphorical expressions related to God.

Moreover, all those three studies are considered to be relevant since they have the same basis of theory with the present study, give more understanding in how to conduct the analysis to metaphorical expressions of conceptual metaphor and elaborating and expanding the analysis. They, then, enlighten the present study in order to find and determine the aspects of metaphor having not been analysed yet.

Reviewing an article from one of the international journals, in this respect related to metaphor seems relevant for having a wider knowledge and understanding about metaphor. Bailey (2003) applied the theory of conceptual metaphor and its use in language teaching and the study of literary text, in his article entitled “Conceptual Metaphor, Language, Literature, and Pedagogy”, as an article in Journal of Language and Learning Volume 1/2. He proposed that the importance of “metaphoric competence” (Low, 1988, see Bailey, 2003: 1) as an element of awareness and knowledge in language use. Moreover, the “metaphoric competence” focuses on alerting learners (L2) to the presence and effects of conventional metaphor and pedagogical approaches to achieving this in ELT contexts (Low, 1988, see Bailey, 2003: 6). Furthermore, it shows that the theory of conceptual metaphor can be applied in a process of language teaching and give some preview in this case about Poetic Metaphor theory that is the basis theory of the present study.

Considering the three undergraduate theses and an article of a national journal gives a better and wider understanding about the metaphor itself and in how to do the analysis. Additionally, the reviews show that the topic, in this case metaphor has so wide range of study and can be applied in a lot of data sources. As Lakoff (1993: 202) shows how, in the past, research into metaphorical expression was mainly concerned with merely literary works. Moreover, Lakoff and Johnson (1980:3) states that “Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature”. This brings the researcher to the enlightened way that metaphorical expressions are used in daily language. By using COCA, the study would be more complete since COCA provides a lot of samples of language used naturally in the world.

2.2 Concepts

The concepts of the study being discussed are other important vehicles in order to drop readers to the destination of the study and pass all over the main way. Hence, there are two fundamental concepts described, they are: the concepts of metaphor and conceptual metaphor and the concepts of metaphorical expression.

2.2.1 The Concepts of Metaphor and Conceptual Metaphor

According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 3), metaphor is “pervasive in everyday life, not only in language, but also in thought and action.” Additionally, they proposed that “the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing

one kind of thing in terms of another” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 5). Moreover, Lakoff (1993: 203) stated that “the locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualise one mental domain in terms of another.”

On the other hand, Kövecses (2002: 4) proposed that “metaphor is defined as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain.” Simply, in order to understand what proposed by Kövecses (2002: 4), CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (1) IS CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (2). This is what is called as a Conceptual Metaphor (Kövecses, 2002: 4). A conceptual metaphor has two conceptual domains. The conceptual domains from which the metaphorical expressions are drawn to understand another conceptual domain is called as

source domain (e.g. JOURNEY), while the conceptual domain being understood this way is the target domain (e.g. LIFE) (Kövecses, 2002: 4). For instance, an example for the domains is LIFE IS A JOURNEY. This is achieved by means of a set of fixed conceptual correspondences of source domain and target domain referred to as mappings (Kövecses, 2002: 6; Lakoff, 1993: 207).

2.2.2 The Concepts of Metaphorical Expression

The term of Metaphorical Expressions is the linguistic expressions (words, phrases, or sentences) being the surface realisations or manifestations of the cross domain mapping or of the underlying conceptual metaphors (this is what the word

metaphor referred to in the old theory) (Lakoff, 1993: 203; Kövecses, 2002: 29). For instance, “You make my blood boil” (Lakoff, 1987: 383). The example is the concept of the ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER conceptual metaphor.

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 6-7) stated that “metaphors as linguistic expressions are possible precisely because there are metaphors in a person’s conceptual system.” In addition, Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 7) as well proposed that “metaphorical linguistic expressions can be used to study the nature of metaphorical concepts and to gain an understanding of the metaphorical nature of people’s activities.”

