Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmet20
Download by: [71.58.93.76] Date: 20 April 2016, At: 10:16
Metaphor and Symbol
ISSN: 1092-6488 (Print) 1532-7868 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmet20
Spatial Metaphors for Morality: A Perspective from
Chinese
Ning Yu
To cite this article: Ning Yu (2016) Spatial Metaphors for Morality: A Perspective from Chinese,
Metaphor and Symbol, 31:2, 108-125, DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2016.1150763
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150763
Published online: 20 Apr 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Spatial Metaphors for Morality: A Perspective from Chinese
Ning Yu
The Pennsylvania State University
ABSTRACT
This study aims to contribute to the research on spatial metaphors for
morality from the perspective of Chinese. It outlines the linguistic patterns
in Chinese that manifest the putative underlying spatial subsystem of moral
metaphors, which can be summarized by a central metaphor “MORALITY IS
SPATIALITY.” In doing so, it focuses on 17 spatial words that instantiate in
real-life discourses five pairs of moral–spatial metaphors in their positive
and negative valence. The total of 10 metaphors under study forms a
cluster as the spatial metaphor subsystem operating in conjunction and
connection with other metaphor subsystems in our moral cognition. It is
suggested that the 10 conceptual metaphors emerge from four image
schemas: UP-DOWN, BALANCE, PATH, and OBJECT. A unified schematic
configuration is proposed to lay out the spatial elements and relations
represented by the four image schemas in a single diagram. Based on its
linguistic analysis, the study also provides a list of prototypical target
aspects of MORAL and IMMORAL onto which the source concepts of the
10 moral–spatial metaphors are mapped. The list reflects a division of labor,
although with some overlaps, among the 10 metaphors under study.
Finally, the study conducts a decompositional analysis of two moral–spatial
metaphors as examples showing how deeper analyses of metaphors can be
achieved.
Metaphor is a powerful cognitive tool for understanding abstract social concepts (Landau, Meier, &
Keefer, 2010; Landau, Robinson, & Meier, 2014). One of such concepts is morality, concerning our
judgments and decisions on human character, behavior, or action in social life that distinguish
between right and wrong, or good and evil, especially in enhancing human wellbeing. In the past
decades, Cognitive Linguistics has argued that our moral cognition is largely metaphorical, emerging
in part from a complex system of conceptual metaphors for the understanding of moral principles
and values (Johnson, 1993, 2014; Lakoff, 2002; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, Ch. 14). That is, our moral
thinking or abstract thinking in general is imaginative in nature, depending in a fundamental way on
conceptual metaphors grounded in our embodied and socioculturally situated experience in the
world (see, e.g., Gibbs, 1999, 2006; Kövecses, 2005, 2015; Yu, 2009, 2015a). Thus, morality and
immorality are conceptualized metaphorically in terms of some common contrastive categories in
our bodily experience in physical environment (e.g., healthy and sick, strong and weak, light and
dark, clean and dirty, pure and impure, and high and low). This claim, framed within conceptual
metaphor theory (see, e.g., Gibbs, 1994, 2014; Kövecses, 2005, 2010, 2015; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999,
2003), has inspired a growing body of research on the metaphorical nature of moral cognition in
various research fields (see, e.g., Campbell, 2013; Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993; Haidt, Rozin,
MaCauley, & Imada, 1997; Landau et al., 2010; Lee & Schwarz, 2010; Lizardo, 2012; Massengill,
2008; Meier & Robinson, 2004; Meier, Robinson, & Clore, 2004; Meier, Robinson, Crawford, &
Ahlvers, 2007; Sheikh, Botindari, & White, 2013; Sherman & Clore, 2009; Zhong & House, 2014;
CONTACT Ning Yu ningyu@psu.edu Department of Applied Linguistics, The Pennsylvania State University, 304 Sparks
Building, University Park, PA 16802.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL
2016, VOL. 31, NO. 2, 108–125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150763
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
Zhong & Liljenquist, 2006). This body of literature, much of which applies experimental and other
empirical research methods, contributes to the understanding of functions and operations of
conceptual metaphors from areas of study other than linguistics.
The research on the metaphorical character of moral cognition has so far, however, been focused
on the English language. This study is part of my attempt to contribute a Chinese perspective on
moral imagination through metaphor. To this end, my primary task is to find out what Kövecses
(2010) calls the range of source concepts for moral metaphors in Chinese. My preliminary analysis of
linguistic data suggests that the moral metaphor system in Chinese is quite complex, consisting of
some subsystems as clusters of conceptual metaphors with source concepts from different domains
of physical experiences. For one study I have done (Yu, 2015b), I focused on one particular
subsystem of metaphors grounded especially in our visual experiences, specifically in terms of
color, light, clarity, cleanness, and purity. For the present study, I focus on the one that converges
on a cluster of conceptual metaphors with source concepts coming from the spatial domain.
Humans often depend on their ability to recruit spatial concepts and schemas for non-spatial,
abstract tasks because abstract cognition is built on the indispensable foundation of spatial cognition
and the spatial domain is an appropriate and appealing platform for higher cognitive processes
(Casasanto, 2010; Gattis, 2001). This is also why cognitive scientists in general and cognitive linguists
in particular have long treated spatial metaphors as a central topic in the study of abstract thought
and embodied cognition (e.g., Cienki, 1998; Dirven & Taylor, 1988; Gibbs, 1994, 2006; Heine, 1997;
King, 1988; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, 2003; Radden, 1995; Yu, 1998). It is spatial metaphors that help
us understand and reason about abstract domains through mental representation or configuration of
spatial structures that lay out their elements and relations in terms of spatial orientations, dimensions,
and arrays. Space is relational, and therefore benefits relational reasoning about abstract
structures and concepts on the basis of spatial relations and configurations. Because of its central
role in human cognition, studies of spatial metaphor are found in various disciplines such as
communication (Bromme & Stahl, 1999; Peltola & Saresma, 2014; Tversky, 2011), literature
(Brown, 2006; Davies, 2004; Halloran-Bessy, 2009), psychology (Austin, 2013; Lakens, 2012; Lynott
& Coventry, 2014; Meier & Robinson, 2004; Meier, Ronbinson, & Caven, 2008; Reed, 2003; Schubert,
2005; Shayan, Ozturk, Bowerman, & Majid, 2014; Stites & Özçalişkan, 2013), and social studies
(Bourk & Holland, 2014; Cuervo & Wyn, 2014; Giessner & Schubert, 2007; Silvera, Josephs, &
Giesler, 2002).
For this study, I investigate a metaphor subsystem for morality based on spatial conceptualization
of moral constructs in Chinese. This subsystem can be summarized by a central metaphor:
“MORALITY IS SPATIALITY.” In the second section, I first lay out the major spatial concepts
engaged in this moral metaphor subsystem as source concepts, presenting a schematic configuration
of how these spatial concepts are related to each other in pairs of valence mapped onto their
respective target concepts MORAL and IMMORAL. This is a linguistic study. In the third section,
therefore, I outline the linguistic patterns which manifest the putative metaphorical mappings at the
conceptual level. I then take a deeper look at the linguistic evidence in the fourth section. The final
section is a brief conclusion.
