Chapter 1
Introduction
The importance of metaphor to human language and cognition cannot be
over emphasized. This importance is weIl summarized by Malotki (1983: 13)
when he wntes:
Man, in con企onting reality, faces a kaleidoscope of phenomena ranging from the
naturaI to the man-made, to the imaginary, to the totaIly abstract. COlllprehension
of such a broad inventory of reality and non-reality requires language, the tool
that permits man to take verbal stock of 0均ective and su均 ective experiences
alike. In man's ongoing endeavor to conceptualize and verbalize a world that can
never be fully known, language is the vitaI intermediary. Language provides a
repertoire of coping mechanisms, of which metaphor is one of the most powerful
and usefuI.
1mportant as it is, metaphor has attracted the attention of scholars interested in
language, especiaIly rhetoricians and literary critics, for more than 2000 years.
TraditionaUy, however, metaphor was viewed as a matter of language, as a
set of extraordìnary or figurative linguistic expressions whose meaning is reducible
to some set of literal propositions. This view can be traced back to as
early as Aristotle, who defined metaphor in tenns of deviation from ordinary
usage: "Metaphor consists in giving the thing a name that belongs to something
else" (from Ricoeur 1975: 13). According to this view, metaphor is primarily
decorative and omamental in nature. It is not necessary; it is just nice
Viewed as such, metaphor was caIled a figure of speech, and its study was
confined mostly to Iiterature and rhetoric (Lakoff 1986a).'
1n the past few decades, however, the situation has undergone a radical
change. The interest in metaphor and the study of its structure, mechanism,
function, effect, and cognitive nature have grown rapidly in a broad range of
disciplines: linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, education, sci-
2 THE CONTEMPORARY THEORY OF METAPHOR
ences, as well as literary criticism and rhetoric (see, e.g., Sapir and Crocker
1977, Sacks 1978, Honeck and Hoffman 1980, Johnson 1981a, W. Taylor
1984, Paprotté and Dirven 1985, Danesi 1988a, Femandez 1991a, Ankersmit
and Mooij 1993, Ortony 1993a, Goossens et al. 1995). As Wayne Booth, a famous
literary theorist and rhetorician, noticed one and a half decades ago, "No
matter how we define it, metaphor seems to be taking over not only the world
of humanists but the world of the social and natural sciences as well" (1978:
48). He regarded the transitional period as "an intellectual movement" which is
"one ofthe ‘greatest' in the history ofthought" (p. 47). From the viewpoint of
a philosopher, Mark Johnson (1981a: ix) observed the change like this: "We
are in the midst of a metaphormania. Only three decades ago the situation was
just the opposite: poets created metaphors, everybody used them, and philosophers
(linguists, psychologists, etc.) ignored them. Today we seem possessed
by metaphor." By then metaphor had already moved "from the status of a sub.
sidiary concem to the status of a c巳ntral problem" (Johnson 1981b: 3).
Rising in this change is the view that metaphor is a matter of thought and,
as such, should be called a figure of thought (Lakoff 1986a). This view is
based on "an ever-increasing awareness that figurative language lies at the core
of communication and of cognition" (Danesi 1988b: vii). The rise of th巳 new
view and the current multidisciplinary exploration mark a striking phenomenon
in modem intellectual history: the transfo口nation of metaphor 企om a special啕
ized concem of rhetoricians and literary critics to a central concept in the study
of human understanding. Metaphor is now a conc叩t with multidisciplinary
implications. Its use has been found "in virtually every aspect of human
thought: physical science, biological science, economics, law, political theory,
psycholo町， art, philosophy, business, morality, and even poetry" (Johnson
1995: 158). As Johnson (1993b, 1995) suggests, metaphor is definitional of
human beings: ''whatever else we are, we humans are metaphorizing animals"
(1 995: 159).