2.3 Theoretical Framework

In this study, the bases of the theory applied in analysing the problem would be taken from the conceptual metaphor proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), completed with Kövecses (2002; 2005), and supported by Lakoff (1987; 1993). Since they clearly share similar understanding on metaphor, they are all the sun of the study that enlightens the analysis during the process. Additionally, Metaphorical Identification Procedure would be applied as well in order to support the analysis of the meaning identification of the metaphorical expressions found.

2.3.1 Kinds of Metaphor

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) suggested that in English Language, there are three types of conceptual metaphor, namely structural metaphor, orientational metaphor, and ontological metaphor. The efforts in discussing the three types are presented as below.

2.3.1.1 Structural Metaphor

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 3-9) stated that “structural metaphor is that one case where one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another.” In order to understand how this type being used, let consider the structural metaphor TIME IS MONEY as below:

1. Who do you need to start spending more time with? (Warren, 2002: 128)

2. We must prove it by investing time in them. (Warren, 2002: 127) 3. You’re running out of time. (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 8) 4. Why did I waste so much time? (Warren, 2002: 51)

From the previous examples, it can be seen that there is a switch of position between time and money metaphorically. Additionally, the metaphorical concepts TIME IS MONEY, TIME IS INVESTMENT, TIME IS VALUABLE COMMODITY could be proposed. Moreover, this type of the conceptual metaphor is as well working on LIFE IS A JOURNEY (We’ll just have to go our separate ways), TIME IS A MOVING OBJECT (The time for action has arrived), IDEAS ARE FOOD (I can’t digest all these facts), LOVE IS A RAPTURE (I’m

drunk with love), etc. In the further study, there will be discussions about

Metaphorical Highlighting and Utilisation (Kövecses, 2002: 79-91), and Even Structure Metaphor (Lakoff, 1993: 217).

2.3.1.2 Orientational Metaphor

Being different with structural metaphor, the term called as the orientational metaphor holds the regard as the understanding that one concept

organises a whole system of concept with respect to the other one (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 14) proposed that “orientational metaphor refers to spatial orientation like: up-down, in-out, front-back, on-off, deep-shallow, central-peripheral arising from the fact that people have bodies of the sort they have and do in our physical environment.” The examples can be considered as below.

A. HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN

I’m feeling up (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15). I fell into depression (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15). B. CONSCIOUS IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN

Wake up (Kövecses, 2002: 36).

He sank into a coma (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15).

C. HEALTH AND LIFE ARE UP; SICKNESS AND DEATH ARE DOWN He’s in top shape (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15).

He dropped dead (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15). D. MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN

My income rose last year (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 16). He is underage (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 16).

2.3.1.3 Ontological Metaphor

2.3.1.3.1 ENTITY and SUBSTANCE METAPHOR

As what Lakoff and Johnson (1980) stated about ontological metaphor that “like what the basic experience of human spatial orientations lead to orientational

metaphors, so human’s experiences with physical objects (especially our own bodies) provide the basis for an extraordinary wide variety of ontological metaphors, that is, ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc., as entities and substances.”

Fundamentally, Kövecses (2002: 34) proposed that “ontological metaphors provide much less cognitive structuring for target concepts than structural ones do. Their cognitive job seems to be to ‘merely’ give an ontological status to general categories of abstract target concepts, this simply means that we conceive of our experiences in terms of objects, substances, and containers, in general. The kinds of experiences that require this the most are those that are not clearly delineated, vague, or abstract.”

Let now turn to the examples of this type of the conceptual metaphor briefly. Herein, the noun Inflation is considered as the target domain of the metaphorical expressions, with the metaphorical concept INFLATION IS ENTITY.

1. We need to combat inflation (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 26). 2. Inflation makes me sick (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 26).

Viewing inflation as an entity allows someone to refer to it, quantify it,

identify a particular aspect of it, see it as a cause, act with respect to it, and perhaps even believe we understand it (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 26).