Spatial concepts in moral metaphors
Spatial concepts and schemas have long been engaged in moral thinking and reasoning in Chinese
thought, and this has left behind abundant traces in the Chinese language. In The Analects of Confucius,
for example, Confucius (551–479 BC) said, “七十而从心所欲, 不逾矩,” meaning “At seventy, I can
follow my heart’s desire, without transgressing what is right,” where “transgressing what is right” is
literally “crossing over the square.” That is, there is a metaphorical mapping from “square,” a shape in
space, onto the “moral (and legal) boundaries within which one is supposed to stay socially.” According
to HYDCD (p. 1970), 矩 jŭ “square” has the following three relevant senses, extended from the concrete
to the abstract: (1) the tool with which the shape of square is drawn (the primary meaning); (2) the
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 109
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
shape of square drawn with it (a metonymic extension); (3) moral standard, established norm, rule, law,
and so on (a metaphoric extension). In the Chinese language today, the compound word 规矩 guīju,
whose two components separately mean “compasses/dividers” and “square” as tools and “circle” and
“square” as shapes, means: (1) rule, established practice, or custom; (2) well-behaved, well-disciplined,
or honest. In other words, the tools of compasses and square and shapes of circle and square are
metaphorically mapped onto “rules” which regulate human behavior with “moral boundaries,” and
onto “morally good behavior” following socially established norms and standards. Such metaphorical
senses of “circle” and “square” are also highlighted in the old saying attributed to Mencius (ca 372–289
BC), the best known Confucian after Confucius himself, when he said, “不以规矩, 不能成方圆 (lit.
Squares and circles cannot be drawn without the compasses and square),” meaning “Nothing can be
accomplished without norms or standards.” Social norms and standards are established according to the
moral values and principles of a society. The metaphorical meaning, however, is grounded in the shapes
of circle and square. In fact, the shapes of circle and square carry special significance in Chinese
civilization, where ancient Chinese thought conceptualizes the heaven as being round and the earth as
being square (天圆地方 tiānyuán dìfāng). As prototypical shapes, circle and square are indeed good
spatial symbols for unity and regularity: A circle has equal distance (radius) from its center to any point
on its circular boundary; a square has all its four corners at equal degree (90° right angle) and all its four
sides at equal length. They are therefore shapes of balance and equality, which are concepts important to
an ideal harmonious society, with fair legal systems and sound moral standards.
As the historical examples above show, moral–spatial metaphors have existed in Chinese thought
and language for a long time, and can be traced back to the times of Confucius and Mencius and
much further. How do they fare today? This study investigates spatial metaphors as manifested in
Chinese moral talk. In the remainder of this section, I lay out the major spatial concepts involved in
moral metaphors and present a schematic configuration of them so that they are related to one
another in a systematic way.
Table 1 lists the major spatial source concepts in five pairs for the contrast in valence between
MORAL and IMMORAL as their target concepts, along with the corresponding conceptual metaphors
to be studied in this article. It is worth stressing that the spatial concepts listed therein are
major ones involved in moral–spatial metaphors. There may still be other minor ones utilized in
such metaphorical mappings.
Schematically, the configuration of spatial concepts, both orientational and dimensional ones, can
be illustrated as in Figure 1 (A and B). The figure is meant to show the image schemas of the spatial
concepts involved and how they are related to one another in a system. Image schemas are schematic
abstractions of recurring dynamic patterns of our perceptual interactions and motor programs that
give coherence and structures to our experience while emerging from our bodily experience and
constantly operating in our perceptual interaction, bodily movement through space, and physical
manipulation of objects (Johnson, 1987).
In Figure 1A, one vertical line (ab) and one horizontal line (cd) cross each other at point (g)
forming a perpendicular relation between them. A third slanting line (ef) also runs through
point (g). The vertical line is divided by the horizontal line into the upper and lower halves. Its
upper half (ag) is mapped onto morally positive valence, that is, “MORAL IS HIGH,” in contrast
with its lower half (gb), which is inherently negative, that is, “IMMORAL IS LOW.” Also, there is
a contrast in valence between line (ag) and line (eg): the former is positive because it is upright,
Table 1. The subsystem of moral metaphors derived from spatial concepts.
Targets MORAL IMMORAL Conceptual metaphors
Sources HIGH LOW “MORAL IS HIGH” “IMMORAL IS LOW”
UPRIGHT TILTED “MORAL IS UPRIGHT” “IMMORAL IS TILTED”
LEVEL UNLEVEL “MORAL IS LEVEL” “IMMORAL IS UNLEVEL”
STRAIGHT CROOKED “MORAL IS STRAIGHT” “IMMORAL IS CROOKED”
BIG SMALL “MORAL IS BIG” “IMMORAL IS SMALL”
110 N. YU
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
hence “MORAL IS UPRIGHT,” whereas the latter, which is tilted or slanted, is negative in
valence, namely “IMMORAL IS TILTED” (or “IMMORAL IS SLANTED”).
As for the horizontal line (cd), it is also mapped positively onto morality because it is level, that is,
“MORAL IS LEVEL,” in contrast with the unlevel line (ef) or (cge), which is negative, that is,
“IMMORAL IS UNLEVEL.” Note that “LEVEL” here refers to a horizontal line “that is straight and
has both ends at the same height.” According to this criterion, line (ef) is not level because it is
inclined to one side, forming a slope down toward the left. Line (cge) is not level, either, because it is
not straight, with a bend at point (g), and its two ends are not at the same height.
In fact, any single line that is bent into a crook, for instance, line (age) or (dge), is mapped
negatively onto immorality, that is, “IMMORAL IS CROOKED,” in contrast in valence with a straight
line, that is, “MORAL IS STRAIGHT. Note that “STRAIGHT” here has to meet two relevant criteria:
(a) not bent, and (b) level or upright. With criterion (a), a straight line is simply the shortest distance
between any two points disregarding its environment. Criterion (b), however, is dependent on the
spatial context in which a straight line is situated. In Figure 1A, lines (ag) and (cgd) are straight
because these two are upright and level respectively. In contrast, line (ef) is not straight because it is
neither upright nor level. Line (gb) is not straight either since it is “downright,” not upright.
Finally, Figure 1B merely displays one valence contrast in size mapped onto morality and immorality:
“MORAL IS BIG” and “IMMORAL IS SMALL.” In the next section, I will put forth an analysis of the
linguistic data, showing how the conceptual metaphors in Table 1 are manifested in the Chinese
language.
Linguistic evidence for spatial metaphors for morality
Language plays an important role in mediating the adaption of spatial schemas to abstract thought
(Gattis, 2001). In this section, I analyze the linguistic evidence from Chinese that may manifest the
underlying conceptual metaphors for morality. In collecting data, I used the CCL corpus (Center for
Chinese Linguistics, Peking University). While this is a linguistic study, my hope is that the linguistic
patterns delineated through systematic analysis of linguistic data may serve as a basis for inferences
about possible conceptual structures in our conceptual systems. Further, my larger goal is to show
how our language and thought are embodied as part of embodied cognition in general. I will deal
with the conceptual metaphors in Table 1 pair by pair in the following subsections.
“MORAL IS HIGH” and “IMMORAL IS LOW”
In this subsection I focus on two pairs of conceptual contrasts involving six lexical items that encode HIGH
and LOW on a vertical axis of which the two spatial values representing two valence poles in morality:
UPRIGHT HIGH
LOW
CROOKED
TILTED
BIGSMALL
A B
LEVEL
STRAIGHT
UNLEVEL
a
g
b
e
c
f
d
Figure 1. Schematic configuration of spatial concepts for moral metaphors.
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 111
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
MORAL and IMMORAL. Their spatial and moral senses are given in Table 2. The first pair comprises four
spatial words: one “high” and three “low” words; the second comprises two: one “thick” and one “thin”
word. The second pair is placed in this category because it also refers to relative points on a vertical axis as
being “high” or “low.” Thickness and thinness on a horizontal axis as diameter, for instance, are encoded by
a different pair of spatial words (粗 cū “thick” and 细 xì “thin”) in Chinese.
In Chinese, 高 gāo “high” and 低 dī “low” form a common pair of antonyms in the spatial
domain, and 卑 bēi “low” is usually found in the moral and social domains. 下 xià “down” is
generally used in contrast with 上shàng “up,” but can also be used in contrast with 高 gāo “high.”