Emerging from this period of transformation is a new theory of metaphor
whose beginning was marked by the publication of Lakoff and Johnson's
seminal book Metaphors We Live By in 1980.' Th巳 central thesis of the theory
is that metaphor, in its broad sense, is pervasive and essent
INTRODUCTION 3
1989b, 1991, 1992, 1993b, 1993c), Kövecses (1990吟， Lakoff (1 986a, 1986b,
1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1989b, 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1994), Lakoff and Johnson
(1981), Lakoff and Tumer (1989), Sweetser (1 990, 1992), Tumer (1 987,
1991), to mentionjust a few.
Following Lakoff (1 993a), 1will call this theory of metaphor "the contempor缸y
theory ofmetaphor." The primary objective ofmy study is to contribute
t。由e contemporary theory of metaphor 企om the viewpoint of Chinese, so as
to help place the theory into a wider cross-cultural perspective.
Aiming at this primary objective, the study explores two m句 or questions
faced by the contemporary theory: (1) if abstract reasoning is at least partially
metaphorical in nature; and (2) what conceptual metaphors are universal, widespread,
or culture-specific. It focuses on (a) metaphors of two emotions,
namely anger and happiness; (b) the TIME AS SPACE metaphor; and (c) the
Event Structure Metaphor.
The contemporary theory of metaphor claims that abstract concepts are at
least in part understood and expressed metaphorically in spatial terms and that
abstract reason is achieved by using certain mechanisms for the perception of
spatial relations. This is seen as the consequence of the Invariance Principle
(Lakoff 1990, 1993a, 1994, Tumer 1990, 1992, 1993), which states that metaphor
projects the image-schematic structure of the source domain onto the target
domain in a way that is consistent with inherent target domain structure. In
出is theory, therefore, metaphor is the locus for abstract reason. It casts the abstract
and the nonphysical into the concrete and the physical, usually with spatial
dimensions. Indeed, most image schemas, such as SOURCE-PATH-GOAL,
OBJECT, CONTAINMENT, BALANCE, LINKS, CYCLE, are spatial in nature. EveIl
various invisible force schemas, such as COMPULSION, ATTRACTION,
COUNTERFORCE, DIVER~ION (Johnson 1987),bring about spatial consequences.
In this book, 1 wi1l work toward an answer to the following general ques-
tlons:
1. Is abstract reason in Chinese achieved via metaphor mapping the concrete
and physical onto the abstract and nonphysical? If the answer is
positive, then how is it achieved?
2. How is Chinese similar to or different 企om English in certain aspects
of the concepωal system? 1 wi11 particularly investigate metaphors of
anger and happiness, the TIME AS SPACE metaphor, the Event Structure
Metaphor, and the image schemas involved.
4 THE CONTEMPORARY THEORY OF METAPHOR
3. If 也ere exist commonalities and differences, as is expected, what reasons
(cognitive or cultural) are th町e that can account for 也em?
As mentioned above, 1 will first present a comparative study of metaphors
of emotions, which is a revised version of my earlier work (Yu 1995). In the
last one and half decades, extensive studies have been made by cognitive linguists
on the function of metaphor in the conceptualization of emotions in
English (e.g. Fesmire 1994, Kövecses 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991, Lakoff 1987,
Lakoffand Johnson 1980, Lakoffand Kövecses 1987). A central claim ofthese
studies is that human emotions, which 缸'e abstract in nature, are Iargely conceptualized
and expressed in metaphorical terms. For instance, it is argued that
in English, to some extent，也e emotion of anger is conc叩tualized in terms of
heat and intemal pressure (e.g. Lakoff and Kövecses 1987). It is also 眩目ed
that in English the metaphors of orientation and light participate in the conC叩tualization
of happiness (e.g. K，δvecses 1991). 白le question arises 回 to
what extent it is also true in Chinese. In particular, my questions ar审:
1. Are emotions ofanger and happiness conceptualized metapbOricalty in
Chinese?
2. If yes, what similariti四 and differences are there in terms of mapping
部ross domains between English and Chinese?
