Language, Figurative Thought, andCross-Cultural Comparison

Zoltn KvecsesSchool of English and American Studies

Etvs Lornd University

The articles in this special issue shed refreshing new light on a number of issues inthe cross-cultural study of metaphor and its use in teaching and learning foreignlanguages. The theory of conceptual metaphor is emerging in this volume as a newtool that is capable of providing serious assistance to both teachers and students ofthese languages. Yet, the main attraction of the articles, at least for me, is that in ad-dition to giving us this new tool, the articles point to new directions in thecross-cultural study of metaphor. Boers (this issue) put together a set of exciting ar-ticles that will, I believe, stimulate a great deal of future research both in appliedand cognitive linguistics, or as some scholars would call this fledgling field, ap-plied cognitive linguistics (Ptz, Niemeier, & Dirven, 2001).

Low (this issue) discusses one of the most basic issues: How do we go frommetaphorical expressions to conceptual metaphors? This is an especially pertinentquestion in light of the many mistaken metaphor analyses in the literature. As Lowshows, it is not easy to arrive at conceptual metaphors, and explicit guidelines areneeded to help applied linguists who see a potential in the theory of conceptualmetaphor for the purposes of language teaching.

The cognitive linguistic view of metaphor is a complex theory. In this view,metaphor is seen as being constituted by a variety of parts, or components, that in-teract with each other. These include the following:

(1) Experiential basis(2) Source domain(3) Target domain

METAPHOR AND SYMBOL, 18(4), 311320Copyright 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Zoltn Kvecses , School of English and American Studies,Etvs Lornd University, Ajtsi Drer sor 1921, H1146 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: zkovecses@ludens.elte.hu

(4) Relationship between the source and the target(5) Metaphorical linguistic expressions(6) Mappings(7) Entailments(8) Blends(9) Nonlinguistic realization

(10) Cultural models

A brief explication of the components of metaphor could be given as follows: Con-ceptual metaphors consist of a source and target domain (2 and 3). The choice ofparticular sources to go with particular targets is motivated by an experiential basis(1). The relation of the source and the target is such that a source domain can applyto several targets and a target can attach to several sources (4). The particular pair-ings of source and target domains give rise to metaphorical linguistic expressions(5). There are basic conceptual correspondences, or mappings, between the sourceand target domains (6). Source domains often map materials onto the target be-yond the basic correspondences. These additional mappings are called entail-ments, or inferences (7). The bringing together of a source with a target domain of-ten results in blends, that is, conceptual materials that are new with respect to boththe source and the target (8). Conceptual metaphors often materialize innonlinguistic ways, that is, not only in language and thought but in social reality(9). Conceptual metaphors converge on, and often produce, cultural models, thatis, holistically structured conceptual units (10).

Which of these aspects of metaphor are discussed in the articles, and whichare the ones that are the most important for cross-cultural comparison in a lan-guage teaching perspective? On my reading of the articles, two issues stand out:One is the complex relation between metaphorical linguistic expressions andconceptual metaphors (and metonymies). The other is the role culture plays inthe use of metaphors.

THE RELATION BETWEEN METAPHORICAL LINGUISTICEXPRESSIONS AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS

One major question that several of the authors address is this: How can we ex-press the same figurative meaning in different languages? Based on the work inthis volume (and Charteris-Black, 2002; Deignan, Gabrys, & Solska, 1997),work by other researchers (Pontoretto, 1994), and some of my own (Kvecses,2001, 2003; Kvecses & Szab, 1996), I propose the possibilities summarized inTable 1.

Table 1 shows that the figurative meaning is the same in all cases (except Possi-bility 4, but see following). Furthermore, I assume that different word forms are

312 KVECSES

utilized in different languages in the expression of meaning (although there are oc-casional exceptions to this). The literal meaning of an expression with a figurativemeaning may be either the same or different in the two languages. Finally, there arethree cognitive devices that each also may be either the same or different in the twolanguages. The cognitive devices include conceptual metaphor, conceptualmetonymy, or their combination (metaphor and metonymy combined).