For instance, it can replace 低 dī “low” in the compound 高低 gāo-dī (high-low), hence 高下 gāo-xià
(high-down), in the sense “relative superiority or inferiority.” For illustration of the words in Table 2,
first look at the examples in (1) which instantiate “MORAL IS HIGH.”
(1) a. 拾金不昧是一种高尚的道德行为。
Returning money found is a kind of lofty (lit. high-esteem) moral behavior.
b. ……评议在客观上对提倡清廉高洁的道德风尚起到一定的作用。
…appraisals produced in reality an effect on the promotion of the honest and upright (lit.
clear-honest), and noble and unsullied (lit. high-clean) social ethics.
c. 文学应该以崇高的道德精神、道德理想，烛照新的人生之路。
Literature should illuminate a new life path with its sublime (lit. lofty-high) moral spirits
and moral ideals
The three examples make comments respectively on a “good deed” advocated through ethical
education started in early childhood (1a), the evaluations of candidates for local offices in
ancient China (1b), and the moral function of literature (1c). All of them involve a compound
with 高 gāo “high” which, along with other moral-related elements, represents the positive
moral valence. They contrast with the following examples where 低 dī “low,” 卑 bēi “low,” and
下xià “down” are involved, thus instantiating “IMMORAL IS LOW.”
(2) a. 道德的要义在于有所不为而不是无所不为；这样，才能使自己脱离开低级趣味……
The essence of morality lies in refraining oneself from doing all, instead of letting oneself do
all; only this way can one divorce oneself from bad tastes (lit. low-grade tastes)…
Table 2. Words encoding HIGH and LOW in the moral–spatial metaphors.
Source concepts HIGH LOW
Lexical items 高 gāo: 低 dī:
1. (spatial) high; tall 1. (spatial) low
2. (moral) noble; lofty; noble character; noble people 2. (moral) bad; vile; odious; corrupt
卑 bēi:
1. (spatial) low; low-lying
2. (moral) of low character; inferior in quality
下xià:
1. (spatial) below; under; underneath; down
2. (moral) lowly; base
厚 hòu: 薄 bó (or báo)1
:
1. (spatial) thick (vertically) 1. (spatial) thin (vertically); slight; small
2. (moral) kind; magnanimous 2. (moral) unkind; ungenerous; mean; frivolous; coldly
1
HYDCD treats báo as a variant of bó in pronouncing 薄. For this study I consulted three dictionaries, HYDCD, XDHYCD,
and XXDHYCD, for lexical senses of the words, and XSDHYDCD for their English translations. These four dictionaries are
listed in the appendix. The English translations of all the sentential examples, rather literal on purpose, are my own.
112 N. YU
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
b. 这种商业道德低下、不正当竞争的做法，为国际经贸界同行所不齿。
This kind of practice, which reflects lowly (lit. low-down) business ethics and improper
competition, is held in contempt by people in international economics and trade.
c. 但也出现了一些平庸之作，甚至出现了一些颓废消极、卑琐低俗、淫秽色情的精神
垃圾。
However, there appeared some mediocre works, too, and even some moral garbage that
was decadent and negative, mean (lit. low-petty) and vulgar (lit. low-vulgar), and obscene
and pornographic.
d. 一些人还骂他“道德沦丧”，“卑鄙无耻。”
Some even scolded him for being “morally degenerate” and “base and brazen (lit. lowmean
no-shame).”
All four examples involve one (2a, 2d) or two (2b, 2c) “low” words as morphemes of
compounds. The commonality among them is that the concept LOW is instantiated linguistically
and is mapped onto IMMORAL. In consistency with this conceptual mapping is the fact
that the verbs expressing changes from morality to immorality do so by mapping “downward
movements” onto such changes (see discussions of the Event Structure metaphor in, e.g.,
Lakoff, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, chapter 11; Yu, 1998, chapter 5). In Chinese, for
instance, there are following compounds referring to the “fall” of people in morality: 堕落
duò-luò (fall-fall) “degenerate,” 沉沦 chén-lún (sink-sink) “sink into (sin, vice, degeneration,
etc.),” and 沦落 lún-luò (sink-fall) “decline; degenerate.”
The examples in (3) illustrate the contrast between the “thick” and “thin” words in their moral
senses.
(3) a. 诚，即在对待利润上要诚实厚道，讲求互利互惠。
Sincerity means that one must be honest and magnanimous (lit. thick-way) in making
profits, stressing reciprocity and mutual benefit.
b. 他一贯以身作则，宽厚待人，关心人民的疾苦……
He always set personal examples, treated others with generosity and kindness (lit.
broad-thick), and was concerned with people’s hardship…
c. 髯黑大将本是举止谨慎、行为检点的忠厚之人，从无轻薄行径。
General Ranhei was an honest and sincere (lit. loyal-thick) man of careful manner and
discreet conduct, and had never committed any frivolous (lit. light-thin) act at all.
d. 其实，徽州人或许并不比历史上出现过的商人更加刻薄或吝啬。
In effect, Huizhou businessmen were not really meaner (lit. more cutting-thin) or stingier
than other businessmen in history.
The four examples involve three instances of 厚 hòu “thick” (3a–c) and two instances of 薄 bó
“thin” (3c, d) as elements of compounds. Example (3a) is about moral practice in business,
(3b) and (3c) concern the moral character of individual people, and (3d) is a comment on the
moral characteristic or stereotype of the business people in a region. In all these examples,
relative points as being “high” or “low” on the vertical axis are mapped onto MORAL or
IMMORAL, respectively.
“MORAL IS UPRIGHT” and “IMMORAL IS TILTED”
For this pair of conceptual metaphors I focus on three Chinese words encoding UPRIGHT or
TILTED, whose primary spatial senses are extended into the moral domain, as shown in Table 3. The
word prototypically encoding UPRIGHT in Chinese is 正 zhèng, whose metaphorical moral senses
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 113
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
derive from the original spatial and bodily senses. For instance, “stand at attention” or “attention” as
an imperative is 立正 lìzhèng in Chinese, literally meaning “stand upright,” namely with one’s body
straight up. We could hypothesize that the upright body posture is the embodied basis for abstract
understanding and reasoning in our moral cognition.
As shown in Table 3, zhèng “upright” can also be used as a verb meaning “cause to be upright or
straight.” According to Confucianism, it is important to cultivate oneself or one’s moral character.
The Chinese compound for moral cultivation is 修身 xiū-shēn (cultivate-body) or 正身 zhèng-shēn
(straighten-body). In its literal sense, one’s moral character is embodied, manifested in one’s manner
and behavior with one’s body. People with a good moral character have an “upright and straight
body.” In The Great Learning (大学 dàxué), a Confucian classic, it is said that “Those who want to
cultivate one’s body should first straighten one’s heart (正心 zhèngxīn)” (欲修其身者, 先正其心).
This is because, in traditional Chinese culture, the heart, taken as the central faculty of cognition, is
the locus of one’s moral character (Yu, 2009, pp. 62–81). A strong moral character lies in “an upright
and straight heart.” A “tilted or crooked heart” must be “straightened” before one can “straighten
one’s body” to be a morally good person. The following sentential examples contain a compound
involving zhèng “upright.”
(4) a. 遵守纪律和职业道德, 诚信廉明, 公道正派, 甘于奉献。
One must abide by disciplines and professional ethics, be honest and clean, impartial and
upright (lit. keeping an upright bearing), and be willing to dedicate oneself.
b. 当前医务工作者要努力树立正气，切实加强职业道德。
At present, medical workers should try to foster a moral spirit (lit. erect an upright air),
strengthening their professional ethics in earnest.
c. 这种高度的道德纯正从爱情这样的自私情感中无法得到完全满足。
Such high moral purity and uprightness cannot find total satisfaction in the selfish
sentiment of romantic love.