3. What reasons are there that can account 岛r the simi!arities and differ-
ences?
Next, 1 will present a study of the TIME AS SPACE m~taphor in Chinese. 1
have chosen the TIME AS SPACE metaphor for detai!ed study because it has already
been noted in various languages that notions of time 缸e understood and
expressed in terms of space (e.g. Clark 19}3, Traugott 1978, Malotki 1983,
.Lakoff 1990, 1993a, 1994, Alverson 1994).I'ft is proposed that the metaphorical
understanding oftime in terms ofspace is a universal cognitive process (Alverson
1994). 80 far, however, sufficient research on this phenomenon has not yet
been done in Chinese (Alverson 1994 contains one study). Th町efore， a 位lorough
analysis of expression and conceptualization of time in Chinese will contribute
to the establishment of the universal status of this cognitive phenome-
non.
Lakoff (1990, 1993a, 1994) has noticed that in English th~ gen就aI conceptual
metaphor of time is TIME PASSING IS MOTION. 8pecifically, time is understood
in terms ofthings (i.e. entities and locations) and motion. The present
time is at the same location as a canonical observer, with future times being in
INTRODUCTION 5
front of the obse凹er and past times behind :he observer. Either time or the 'Observer
is m'Oving while the 'Other is stati'Onary. Theref'Ore, as Lak'Off specifi时，
there are tw'O special cases in English:
1. TIME PASSING IS MOTION OF AN OBJECT.
2. TIME PASSING IS MOTION OVER A LANDSCAPE.
In the first case, the 'Observer is fixed, and times are entities m'Oving with their
企onts toward the observer. In the sec'Ond case, times are fixed l'Ocati'Ons, and
the observer is moving thr'Ough them. Lak'Off (1993a, 1994) als'O 'Observed the
phenomen'On he called ‘duality' where simultane'Ous mappings may mix the
two special cases in a single expressi'On.
With respect t'O the study 'Of time in Chinese, my specific questi'Ons 红'e:
1. Is time c'Onceptualized metaph'Orically in te口ns 'Of space in Chinese?
2. Are the tw'O special cases in the c'Onceptualizati'On 'Of time, as 'Observed
by Lak'Off(1993a, 1994), applicable in Chinese?
3. What similarities and differences are there between English and Chi-
nese?
4. What reasons are there that can acc'Ount f'Or the similarities and differ-
ences?
Finally, 1will present a study 'Ofthe Event Structure Metaph'Or in Chinese. 1
have ch'Osen the Event Structure Metaph'Or f'Or study because it c'Onstitutes a
very c'Omplex metaph'Orical system in itself. In Lak'Offs w'Ords (1993a: 220),
"This is a rich and c'Omplex metaphor wh'Ose parts interact in c'Omplex ways."
It includes abstract n'Oti'Ons like states, changes, acti'Ons, causes, purp'Oses,
méans, and difficulties. Lak'Off and his students have f'Ound (Lak'Off 1990,
1993a, 1993b, 1994) that these n'Oti'Ons are characterized in English via metaph'Or
in terms 'Of space, m'Oti'On, and f'Orce. He has suggested that the Event
Structure Metaph'Or is his "candidate f'Or a metaph'Orical universal" (1993a:
249). Therefore, it will be 'Of great the'Oretical interest t'O see if a parallel situati'On
exists in Chinese.
The Event Structure Metaph'Or may include the f'Oll'Owing mappings (仕om
Lak'Off 1993a):
States are l'Ocati'Ons (b'Ounded regi'Ons in space).
Changes are m'Ovements (int'O 'Or 'Out 'Ofb'Ounded regions).
Causes are forces.
6 THE CONTEMPORARY THEORY OF METAPHOR
Actions are self-propelled movements.
Purposes are destinations.
Means are paths (to destinations).
Difficulties are impedinìents to motion.
Expected progress is a travel schedule; a schedule is a virtual traveler, who
reaches prearranged destinations at prearranged times.