Let us take a closer look at these possibilities and, for simplicitys sake, con-sider only conceptual metaphor. The first possibility involves cases where in onelanguage we have a word form that has a particular literal meaning and a corre-sponding figurative meaning based on a particular conceptual metaphor, and in theother language, we have a different word form that has the same literal meaningand the same figurative meaning based on the same conceptual metaphor.

The second possibility involves cases where in one language we have a wordform that has a particular literal meaning and a corresponding figurative meaningbased on a conceptual metaphor, and in the other language we have a differentword form that has a different literal meaning and the same figurative meaningbased on the same conceptual metaphor.

The third possibility involves cases where in one language we have a word formthat has a particular literal meaning and a corresponding figurative meaning basedon a conceptual metaphor, and in the other language we have a different word formthat has the same literal meaning and the same figurative meaning based on a dif-ferent conceptual metaphor.

The fourth possibility (given as Possibility 5 in the table) involves cases wherein one language we have a word form that has a particular literal meaning and acorresponding figurative meaning based on a conceptual metaphor, and in theother language we have a different word form that has the same figurative meaningthat is expressed by a literal meaning.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON 313

TABLE 1The Expression of the Same Figurative Meaning

PossibilityWordForm

LiteralMeaning

FigurativeMeaning

ConceptualMetaphor

(ConceptualMetaphor and

Metonymy)(ConceptualMetonymy)

1 different same same same (s/d) (s/d)2 different different same same (s/d) (s/d)3 different different same different (s/d) (s/d)(4) different different different different (s/d) (s/d)5 different different same

[by means ofliteral meaning]

[no metaphor] [no metaphorand metonymy]

[no metonymy]

Note: Parentheses indicate that only conceptual metaphor is discussed.

This last possibility is not really an option for most cognitive linguists; figurativemeaningcannot reallybeexpressed in literalways.Themeaningof, say,blowonesstack, cannot be rendered by the phrase get very angry or one of its equivalents inother languages (Gibbs,1994).Ontheotherhand,afunctionallyequivalentdiffer-ent figurative meaning carried by a different word form with a different literal mean-ing based on a different conceptual metaphor can, curiously, be used to express thesame figurative meaning in another language (given as Possibility 4 in the table).This often happens in translations of literary works (Sgi, 2002).

However, as Charteris-Black (this issue) shows, we also can ask the followingrelated question: What figurative meanings can the same literal meaning express intwo languages? As his article indicates, the answer is that we get a set of new pat-terns, presented in Table 2.

As can be seen, in this situation it is the literal meaning that is kept constant (aswhen we ask how the words literally meaning mouth in English and Malay areused figuratively).

What is the use of all this? I think a major advantage of this way of looking atmetaphors (and other cognitive devices) in different languages is that we couldsystematically study and compare metaphors across languages. More specifically,we could find out which of the possibilities previously mentioned characterizes thetypical ways of expressing figurative meanings in two or more languages (Table 1),and the typical ways in which literal meanings are put to use in the expression offigurative meaning in two or more languages (Table 2). Needless to say, the peda-gogical implications would be significant if we had a description of languagesalong these lines.

METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

All of the authors bring up the issue of how culture interacts with metaphor. As Iread them, they all advocate the view that culture plays a major role in the use ofmetaphorical language. Littlemore (this issue) and Charteris-Black (this issue)make this point especially forcefully. Although Deignan (this issue) agrees with

314 KVECSES

TABLE 2Figurative Uses of the Same Literal Meaning

PossibilityWordForm

LiteralMeaning

FigurativeMeaning

ConceptualMetaphor

(ConceptualMetaphor and

Metonymy)(ConceptualMetonymy)

1 different same different s/d (s/d) (s/d)2 different same same s/d (s/d) (s/d)

Note: Parentheses indicate that the only conceptual metaphor is discussed.

this in general, she also makes the important point that the metaphors we use todaymay not reflect current understandings about our culture. It is our job in the futureto find out in which cases this is true and in which ones it is not or it is only partiallytrue.