As shown in these examples, being morally sound and strong is “keeping an upright bearing” (正派
zhèngpài) in (4a), having an “upright air” (正气 zhèngqì) “erected” in (4b), and being “pure and
upright” (纯正 chúnzhèng) in (4c). The concept of qì “air” in (4b) is an important one in Chinese
culture referring to a gaseous force functioning in the human body as the micro world and the
universe as the macro world (Yu, 1998, 2009). “Moral spirit,” conceptualized as “upright air,” is seen
as such a force that keeps individuals and society as a whole “upright.” In (4c), the compound chúnzhèng
(pure-upright) also instantiates “MORAL IS PURE” (see Yu, 2015b).
In Table 3, the two words often used in contrast with zhèng “upright; straight” are 歪 wāi “tilted
(to one side); askew” and 偏 piān “inclined or leaning (to one side).” They cover different conceptual
spaces in the moral domain: the former ranging from “improper” to “evil”; the latter focusing on
“partiality; bias; prejudice.” The character of the former is comprised of two parts, one on top of the
Table 3. Words encoding UPRIGHT and TILTED in the moral–spatial metaphors.
Source concepts UPRIGHT TILTED
Lexical items 正 zhèng: 歪 wāi:
1. (spatial) upright; perpendicular; straight;
straighten
1. (spatial) askew; tilted; inclined; slanting
2. (moral) upright; impartial; honest; correct; right;
proper
2. (moral) improper; unethical; evil
偏 piān:
1. (spatial) inclined or leaning to one side; slanting;
diverging
2. (moral) partial; prejudiced; biased
114 N. YU
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
other. The upper part is 不 bù “not” and the lower part is 正 zhèng “upright.” By face value, the word
means “not upright,” both spatially and morally. The contrast in a moral sense between 正 zhèng
“upright” and 歪 wāi “tilted” can be found in a proverbial saying based on a building metaphor: 上
梁不正下梁歪 (lit. If the upper beam is not straight, the lower ones will go aslant), meaning “If those
above (e.g., higher in official ranking) behave immorally, those below will follow suit.” Look at the
following examples:
(5) a. ……要对经营者、商贩进行职业道德教育，“君子爱财，取之有道”，靠歪门邪道长久
不了。
…it’s necessary to educate retailers and peddlers on work ethics: “A gentleman loves money
but gets it through a (moral) way”; it won’t last if he gets it through a crooked path (lit. tilteddoor
evil-way).
b. 文化衰落了，道德败坏了，歪风邪气也盛行起来。
Culture declined, morality deteriorated, and harmful trends and sinister practices (lit.
tilted-wind evil-air) became flourishing.
Here, (5a) also instantiates the “LIFE IS A JOURNEY” metaphor, involving both “door” and “way.”
The idiom “tilted door and evil way” refers to an immoral means to an end. In (5b) the idiom “tiltedwind
and evil-air” refers to unethical trends or practices at a social level (cf. 4b).
It is worth noting that both idioms in (5a) and (5b) contain 邪 xié “evil,” which, also used in
contrast with 正 zhèng “upright; straight” in its moral senses, does not seem to have a primary spatial
sense in present-day Chinese. However, it at least used to have a spatial sense too, as can be found in
the obsolete usage of 邪径 xié-jìng (evil-path) and 邪路 xié-lù (evil-road). Both compounds mean
“an evil path” in a moral sense today, but are defined in HYDCD as having a primary spatial sense “a
shorter path than the main road” (p. 459). In contrast with 邪 xié “evil,” another word 斜 xié,
pronounced exactly the same, is utilized primarily as a spatial word meaning “oblique; slanting;
tilted; askew.” Even this word can be used metaphorically in a moral sense, as in the proverbial
saying 身正不怕影子斜 (lit. If one’s body is upright, one should not be afraid that its shadow is
askew), that is, “If one is morally upright, one should not be afraid of false accusations.” Note that
the image of one’s “shadow being askew” manifests two possible conceptual metaphors: “IMMORAL
IS TILTED” and “IMMORAL IS DARK” (see Yu, 2015b).
As already mentioned, 偏 piān, which has the primary spatial meaning “inclined or leaning to one
side,” means “partial; bias; prejudiced” in a moral sense. That is, when people are partial, biased, or
prejudiced, they are inclined to one side, thus resulting in the loss of balance. The mental balance is
conceptualized as physical balance with the “MIND AS BODY” metaphor. In Chinese, a person who
is mentally partial or biased has an “inclined heart” (偏心 piānxīn). Again, one’s heart is seen as the
locus of one’s moral character. The word 良心 liáng-xīn (good-heart) means “conscience,” and a
conscienceless person is one who has “totally lost the good heart” (丧尽良心 sàngjìn liángxīn). Two
sentential examples follow.
(6) a. “我”终于超越了世俗的、也是那些自视高贵、完美的绅士淑女的道德偏见。
“I” eventually transcended the moral prejudice (lit inclined-view) of those worldly gentle
men and gentlewomen who considered themselves as noble and perfect.
b. 道德是关于善和恶、公正和偏私、诚实和虚伪等问题的观念，以及与之相适应的依靠
社会舆论和人们的信念来实现的社会行为规范的总和。
Morality is concerned with the conception of good and evil, impartiality (lit. impartialupright)
and partiality (lit. inclined-selfish), honesty and hypocrisy, and so on, and the
totality of related norms in social behavior realized on the basis of public opinion and
human belief.
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 115
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
In (6a), “prejudice” is literally “inclined view,” leaning to one side. Example (6b) contains a
definition of morality, in which the moral contrast between “impartiality” and “partiality” seems
to emerge from the spatial contrast between “upright” and “inclined or leaning to one side.”
“MORAL IS LEVEL” and “IMMORAL IS UNLEVEL”
The Chinese adjective that represents LEVEL is 平 píng “level,” with a basic spatial sense referring to
a horizontal line that is straight with both ends at the same height, or to a horizontal plane with a flat
surface and all its sides at the same height. The opposite of 平 píng “level” is its negative form 不平
bù-píng “unlevel,” referring to the line or plane being not straight or even or having a slope toward
one side. Their moral senses are found in Table 4.
In their moral senses, the pair of words means “fair; just” or “unfair; unjust” accordingly. That is,
if a line or plane is “level,” it means equality, equity, or justice to all. Conversely, if the line or plane is
“not level,” it means inequality, inequity, or injustice, which is a state in favor of some but against
others. The Chinese saying 一碗水端平 (lit. hold a bowl of water level) refers to a moral situation
where it is necessary to be fair and just, and therefore “to treat all people evenhandedly or
impartially.” In Chinese, 不平 bù-píng (not-level) is often used as a noun meaning “injustice;
unfairness; wrong,” as illustrated in the old saying 路见不平, 拔刀相助 (lit. As one sees something
unlevel on the road, one would unsheathe the knife to help), that is, one would “stand out boldly to
redress a social injustice.” The following sentences show how the concepts LEVEL and UNLEVEL
are used in moral contexts.
(7) a. 只有实现了公平、平等，才能最大限度地消除种种社会问题。
Only when equity (lit. public/impartial-level) and equality (lit. level-equal) are realized
can various social problems be eliminated to the greatest degree.
b. 经营者在市场交易中，应当遵循自愿、平等、公平、诚实信用的原则，遵守公认的商
业道德。
Businessmen should follow the principles of voluntariness, equality (lit. level-equal),
equity (lit. public/impartial-level), and honesty and credibility in their market transac
tions, abiding by the accepted business ethics.
c. 按照这种论调，发展中国家以低廉的劳动力价格扩展贸易，对于发达国家或发展中国
家的劳工来说，是“不道德”、“不公平”、“不平等”的。
According to this view, if developing countries expand trade with low labor costs, it is
“immoral,” “unfair (lit. not impartial-level),” and “unequal (lit. not level-equal)” to
developed countries or laborers in developing countries.