2.3.1.3.2 CONTAINER METAPHOR (Land Areas; the Visual Field; Events, Actions, Activities, and States)

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 29) suggested a theory about container metaphor that “We are physical beings, bounded and set off from the rest of the world by the surface of our skins, and we experience the rest of the world as outside us. It means that each of us is a container with an in-out orientation and we project our in-out orientation to other physical objects bounded by surfaces as well. Thus we also view them as containers with an inside and an outside.”

Something that is without physical boundaries can also be viewed as defining containers by means of imposing boundaries so that it has an inside and a bounding surface, whether a wall, a fence, or an abstract line or plane (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 29). In addition, substance, such as water, can also be regarded as containers, specifically as a CONTAINER SUBSTANCE (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 29-30). Moreover, metaphorically, events and actions are conceptualised as objects, activities as substances, states as containers (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 31). The following are some examples for this type:

1. Was John in Marry’s birthday party last week? (Birthday party as CONTAINER OBJECT)

2. I could not come to her birthday party (Birthday as OBJECT)

3. In her birthday party, there were a lot of funs (Fun as SUBSTANCES in a CONTAINER).

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 35) state that “personifications are the extensions of ontological metaphors, where the physical object is further specified as being a person.” In personification terms, something non-human is said as something having human motivations, characteristics, and activities (Primahadi, 2009: 26). For instance, the examples below can be considered as personifications.

1. The truth will set you free (Warren, 2002: 191).

2. Many people are driven by materialism (Warren, 2002: 29).

3. Inflation has attacked the foundation of our economy (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 33).

4. Inflation has robbed me of my savings (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 33).

2.3.2 Metaphorical Identification Procedure

Metaphor identification procedure (MIP) is a method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. It can be used to recognize metaphors in spoken and written language. Mainly intended for scholars, it can be helpful in empirical research. The procedure aims to determine the relationship of a particular lexical unit in the discourse and recognize its use in a particular context as possibly as metaphorical. Since many words can be considered metaphorical in different contexts, MIP requires a clear distinction between words that convey metaphorical meaning and those that do not, despite the fact that language generally differs in the degrees of metaphoricity.

In addition, a group of scholars called Pragglejaz started the Pragglejaz procedure in 2007, and elaborated on a detailed method of identifying metaphors.

Note that this method does not deal with an author's possible intention to express metaphorical meanings, and does not identify metaphorical utterances and conventional linguistic metaphors. It also does not indicate ordinary procedures people use to determine metaphors or exclude other possible non-literalness.

2.3.1.1 Structural Metaphor

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 3-9) stated that “structural metaphor is that one case where one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another.” In order to understand how this type being used, let consider the structural metaphor TIME IS MONEY as below:

1. Who do you need to start spending more time with? (Warren, 2002: 128)

2. We must prove it by investing time in them. (Warren, 2002: 127) 3. You’re running out of time. (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 8) 4. Why did I waste so much time? (Warren, 2002: 51)

From the previous examples, it can be seen that there is a switch of position between time and money metaphorically. Additionally, the metaphorical concepts TIME IS MONEY, TIME IS INVESTMENT, TIME IS VALUABLE COMMODITY could be proposed. Moreover, this type of the conceptual metaphor is as well working on LIFE IS A JOURNEY (We’ll just have to go our separate ways), TIME IS A MOVING OBJECT (The time for action has arrived), IDEAS ARE FOOD (I can’t digest all these facts), LOVE IS A RAPTURE (I’m drunk with love), etc. In the further study, there will be discussions about Metaphorical Highlighting and Utilisation (Kövecses, 2002: 79-91), and Even Structure Metaphor (Lakoff, 1993: 217).

2.3.1.2 Orientational Metaphor

Being different with structural metaphor, the term called as the orientational metaphor holds the regard as the understanding that one concept

organises a whole system of concept with respect to the other one (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 14) proposed that “orientational metaphor refers to spatial orientation like: up-down, in-out, front-back, on-off, deep-shallow, central-peripheral arising from the fact that people have bodies of the sort they have and do in our physical environment.” The examples can be considered as below.

A. HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN

I’m feeling up (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15). I fell into depression (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15). B. CONSCIOUS IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN

Wake up (Kövecses, 2002: 36).