The issue of the relation between metaphor and culture is all-important andtakes a variety of forms. For this reason, let me second the authors of this volumewith my own case study that presents yet another form of the metaphorculture in-teraction. I will analyze in some detail one of the best-known conceptual meta-phors in the cognitive linguistic literature: LOVE IS A JOURNEY.

Two languages may share a conceptual metaphor and the conceptual metaphormay be expressed by largely overlapping metaphorical expressions, but the expres-sions can reveal subtle differences in the cultural-ideological background in whichthe conceptual metaphor functions. A good case in point is the metaphor LOVE ISA JOURNEY (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Following are the American English ex-amples as given by Lakoff and Johnson, together with their Hungarian counter-parts: (The translations were arrived at jointly with 20 English-speaking Hungar-ian students of mine in the Department of American Studies at Etvs LorndUniversity, Budapest.)

LOVE IS A JOURNEY.

(1) Look how far weve come.?Nzd milyen messzire jutottunk.[Look how far reach-1st PERS PL-PAST]?Ltod milyen messzire jutottunk?[See how far reach-1st PERS PL-PAST]

(2) Were at a crossroads.Vlaszt eltt llunk.[crossroads before stand-1st PERS PL-PRES

(3) Well just have to go our separate ways.*Kln utakra kell lpnnk.[Separate ways-on (LOC) must step-1st PERS PL]Elvlnak tjaink.[Separate-3rd PERS PL way-POSS-PL]

(4) We cant turn back now.*Nem fordulhatunk vissza.[Not turn-can-1st PERS PL back](Innen) mr nincs visszat.[(from-here) already no back-way]

(5) I dont think this relationship is going anywhere.Nem hiszem, hogy ez a kapcsolat vezet valahova.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON 315

[Not think-1st PERS that (CONJ) this the relationship lead-3rd PERSsomewhere]Nem hiszem, hogy ennek a kapcsolatnak van rtelme.[Not think-1st PERS that (CONJ) this-POSS the relationship-POSS ismeaning]

(6) Where are we??Hol vagyunk/tartunk most?[where be/keep-1st PERS now]

(7) Were stuck. *Elakadtunk.[get-stuck-1st PERS]Kapcsolatunk elakadt/ktyba jutott/bedgltt.[relationship-POSS get-stuck-1st PERS]

(8) Its been a long, bumpy road.Hossz, rgs t ll mgttnk.[long bumpy way stand-3rd PERS behind-1st PERS]

(9) This relationship is a dead-end street.?Ez a kapcsolat zskutca.[this the relationship dead-end-street]Zskutcba jutottunk.[dead-end-street reach-1st PERS PL PAST]

(10) Were just spinning our wheels.*Csak prgetjk a kerekeinket.[Only spin-1st PERS-PL the wheel-PL-POSS-ACC]Ez (mr) csak felesleges erlkds/kinlds.[This (already) only superfluous effort]

(11) Our marriage is on the rocks.*Hzassgunk van sziklkon.[marriage-POSS is rock-PL-LOC]Hzassgunk ztonyra futott.[marriage-POSS aground run-3rd PERS PAST]

(12) Weve gotten off the track.*Kisiklottunk.[get-off-track-1st PERS-PAST]?Kapcsolatunk kisiklott.[relationship-POSS get-off-track-1st PERS-PAST]Kapcsolatunk megfeneklett.[relationship-POSS run-aground-3rd PERS-PAST]

(13) This relationship is foundering.*Ez a kapcsolat sllyed(flben van).[This the relationship founder-3rd PERS(ing-PROG)]Kapcsolatunk megfeneklett.