On the societal level, only when all members of a society “play on a level field” can social problems
be eliminated to the greatest degree (7a). This is especially true in fair trade and business transactions
(7b). Nevertheless, fairness and justness can be relative to circumstances, especially at the international
level, where the “players” are different nations (7c).
“MORAL IS STRAIGHT” and “IMMORAL IS CROOKED”
In this subsection, I again focus on three Chinese spatial words that encode the source concepts
STRAIGHT and CROOKED, as listed in Table 5.
Table 4. Words encoding LEVEL and UNLEVEL in the moral–spatial metaphors.
Source concepts LEVEL UNLEVEL
Lexical items 平 píng: 不平 bù-píng:
1. (spatial) level; flat; smooth; make even or level 1. (spatial) not level; not flat; not smooth
2. (moral) equal; just; fair; impartial 2. (moral) unfair; unjust; injustice; unfairness; wrong
116 N. YU
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
The moral contrast represented by 直 zhí “straight” and 曲 qū “crooked” is well illustrated by the
saying 宁在直中取, 不向曲中求 (lit. [I] would rather get from the straight than seek from the
crooked) “I would rather get what I want by honest means than by crooked means.” That is,
STRAIGHT is mapped onto HONEST and CROOKED is mapped onto DISHONEST. This contrast
is further illustrated by the following examples.
(8) a. 这正是一个正直学者的品格，也是他成功的道德基础。
This is exactly the quality of an upright (lit. upright-straight) scholar, and also the moral
basis for his success.
b. 这些精神特点正好与他们急公好义、耿介刚直、不苟合于污浊世态的道德风貌相
补充。
These mental characteristics complement their moral outlook with which they are zealous
for impartiality and righteousness, honest and straightforward, upright and outspoken (lit.
firm-straight), refusing to yield to filthy ways of the world.
c. 法官多偏曲，不能主持正义，腐败行为时时发生。
Judges were mostly unfair (lit. inclined-crooked), and would not uphold justice, and
therefore corruption happened quite often.
d. 道德上的是非曲直，除在一些极端的场合以外，是一种很难识别的标准。
The criteria for judging moral goodness and badness or rights and wrongs (lit. crookedstraight),
unless under extreme circumstances, are often not so clear-cut.
As in (8a), one’s moral character is good and strong if it is “upright and straight.” In (8b), which
refers to a good moral character, the two elements of the compound separately characterize the
“material” and “shape” of that moral character. In (8c), the unethical judges’ unfairness is expressed
in spatial terms as being “inclined or leaning to one side” and “crooked.” The compound in (8d)
comprises qū “crooked” and zhí “straight” as a pair of antonyms, extended into the moral domain
meaning “right and wrong.”
In Table 5 the second word in contrast with 直 zhí “straight” is 勾 gōu. According to HYDCD
(p. 310), it has a primary spatial sense 弯曲 wān-qū (bent-crooked) “winding; zigzag; crooked.”
Particularly, it refers to the shape of a line being bent into a tick or hook. Thus, when utilized as a
verb, it means “get with a hook.” For my purpose in this study, 勾 gōu is often used in the moral
domain to mean “collude with; gang up with; entice; seduce,” evoking the image of “hook up” or
“be hooked up with.” Given in (9) are two examples.
(9) a. 小说……有力地揭露和批判了官厅中腐败的人际关系和官商勾结所犯下的无耻罪行。
The novel … forcefully exposes and criticizes the corrupt relations among people and the
disgraceful crimes committed in collusion (lit. hook-knot) between governmental officials
and businessmen.
Table 5. Words encoding STRAIGHT and CROOKED in the moral–spatial metaphors.
Source
concepts STRAIGHT CROOKED
Lexical items 直 zhí: 曲 qū:
1. (spatial) straight; vertical; upright; perpendicular;
straighten
1. (spatial) bent; crooked; bend; crook
2. (moral) just; upright 2. (moral) wrong; false; unjustifiable
勾 gōu:
1. (spatial) bent (in the shape of a tick or hook);
crooked
2. (moral) collude with; gang up with; entice; seduce
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 117
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
b. ……她故态复萌, 竟至勾引一个17岁的学生, 被家长发现, 写信向校长投诉, 说她“道德
败坏……”
…she slipped back into her old ways, and even seduced (lit. hook-lead) a seventeen-yearold
student, whose parents would discover it and write to the principal complaining about
her “moral degeneration…”
In (9a), the immoral relations between governmental officials and businessmen for dirty deals are
“hooked up into knots.” In (9b), the Chinese compound for “seduce” is literally “hook and lead.” In
sum, the three spatial words discussed in this subsection evoke an image-schematic contrast between
STRAIGHT and CROOKED, mapped onto MORALITY and IMMORALITY, respectively.
“MORAL IS BIG” and “IMMORAL IS SMALL”
This last subsection focuses on three spatial words used in a moral sense to encode BIG and SMALL:
大 dà “big,” 小 xiǎo “small,” and 微 wēi “tiny.” The first two are the most common antonyms
representing the contrast in size in Chinese whereas the third one is somewhat synonymous to the
second. Their spatial and moral senses are listed in Table 6. The examples in (10) show how the
words are used in real-life discourses instantiating the moral metaphors.
(10) a. 勿以善小而不为，要积小善成大德……
One should not step away from doing good because it appears small in amount; instead,
one should accumulate small goodness until it becomes big virtue…
b. 然而我想说，更伟大的道德力量存在于这样的信仰当中……
However, what I want to say is that even greater (lit greater-bigger) moral force exists in
such a belief…
c. 领导干部要光明正大，表里如一，做到对上与对下一致，人前与人后一致；当官以前
与当官以后一致；言论与行动一致。
The officials should be open and aboveboard (lit. bright-light upright-big), think and act
in one and the same way, and remain consistent to their superiors and subordinates, in
front of and behind other people, before and after taking office, and between their words
and deeds.
Example (10a) talks about charities. It seems that dà “big” in this case refers to a “big amount” of
virtue, but that is only its surface meaning in this context. 大德 dà-dé (big-virtue), according to
HYDCD (p. 747), also has its intrinsic senses as a compound meaning “lofty moral character”
and “person of noble moral conduct or high moral integrity.” In (10b), the compound wĕi-dà
(great-big) “great” is deployed to modify “moral force.” Although the head noun here is “force”
and it appears that “great” ultimately modifies “force,” the point is that the “force” cannot be
modified by “great” if it is immoral or evil. That is, only “moral force” can be “great,” and “great
moral force” instantiates “MORAL IS BIG.” Of course, wĕi-dà “great” as a modifier is not limited
to morality, but when it is applied to morality, it encodes MORAL rather than IMMORAL. In
Table 6. Words encoding BIG and SMALL in the moral–spatial metaphors.
Source concepts BIG SMALL
Lexical items 大 dà: 小 xiǎo:
1. (spatial) big; large; great 1. (spatial) small; little; tiny; minor
2. (moral) good; noble 2. (moral) bad; evil; base; mean; contemptible, despicable;
微 wēi:
1. (spatial) minute; tiny
2. (moral) lowly; base
118 N. YU
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
ancient Chinese thought, there is a moral contrast between what is literally a “big man” (大人
dàrén) and a “small man” (小人 xiǎorén). A “big man” would seek “righteousness” (义 yì) and do
what is right whereas a “small man” would seek “personal gains” (利 lì) and do what is profitable.