Extemal events are large, moving objects.
Long term, purposeful activities are joumeys.
There are also various submappings under each ofthe above.
With regard to the Event Structure Metaphor, my specific questions are:
1. Are various aspects (states, changes, actions, causes, purposes, means,
and difficulties, etc.) of event structure conceptualized metaphorically
in terms of space, motion, and force in Chinese?
2. Is the above list ofmappings found as it is in Chinese?
3. What similarities and differences are there between English and Chinese
in this aspect?
4. What reasons are there that can account for the similarities and differ-
ences?
The source domain for both time and event structure dealt wi也 here is
space, which "has become a fertile domain of investigation by cognitive scientists
企om disciplines spanning neurophysiology (Jeannerod 1994) to cognitive
anthropology and comparative linguistics (Levinson 1991, Svorou 1994)"
(Sinha 1995: 7). However, the spatial domain is especially important to cognitive
linguistics. In his ‘Introduction' to the Cognitive Linguistics special issue
(6-1) ‘ Spatial language and cognition 1,' Sinha (1995: 7) points out that the
semantic and cognitive domain of space occupies a special place in the brief
history of cognitive linguistics because cognitive semantics and cognitive
g创nmar， "rest upon an essentially visuo-spatial conception of meaning and
conceptualization, in which s归nbolic s位uctures are derived 仕om embodied
constraints upon human perc叩tion and agency in a spatial field." Although
cognitive linguists were not the first to adopt a spatial conception of grarnrnaticalized
meaning, "their analyses s旧pass previous approaches both in
comprehensiveness and in richness of detail" (Sinha 1995: 7). Sinha (1995: 7)
further points out why the domain ofspace should attract our special attention.
INTRODUCTION 7
As we leam more both about the biological foundations of human spatial perception
and cognition, and ιbout the truly astonishing variation between languages in
the way they express and schematize spatial meaning, we cannot fail to be struck
by the thought that the spatial domain is a particularly rich one for empirical investigation
both of possible linguistic and cognitive universals, and of possible
cross-linguistic and cross-cultural cognitive differenccs
The spatial domain is important not only in its own, but because it is commonly
mapped into other more abstract domains, giving rise to spatial conceptualization
of those more abstract domains in a metaphorical fashion. As
Levinson (1991: 3) has commented:
There are many reasons to think spatial conceptualization central to human cognition:
spatial understanding is perhaps the first great intellectual task facing the
child, a task which human mobility makes mandatory, but above all spatial
thinking invades our conceptualizations of many other domains as diverse as
time, social structure and mathematics.
How the spatial domain is mapped into each of those many other domains
and in what way the mappings ref1ect human universality and cultural relativity
are the questions that remain to be answered. The present study represents one
effort in this direction.
ln the past, the cognitive linguistic study of metaphor was criticized for its
methodological weaknesses or limitations, such as introspective inspection,
decontextualization, in addition to lack of cross-cultural and cross-linguistic
perspectives (see, e.g., Femandez 1991b, Quinn 1991, and the discussion in
Gibbs 1996a). To try to get beyond these limitations 1 did the following with
respect to my research methods. Instead ofresorting to introspective inspection
only, 1 collected my data for Chapters 4 and 5 企om a naturalistic setting,
mainly 企'om Peop/e's Dai纱， the number one official newspaper in mainland
China, and occasionally from some other publications, as well as 企om Chinese
dicti'Onaries.3 飞.vith a few exceptions, they were collected during a period of
ab'Out three months of the summer of 1994. The ex缸nples actually cited in this
study constitute only a very small portion of the data collected. 1did n'Ot record
the actual s'Ources of the data, such as the page and the date 'Of the newspaper
企om which a particular example is taken. This is mainly because 1 had to simplify
some of the examples by chopping off some irrelevant details so as to
ke叩 them short and concise. In so doing, 1 made the examples simpler and
8 THE CONTEMPORARY THEORY ιFMETAPHOR
more to the point. Furth臼more， by cutting the original examples shorter, 1
saved the space for word-by-word gloss and for more free version of translation.
