JoLIE 12:1/2019

Back to issue page

THE CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF JOY

Oana-Maria Păstae

Constantin Brâncuși University of Târgu-Jiu, Romania

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to study how ‘joy’, an emotional concept, is metaphorised in English from a cognitive perspective. It introduces the theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics, then briefly touches upon the definition of metaphor, the different types of conceptual metaphors and, finally, the conceptual metaphors of ‘joy’.

We think in metaphors, which we learn very early. Our conceptual system, in terms of what we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature (Lakoff, & Johnson 2003: 8).

Lakoff and Johnson’s book Metaphors we live by changed the way linguists thought about metaphor. Conceptual Metaphor Theory was one of the earliest theoretical frameworks identified as part of the cognitive semantics enterprise and provided much of the early theoretical impetus for the cognitive approach. The basic premise of Conceptual Metaphor Theory is that metaphor is not simply a stylistic feature of language, but that thought itself is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.

The cognitive model of joy can be described using the example of Lakoff for anger: joy is a fluid in a container: She was bursting with joy; joy is heat/fire: Fires of joy were kindled by the birth of her son; joy is a natural force: I was overwhelmed by joy; joy is a social superior: If I ruled the world by joy; joy is an opponent: She was seized by joy; joy is a captive animal: All joy broke loose as the kids opened their presents; joy is insanity: The crowd went crazy with joy; joy is a force dislocating the self: He was beside himself with joy.

Keywords: Cognition; Joy; Conceptual metaphor; Emotion; Cognitive linguistics.

References

De Saussure, F. (1995). Cours de linguistique générale. Payot: Paris.

Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Evans, V. (2007). A glosarry of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Fillmore, C. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood, K. Whistler, & J. Wright (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 123-131). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315

Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calmy (pp. 111-137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.

Geeraerts, D. (Ed.). (2006). Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes (PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g9427m2

Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr., & G.J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79-100). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hiraga, M.K. (1991). Metaphors Japanese women live by. In D. Bower, A. Pauwels, & J. Winter (Eds.), Working Papers on Language, Gender and Sexism, Vol. 1 (pp. 38-57) Publication of the Scientific Commission of Language, Gender, International Association of Applied Linguistics, Monash University Printing Service.

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2006). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1977). Linguistic gestalts. Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistics Society. 13 (pp. 236-287). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff G., & Thomson, H. (1975). Introducing cognitive grammar. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood, K. Whistler, & J. Wright (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 295-313). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Retrieved from http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/bls/previous_proceedings/bls35.pdf.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315

Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Langacker, R.W. (1978). The form and the meaning of the English auxiliary. Language, 54(4), 853-882.

Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press: Stanford.

Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 4 (pp. 181-238). New York: Academic Press.

Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon (pp. 57-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Talking about emotions: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3-4), 285-319. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411073

How to cite this article: Păstae, O-M. (2019). The conceptual metaphor of joy. Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education – JoLIE, 12(1), 139-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29302/jolie.2019.12.1.10

For details on subscription, go to: http://jolie.uab.ro/index.php?pagina=-&id=19&l=en