Example (10c) involves an idiom, guāng-míng zhèng-dà (bright-light upright-big) “open and
aboveboard,” which is a moral quality to be found supposedly in governmental officials as part
of their professional ethics.
(11) a. 他说：“人格伟大的艺术家产生伟大的艺术；人格渺小的艺术家产生渺小的艺术；……
一言以蔽之，艺术与道德的关系便是如此。”
He said, “An artist of great (lit. great-big) moral character produces great art; an artist of
petty (lit. petty-small) moral character produces petty art; … In short, the relationship
between art and morality is just that.”
b. 人们常从某人的言谈举止来判定其人格的高尚与卑微。
Very often people judge a person’s moral character as being noble (lit. high-esteem) or
base (lit. low-tiny) according to his/her speech and bearing.
The two examples in (11) each contain a compound with a component encoding SMALL. In (11a)
such a compound is miáo-xiǎo (petty-small) “petty.” It is said that artists’ moral character, “great” or
“petty,” are directly related to their artistic products, which will be consequentially “great” or “petty.”
In (11b) the compound expressing the source SMALL is bēi-wēi (low-tiny) “base,” that is, one’s
moral character can be “high” and “great” or “low” and “tiny.” Such moral distinction is assumedly
revealed in how one speaks and acts.
A further look in perspective
In the preceding section I laid out the linguistic evidence for a systematic manifestation of the
possible underlying spatial metaphors for morality. I discussed a total of 17 lexical items that
instantiate the source concepts of five pairs of moral–spatial metaphors (see Table 1). I would
suggest that the 10 conceptual metaphors are based on four common image schemas: (1) UPDOWN,
(2) BALANCE, (3) PATH, and (4) OBJECT. The UP-DOWN schema consists of a vertical
axis with an imaginary division between UP and DOWN. The vertical axis is in general not
symmetric, with its UP and DOWN halves respectively representing the positive and negative
valence.2
This schema is responsible for the understanding of HIGH and LOW (including THICK
and THIN). The BALANCE schema, as I suggested before (Yu, 1998, p. 174), may have two possible
variants as illustrated in Figure 2, where the dotted lines indicate off-balance shifts. Thus, Figure 2A
stands for UPRIGHT versus TILTED, and Figure 2B for LEVEL and UNLEVEL. Version B can be
seen as an image schema for the scales, which are a common symbol for legal justice and moral
fairness.
The third image schema involved in moral imagination, PATH, is simply a straight line by default
in contrast with a crooked line, a line that is bent or twisted. The schematic contrast between
STRAIGHT and CROOKED has long been noticed by cognitive linguists as being mapped onto the
moral contrast between GOOD and EVIL (Cienki, 1998; Jäkel, 2002). Finally, our schematic understanding
of OBJECT is that it occupies space with its physical existence of various sizes. In Figure 1B,
2
As far as the human body is concerned, the UP-DOWN, as well as FRONT-BACK, asymmetry is obvious while the LEFT-RIGHT
asymmetry is far less so. In terms of function, however, the LEFT-RIGHT asymmetry is clear in people’s right versus lefthandedness.
See Casasanto (2014) for distinction between left- and right-handers in terms of bodily relativity and spatial
mapping of valence. It seems that the LEFT-RIGHT distinction is chiefly deployed in the political domain in modern Chinese, with
LEFT for the revolutionary (positive unless “ultra-left”) versus RIGHT for the reactionary (negative). In older strata of Chinese,
however, LEFT indeed represents the negative valence (HYDCD, p. 509), and RIGHT the positive (HYDCD, p. 793), in the moral
domain.
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 119
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
I used circles, a prototypical shape conventionally utilized for the CONTAINMENT schema, to
represent the size of OBJECT.
In the third section, the four image schemas play a central role in our spatial conceptualization of
morality. In summary, Figure 3 unifies them into one diagram, where dotted lines represent
IMMORALITY versus MORALITY represented by solid lines. As seen in this figure, there is
correlation between height and size: the longer the vertical axis (diameter), the larger the size of
the circle. Such coherence finds a good example of linguistic instantiation in a Chinese compound
word 高大 gāo-dà (high/tall-big), meaning in particular: (1) (of physical body) tall and big and (2)
(of moral character) lofty or noble.
As shown in Figure 3, the subsystem of moral metaphors studied in this article hinges on the
schematization of a few spatial concepts in pairs representing contrasts in moral valence. The 10
spatial metaphors for morality studied in this article, listed in Table 1, have only two target concepts:
MORAL and IMMORAL. These two categories can be divided into subcategories. The five pairs of
source concepts have a division of labor and are mapped onto various aspects of MORAL and
IMMORAL with some overlaps. Table 7 lists the conceptual mappings between the source concepts
in space and their prototypical target concepts within the contrastive categories MORAL and
IMMORAL. These mappings, which are more conventional in nature, should exist in the conceptual
system as the “conceptual-cognitive context” (Kövecses, 2015, chapter 3), with specific target
concepts as aspects of MORAL and IMMORAL determining the selection of the source concepts.
In actual discourses, various contextual factors could also prompt more novel elaborations on and
combinations of the source concepts (Kövecses, 2015). As can be seen on the left of Table 7, HIGH
Figure 3. A unified schematization of spatial concepts for moral metaphors.
Table 7. Metaphorical mappings from spatial concepts onto aspects of MORAL and IMMORAL.
SPATIAL MORAL SPATIAL IMMORAL
HIGH → LOFTY; NOBLE; GOOD LOW → Base; Mean; Evil
UPRIGHT → RIGHT; Honest; IMPARTIAL TILTED → WRONG; Dishonest; PARTIAL
LEVEL → FAIR; JUST; IMPARTIAL UNLEVEL → UNFAIR; UNJUST; PARTIAL
STRAIGHT → RIGHT; JUST; HONEST CROOKED → WRONG; UNJUST; DISHONEST
BIG → LOFTY; NOBLE; GOOD SMALL → BASE; MEAN; EVIL
A B
Figure 2. Two versions of BALANCE and OFF-BALANCE schemas.
120 N. YU
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
and BIG, both of which are dimensional concepts, have identical target concepts, owing to the
above-mentioned correlation between the height of the vertical axis and the size of the circle in
Figure 3. Also, there are some partial overlaps among the target concepts of UPRIGHT, LEVEL, and
STRAIGHT, the three orientational concepts which need one another in a mutually defining
relationship.
Figure 3 also provides a geometric hint at an answer to the question why moral cultivation and
ethical education are needed at both individual and societal levels. Morality exists in the upper axis
and in the bigger circle, and it always takes more and costs more to get higher and bigger. Also,
straight, upright and level lines are lines of precision. Drawing them right usually requires some help
in instrument. There is only a single way for a line to be straight between two points, but a crooked
line can take an infinite number of ways. An upright line and a level line exist only at 90 and 180
degrees, respectively, but a tilted or inclined line can exist at any angles off them. If geometry is a
science that emerges from embodied human experience, these simple geometric facts perhaps also
provide a hint at why we need spatial metaphors for morality in the first place.
Finally, I would like to resort to a decompositional analysis for a deeper look at the spatial
metaphors for morality under study. This is what I call a “Decompositional Approach to
Metaphorical Compound Analysis,” or “DAMCA” for short (Yu, 2011a, 2011b, 2015b). The main
purpose of developing this analytical instrument is to look more deeply into complex metaphors, or
metaphorical compounds, for their major components, metaphorical or otherwise, in order to be
more specific, and concise, about their motivations and constructions, and about their potential
relations with other metaphors, complex or primary. Due to limited space, I will focus on two
metaphors, “MORAL IS HIGH” and “MORAL IS LEVEL,” as examples. For more examples of
analyzing moral–visual metaphors, see Yu (2015b).