He sank into a coma (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15).

C. HEALTH AND LIFE ARE UP; SICKNESS AND DEATH ARE DOWN He’s in top shape (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15).

He dropped dead (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 15). D. MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN

My income rose last year (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 16). He is underage (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 16).

2.3.1.3 Ontological Metaphor

2.3.1.3.1 ENTITY and SUBSTANCE METAPHOR

As what Lakoff and Johnson (1980) stated about ontological metaphor that “like what the basic experience of human spatial orientations lead to orientational

metaphors, so human’s experiences with physical objects (especially our own bodies) provide the basis for an extraordinary wide variety of ontological metaphors, that is, ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc., as entities and substances.”

Fundamentally, Kövecses (2002: 34) proposed that “ontological metaphors provide much less cognitive structuring for target concepts than structural ones do. Their cognitive job seems to be to ‘merely’ give an ontological status to general categories of abstract target concepts, this simply means that we conceive of our experiences in terms of objects, substances, and containers, in general. The kinds of experiences that require this the most are those that are not clearly delineated, vague, or abstract.”

Let now turn to the examples of this type of the conceptual metaphor briefly. Herein, the noun Inflation is considered as the target domain of the metaphorical expressions, with the metaphorical concept INFLATION IS ENTITY.

1. We need to combat inflation (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 26). 2. Inflation makes me sick (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 26).

Viewing inflation as an entity allows someone to refer to it, quantify it, identify a particular aspect of it, see it as a cause, act with respect to it, and perhaps even believe we understand it (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 26).

2.3.1.3.2 CONTAINER METAPHOR (Land Areas; the Visual Field; Events, Actions, Activities, and States)

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 29) suggested a theory about container metaphor that “We are physical beings, bounded and set off from the rest of the world by the surface of our skins, and we experience the rest of the world as outside us. It means that each of us is a container with an in-out orientation and we project our in-out orientation to other physical objects bounded by surfaces as well. Thus we also view them as containers with an inside and an outside.”

Something that is without physical boundaries can also be viewed as defining containers by means of imposing boundaries so that it has an inside and a bounding surface, whether a wall, a fence, or an abstract line or plane (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 29). In addition, substance, such as water, can also be regarded as containers, specifically as a CONTAINER SUBSTANCE (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 29-30). Moreover, metaphorically, events and actions are conceptualised as objects, activities as substances, states as containers (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 31). The following are some examples for this type:

1. Was John in Marry’s birthday party last week? (Birthday party as CONTAINER OBJECT)

2. I could not come to her birthday party (Birthday as OBJECT)

3. In her birthday party, there were a lot of funs (Fun as SUBSTANCES in a CONTAINER).

Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 35) state that “personifications are the extensions of ontological metaphors, where the physical object is further specified as being a person.” In personification terms, something non-human is said as something having human motivations, characteristics, and activities (Primahadi, 2009: 26). For instance, the examples below can be considered as personifications.

1. The truth will set you free (Warren, 2002: 191).

2. Many people are driven by materialism (Warren, 2002: 29).

3. Inflation has attacked the foundation of our economy (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 33).

4. Inflation has robbed me of my savings (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 33).

2.3.2 Metaphorical Identification Procedure

Metaphor identification procedure (MIP) is a method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. It can be used to recognize metaphors in spoken and written language. Mainly intended for scholars, it can be helpful in empirical research. The procedure aims to determine the relationship of a particular lexical unit in the discourse and recognize its use in a particular context as possibly as metaphorical. Since many words can be considered metaphorical in different contexts, MIP requires a clear distinction between words that convey metaphorical meaning and those that do not, despite the fact that language generally differs in the degrees of metaphoricity.

In addition, a group of scholars called Pragglejaz started the Pragglejaz procedure in 2007, and elaborated on a detailed method of identifying metaphors.

Note that this method does not deal with an author's possible intention to express metaphorical meanings, and does not identify metaphorical utterances and conventional linguistic metaphors. It also does not indicate ordinary procedures people use to determine metaphors or exclude other possible non-literalness.