The structuring of the concept STRENGTH in accordance with the anthropomorphic metaphorical model (in the modern English language)

There are two main lines of metaphor investigation: semantic (M. Black, J. Searle, D. Rotbart, E.F. Kittay) and cognitive founded by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson. The cognitive line treats metaphor as a transfer of knowledge from one conceptual field to another whereas the representatives of the semantic line consider that the process of metaphorization implies interaction of two concepts belonging to different semantic fields, and a metaphor is a transition of lexical units between semantic fields. The authors support the cognitive line where a metaphor is treated as one of the main mental operations, as a means of cognition, categorization and conceptualization, evaluation and explanation of the world. In the book Metaphors We Live By, G. Lakoff and M. Johnson work out the notion of a conceptual metaphor which they see as a scheme, a unified cognitive structure connecting mental representations with a sensual and experimental basis formed under the influence of people's previous experience and their cultural background. Interaction between the cognitive structures of two conceptual domains - source-domain and target-domain - is the basis of metaphorization. As a result of metaphorical mapping, the elements of the source-domain, formed on the basis of a person's previous experience, structure the obscure elements of the target-domain, which is the essence of the cognitive potentiality of a metaphor. Abstract concepts are often subject to a metaphorical conceptualization. The aim of the present article is to consider the peculiarities of the metaphorical representation of the concept STRENGTH in the modern English language. The authors use the method of studying the compatibility of the lexeme-representative of the concept and its synonyms with concrete predicates. As a rule, conceptual metaphors are arranged in larger categories. Researchers distinguish anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, phytomorphic, nature-morphic and artefact metaphorical models. Based on the data of the factual material analysis, the authors determined three categories relevant to the research: subsphere "Person", subsphere "Nature" and subsphere "Artefacts". The attention focuseson the subsphere "Person" presented by anthropomorphic conceptual metaphors STRENGTH IS A PERSON, STRENGTH IS A MASTER, STRENGTH IS AN OPPONENT, STRENGTH IS AN ENEMY. The structuring of the concept STRENGTH in accordance with the anthropomorphic metaphorical model implies the personification of the names strength, force, power, violence, fortitude, vigour, that is their likening to a person. This fact determines their compatibility with the predicates having subject-oriented features, that is activity, volition, controllability and animacy of an object. The essence of a metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another. Specifying something as abstract as strength as being a person, one can comprehend a variety of experiences with nonhuman entities in terms of human motivations, characteristics and activities.

Keywords

Authors

References