(12) “MORAL IS HIGH” (Complex metaphor)
a.“MORAL IS GOOD FOR PUBLIC WELLBEING” (Proposition)
b.“HIGH IS HAVING LARGE EXTENSION UPWARD” (Proposition)
c.“GOOD IS UP” (Primary metaphor)
Given in (12) is the decomposition of “MORAL IS HIGH” in its formulaic format. Here, (12a)
is a literal proposition that is a major component of the concept MORAL. This component
represents a value judgment and the scope to which the judgment is made, namely, something is
“moral” only when it is “good” for the “pubic wellbeing” (vs., e.g., “one’s self wellbeing”). The
second proposition in (12b) characterizes the source concept HIGH as “having large extension
upward,” that is, describing a point on the upper half of an imaginary vertical axis. The last
component, (12c), connects the key components of (12a) and (12b) with a mapping from a
spatial concept to an abstract concept. This mapping is actually a primary metaphor, “GOOD IS
UP,” widely deployed in our conceptual systems and, in this particular case, serves as the
foundation stone of the complex metaphor “MORAL IS HIGH.”
Figure 4A presents the diagrammatic format of “MORAL IS HIGH.” As can be seen there, this
metaphor is a conceptual metaphor from the spatial to the social domain. More specifically, it
involves a mapping from verticality to morality. MORAL is but a special kind (i.e., subcategory) of
GOOD, its box is therefore within that of the latter. In the source domain, UP is also treated as a
concept more abstract and schematic than HIGH. In terms of lexical categories, the former is
encoded by a preposition as a member of the closed-class system, which is the most fundamental
and schematic conceptual structuring system of a language (Talmy, 2000). In contrast, HIGH is
encoded by an adjective as a member of the open-class system. In the diagrammatic format, a
primary metaphor, such as “GOOD IS UP,” is represented by the bold font type.
(13) “MORAL IS LEVEL” (Complex metaphor)
a. “MORAL IS GOOD FOR PUBLIC WELLBEING” (Proposition)
b. “MORAL STANDS FOR EQUAL” (Metonymy)
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 121
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
c. “MORAL FOR EQUAL IS LEVEL” (Complex metaphor)
d. “EQUAL IS HAVING SAME STATUS” (Proposition)
e. “LEVEL IS HAVING SAME HEIGHT” (Proposition)
f. “EQUAL IS LEVEL” (Primary metaphor)
g. “STATUS IS HEIGHT” (Primary metaphor)
As listed in (13), the structure of “MORAL IS LEVEL” is more complex. First, MORAL in this case
stands for EQUAL (13b, c), which is a particular aspect (or subcategory) of MORAL concerning “fair
and just.” As such, it is a case of the “WHOLE FOR PART” metonymy, represented by an openheaded
arrow line in Figure 4B. Then, at the next level down, (13d) and (13e) characterize what is
meant, literally, by “EQUAL” and “LEVEL” respectively, followed by two metaphors (13f, g) derived
from (13d) and (13e). My hypothesis is that both (13f) and (13g) are primary metaphors that ground
the complex metaphor “MORAL IS LEVEL” or, rather, “MORAL FOR EQUAL IS LEVEL” (13c).
In sum, (12) and (13) differ from each other in the following ways. First, ontologically as
shown in Figure 4, (12) is a mapping from verticality to morality (Figure 4A), and the latter
from locality to morality (Figure 4B), even though both of them undergo general metaphorical
mappings from the spatial to the social domain. Second, in (12) HIGH maps onto MORAL
directly; in (13) MORAL stands in a metonymic relation with EQUAL, the latter being a part of
the former, and therefore LEVEL actually maps onto EQUAL via its whole MORAL. As shown
in Table 7, HIGH is mapped onto more general aspects of MORAL such as LOFTY, NOBLE,
and GOOD (vs. EVIL) concerning both individual moral characters and social ethical atmosphere,
but LEVEL maps onto more specific aspects of MORAL such as FAIR, JUST, and
IMPARTIAL in the more narrow scopes of MORAL concerning human equality and social
equity. Third, because one more key concept (EQUAL) is involved as the real target in (13), it
alters the internal structure, the level of complexity, and the conceptual mappings engaged
therein. Last, as a consequence of the above differences, the complex metaphors in (12) and
(13) are based on different primary metaphors which employ different aspects of human
experience. “GOOD IS UP” is a primary metaphor with wide application, and “EQUAL IS
LEVEL” is apparently less so.
It is worth stressing at this point that, while “GOOD IS UP” is not included in (13), it is not
completely irrelevant. Thus, for instance, in the case of “UNEQUAL IS UNLEVEL,” people with
different levels of politico-economic power and strength then stand on different social statuses
with different heights. We can imagine that the more powerful and stronger occupy higher
positions than those who are less so. This is because such metaphors as “POWER IS UP” and
“CONTROL IS UP” are in operation in our conceptual systems. The question that arises is: If
those more powerful and stronger are “higher up” in the social hierarchy, are they necessarily
“good”? The answer is No. We can say that it is human nature for people to want to go “up”
Moral
Locality Morality
Spatial Social
Metaphor Metonymy
Equal
StatusHeight
Verticality Morality
Spatial Social
High Moral
Up Good
A B
Level
Figure 4. Schematic illustration of a decompositional analysis of “MORAL IS HIGH” and “MORAL IS LEVEL”.
122 N. YU
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
rather than “down” on their life-journey. This is because we have such primary metaphors as
“GOOD IS UP” and “BAD IS DOWN.” A fundamental difference among people, however, is
whether they go “up” through a “straight” or “crooked” path. If it is the latter, then, they are not
good or “up” morally even if they are “higher up” socially. In (12) “GOOD IS UP” is deployed in
a moral context, and it is relevant in (13) as well, but is just out of the focus.
Conclusion
In this study I have attempted to outline the linguistic patterns in Chinese that may manifest the
underlying conceptual metaphors in the spatial subsystem of moral metaphors. The moral metaphors
in spatial terms can be summarized by a central metaphor: “MORALITY IS SPATIALITY.” I
focused on a total of 17 spatial words which I believe instantiate in real-life discourses five pairs of
moral metaphors in Table 1 in positive and negative valence. The total of 10 metaphors forms a
cluster as the spatial metaphor subsystem in conjunction with the visual (or color) metaphor
subsystem which, also comprised of five pairs, I studied elsewhere (Yu, 2015b). I suggested that
the 10 conceptual metaphors emerge from four image schemas UP-DOWN, BALANCE, PATH, and
OBJECT. I proposed a unified schematic configuration of the spatial elements and relations
represented by the four image schemas in a single diagram in Figure 3. Based on the linguistic
analysis, I also listed in Table 7 more specific aspects of MORAL and IMMORAL as target concepts,
and those aspects, with some overlaps, reflect a division of labor among the 10 moral–spatial
metaphors in the subsystem. Finally, I also conducted a decompositional analysis on two conceptual
metaphors as examples showing how deeper analyses of metaphors can be achieved.
This study concentrates on a single language, Chinese. It is hoped that the analytical approach
deployed herein sets up a framework for further comparative studies across languages and cultures
in a more systematic fashion. In effect, a preliminary study (Yu, Wang, & He, 2015) suggests that the
spatial–moral metaphor subsystem, with a cluster of five pairs of conceptual metaphors, characterized
in this article for Chinese may be applicable in English as well. Follow-up research is being
conducted to gain a better understanding of commonalities and differences between these two
languages.
Acknowledgments
I am very thankful to Ray Gibbs and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful and helpful reviews of this article.
References
Austin, S. (2013). Spatial metaphors and somatic communication: The embodiment of multigenerational experiences
of helplessness and futility in an obese patient. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 58, 327–346. doi:10.1111/1468-
5922.12017
Bourk, M., & Holland, K. (2014). From silos to flows: Spatial metaphor and communication responses to the
Christchurch earthquakes. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 29(2), 35–41.
Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (1999). Spatial metaphors and writing hypertexts: Study within schools. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 14(2), 267–281. doi:10.1007/BF03172969
Brown, M. (2006). A geographer reads Geography Club: Spatial metaphor and metonym in textual/sexual space.
Cultural Geographies, 13, 313–339. doi:10.1191/1474474006eu362oa
Campbell, C. S. (2013). Metaphors we ration by: An interpretation of practical moral reasoning. Soundings: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 96(3), 254–279.
Casasanto, D. (2010). Space for thinking. In V. Evans, & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition, and space: The state of
the art and new directions (pp. 453–478). London, UK: Equinox.
Casasanto, D. (2014). Bodily relativity. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (pp. 108–117).
London, UK: Routledge.
Cienki, A. (1998). Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 107–150.
doi:10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.107
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 123
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
Cuervo, H., & Wyn, J. (2014). Reflections on the use of spatial and relational metaphors in youth studies. Journal of
Youth Studies, 17(7), 901–915. doi:10.1080/13676261.2013.878796
Davies, C. (2004). Spanish-American interiors: Spatial metaphors, gender and modernity. Romance Studies, 22(1), 27–
39. doi:10.1179/ros.2004.22.1.27
Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. R. (1988). The conceptualization of vertical space in English: The case of tall. In B. RudzkaOstyn
(Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 379–402). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Gattis, M. (Ed.). (2001). Spatial schemas and abstract thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetic mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Gibbs & G.
Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 146–166). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2014). Conceptual metaphor in thought and social action. In M. J. Landau, M. D. Robinson, & B. P.
Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 17–40). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Giessner, S., & Schubert, T. (2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments of leaders’ power are
interrelated. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 30–44. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.001
Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613–628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.613
Haidt, J., Rozin, P., MaCauley, C., & Imada, S. (1997). Body, psyche, and culture: The relationship between disgust and
morality. Psychology & Developing Societies, 9(1), 107–131. doi:10.1177/097133369700900105
Halloran-Bessy, M. (2009). Spatial metaphors and identity formation in Pham Van Ky’s Frères de Sang. The French
Review, 82(4), 762–772.
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jäkel, O. (2002). Hypotheses revisited: The cognitive theory of metaphor applied to religious texts. Metaphorik.de, 2,
20–42.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Johnson, M. (2014). Morality for humans: Ethical understanding from the perspective of cognitive science. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
King, R. T. (1988). Spatial metaphor in German causative constructions. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive
linguistics (pp. 555–585). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Lakens, D. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization
times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(3), 726–736.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp.
202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136
(6), 1045–1067. doi:10.1037/a0020970
Landau, M. J., Robinson, M. D., & Meier, B. P. (Eds.). (2014). The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social
life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Dirty hands and dirty mouths: Embodiment of the moral-purity metaphor is
specific to the motor modality involved in moral transgression. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1423–1425.
doi:10.1177/0956797610382788
Lizardo, O. (2012). The conceptual bases of metaphors of dirt and cleanliness in moral and non-moral reasoning.
Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 367–393. doi:10.1515/cog-2012-0011
Lynott, D., & Coventry, K. (2014). On the ups and downs of emotion: Testing between conceptual-metaphor and
polarity accounts of emotional valence–spatial location interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 218–226.
doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0481-5
Massengill, R. P. (2008). Prayers of the people: Moral metaphors in the right-to-life and faith-based labor movements.
Poetics, 36, 338–357. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2008.06.001
124 N. YU
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016
Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position.
Psychological Science, 15(4), 243–247. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00659.x
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Caven, A. J. (2008). Why a big Mac is a good Mac: Associations between affect and
size. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 46–55. doi:10.1080/01973530701866516
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2004). Why good guys wear white: Automatic inferences about stimulus
valence based on brightness. American Psychological Society, 15(2), 82–87.
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Crawford, L. E., & Ahlvers, W. J. (2007). When “light” and “dark” thoughts become
light and dark responses: Affect biases brightness judgments. Emotion, 7(2), 366–376. doi:10.1037/1528-
3542.7.2.366
Peltola, H., & Saresma, T. (2014). Spatial and bodily metaphors in narrating the experience of listening to sad music.
Musicae Scientiae, 18(3), 292–306. doi:10.1177/1029864914536199
Radden, G. (1995). Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality. In W. Parrotté, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The
ubiquity of metaphor. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Reed, G. S. (2003). Spatial metaphors of the mind. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 72(1), 97–129. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
2167-4086
Schubert, T. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89(1), 1–21. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.1
Shayan, S., Ozturk, O., Bowerman, M., & Majid, A. (2014). Spatial metaphor in language can promote the
development of cross-modal mappings in children. Developmental Science, 17(4), 636–643. doi:10.1111/
desc.2014.17.issue-4
Sheikh, S., Botindari, L., & White, E. (2013). Embodied metaphors and emotions in the moralization of restrained
eating practices. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 509–513. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.016
Sherman, G. D., & Clore, G. L. (2009). The color of sin: White and black are perceptual symbols of moral purity and
pollution. Psychological Science, 20(8), 1019–1025. doi:10.1111/psci.2009.20.issue-8
Silvera, D. H., Josephs, R. A., & Giesler, R. B. (2002). Bigger is better: The influence of physical size on aesthetic
preference judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 189–202. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
Stites, L. J., & Özçalişkan, Ş. (2013). Developmental changes in children’s comprehension and explanation of spatial
metaphors for time. Journal of Child Language, 40, 1123–1137. doi:10.1017/S0305000912000384
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tversky, B. (2011). Visualizing thought. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 499–535. doi:10.1111/tops.2011.3.issue-3
Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Yu, N. (2009). The Chinese HEART in a cognitive perspective: Culture, body, and language. Berlin, Germany: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Yu, N. (2011a). A decompositional approach to metaphorical compound analysis: The case of a TV commercial.
Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 243–259. doi:10.1080/10926488.2011.609041
Yu, N. (2011b). Beijing Olympics and Beijing opera: A multimodal metaphor in a CCTV Olympics commercial.
Cognitive Linguistics, 22(3), 595–628. doi:10.1515/cogl.2011.023
Yu, N. (2015a). Embodiment, culture, and language. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and
culture (pp. 227–239). London, UK: Routledge.
Yu, N. (2015b). Metaphorical character of moral cognition: A comparative and decompositional analysis. Metaphor
and Symbol, 30(3), 163–183. doi:10.1080/10926488.2015.1049500
Yu, N., Wang, T., & He, Y. (2015). Spatial metaphors for morality in English. Unpublished manuscript, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Zhong, C., & House, J. (2014). Dirt, pollution, and purity: A metaphoric perspective on morality. In M. J. Landau, M.
D. Robinson, & B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 109–131).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zhong, C., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313,
1451–1452. doi:10.1126/science.1130726
Appendix: Dictionaries
HYDCD. (2000). Hanyu da cidian [汉语大词典 Grand dictionary of Chinese language]. Shanghai: Grand Dictionary
of Chinese Language Press.
XDHYCD. (2005). Xiandai Hanyu cidian [现代汉语词典 Modern Chinese dictionary] (5th ed.). Beijing: Commercial
Press.
XSDHYDCD. (2004). Xin shidai Han-Ying da cidian [新时代汉英大词典 New age Chinese-English dictionary].
Beijing: Commercial Press.
XXDHYCD. (1992). Xin xiandai Hanyu cidian [新现代汉语词典 A new dictionary of modern Chinese language].
Haikou, Hainan: Hainan Press.
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 125
Downloadedby[${individualUser.displayName}]at10:1620April2016