Thus, not all examples are ‘original' as they are actually in the newspapers.
However, my abridgments have, 1believe, not changed their metaphorical
structure. 1 feel it is fine as long as native speakers find them all in good and
natural Chinese. 1 have kept at least some of the examples unsimplified, so as
to show how metaphor actually permeates in discourse, rather than just resides
in the boundaries of words, phrase.s, or sentences. The data for Chapter 3,
which were collected in an earlier period, mainly 企om dictionaries, consist
only ofhighly conventionalized and idiomatic expressions.
The Chinese examples cited in this book are transcribed into pinyin romanization.
Their counterparts in Chinese characters, which are numbered exactly
as they are in the main text, are provided in the appendix for those who
want to refer to the original character version.
In dealing with the English translation 1follow Malotki's (1983) practice of
translating the Hopi ex缸nples. That is, "stylistic excellence is not always envisaged
as a desirable goal. Frequently, preference is given to a rather literal
rendition which may be awkward from a stylistic point of view, but may be
more revealing of the Hopi thought pattems involved" (p. 11). 1 follow the
same principle in translating the Chinese examples into English.
The empirical studies reported here have produced some remarkable findings
in support of the contempor红y theory of metaphor. ln the first place, my
study of metaphors of emotions demonstrates that English and Chinese share
the same central conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HEAT, which then breaks into
two subversions in both languages. Whereas English has selected FIRE and
FLUID metaphors, Chinese uses FlRE and GAS metaphors for the Same p山pose.
Similarly, both English and Chinese share the UP, LIGHT, and CONTAINER
metaphors in their conceptions ofhappiness, although they differ in some other
cases. Besides, these two languages also follow the same metonymic principle
in talking about anger and happiness by describing the physiological effects of
these emotions. This study shows that metaphors of anger and happiness are
primarily based on common bodily experience, with surface differences across
languages explainable from cultural perspectives. Seco
INTRODUCTION 9
vari'Ous aspects 'Of event structure such as states, changes, causes, acti'Ons, purp'Oses,
means, and difficulties are c'Onceptualized metaph'Orically in terms 'Of
space, m'Oti'On, and f'Orce,just as in English (Lak'Off 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1994).
The c'Onceptual mappings at a high hierarchicallevel 'Of the metaph'Or system
are f'Ound the same in b'Oth English and Chinese, whereas the specific linguistic
instantiati'Ons 'Of th'Ose conceptual mappings may be similar 'Or different between
the two languages.
In general, the empirical studies presented herein reinf'Orce the view that
metaphor is the main mechanism thr'Ough which we c'Omprehend abstract con幽
cepts and perf'Orm abstract reas'Oning. They als'O support，企om the perspective
'Of Chinese, the candidacy of s'Ome c'Onceptual metaph'Ors for metaphorical universals.
These inc1ude, for instance, the ANGER AS HEAT metaphor, the HAPPY IS
UP metaphor, the TIME AS SPACE metaph'Or, and the Event Structure Metaphor.
These c'Onceptual metaph'Ors are grounded in s'Ome basic human experiences
that may be universal t'O al1 human beings and theref'Ore c'Onstitute the "culture
'Of species" (Sv'Or'Ou 1994: 2).
Final1y, a w'Ord ab'Out h'Ow this b'O'Ok is arranged. After a detailed review 'Of
the c'Ontemp'Or缸y the'Ory 'Of metaph'Or in Chapter 2, 1 present a c'Omparative
study of metaph'Orical expressi'Ons 'Of anger and happiness in English and Chinese
in Chapter 3. 1 then make a th'Or'Ough investigati'On 'Of tw'O metaph'Orical
systems, namely the TIME AS SPACE metaph'Or and the Event Structure Metaph'Or
in Chinese respectively in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 6 is the c'Onc1usi'On.