316 KVECSES

[Relationship-POSS run-aground-3rd PERS-PAST]Ez a kapcsolat mr nem tart sokig.[This the relationship already not last-3rd PERS long]

As can be noticed, most of the American English examples translate into Hun-garian in a straightforward way. In most cases where English has a metaphoricalword or expression with a particular literal meaning, Hungarian also has a word orexpression with the same or similar literal meaning. This would suggest that theconceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY is expressed linguistically in muchthe same way in the two languages. Although this is largely true, we can noticesubtle differences in the details of linguistic expression. For example, in Sentence1 English uses the verb come, whereas Hungarian uses jut, meaning something likeget to a place after experiencing difficulties and in Sentence 3 we find we (haveto go our separate ways), with we in subject position, whereas in Hungarian it isour roads (that separate). The question we have to ask is this: Are these differ-ences in detail isolated, accidental, and without any real significance in the studyof metaphorical thought in culture, or, on the contrary, are they systematic, moti-vated and of significance in the study of this thought? I propose that the latter is thecase. I believe that larger cultural themes, or topics, that have the potential to dis-tinguish different cultures manifest themselves and recur in many of the examples.

In several examples, the American English sentences foreground activeagents and deliberate action on the part of these agents, as opposed to the fore-grounding of a passive relationship and relative passivity on the part of the peo-ple participating in the love relationship in Hungarian. In Sentences 7 and 12, forexample, we have an agent in English (we), whereas the corresponding Hungar-ian sentences foreground the relationship itself as a passive entity that undergoessome event (being stuck in 7 and foundering 12). The difference may be sugges-tive of a more action-oriented versus a more passivity-oriented attitude to loveand to life in general. In addition, in Sentence 1, the active verb come is used inEnglish, where Hungarian has the verb jut (corresponding to reach). The Hun-garian verb emphasizes the difficult nature of, and hence the effort required in,making progress in the relationship; the English verb, by contrast, downplaysany difficulties in the progress.

Other sentences suggest that decisions about relationships are influenced by in-ternal considerations of active agents in English, while they seem to be influencedby external conditions in Hungarian. Decisions to act in certain ways are meta-phorically understood in terms of choosing to go along one path rather than an-other. Thus, decisions about either staying together in the relationship or movingon with the relationship are conceptualized as choosing (or not choosing) certainpaths. In Sentence 3, in English two active agents (we) are making a(n internalmental) decision (probably based on some external factors), whereas in Hungarianit is the fork in the road (an external condition) that is forcing the agents to go their

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON 317

separate ways. We can find something similar in Sentence 4, where in English de-cisions are made internally by the agents, as opposed to Hungarian where, again,an external condition (that there is no road going back) is forcing the lovers tomake the choice (of not going back). In other words, it seems that in English inter-nal considerations of external conditions cause people in a love relationship to actin certain ways, whereas in Hungarian external conditions directly force the loversto act in certain ways. Thus, the English LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor hasagents who are involved in an internal way (mentally, conceptually) in making de-cisions, unlike the Hungarian metaphor that has agents who are externally forcedto make decisions about their relationship. In general, perhaps all this can be re-lated to a more fatalistic attitude to life in the case of Hungarians.

Sentence 10 suggests a further difference in culturally entrenched outlook onlove relationships. In the English version, two active agents are trying to move therelationship ahead (by spinning wheels) despite the impossibility of the task (spin-ning wheels do not move the car forward). The wheels are spinning but there is nomotion forward. Spinning the wheels is an action intended to move the relationship(the car) forward. In other words, the agents are making a continued and concertedeffort to achieve progress. Thus, in addition to goal-orientedness, this suggests op-timism, determination, and perseverance in achieving ones goals. By contrast, thecorresponding Hungarian sentence explicitly states what is only implied by theEnglish one; namely, that superfluous effort and energy is spent on something thatdoes not work. Hungarian, thus, attaches much less importance to the necessity ofachieving ones goal, and it expresses resignation and a tendency to give in toforces that are beyond ones control. This difference might be related to a distinc-tion between a more success-oriented and a less success-oriented attitude to prob-lematic situations in life.

A final difference concerns the naturalness with which the people in the rela-tionship evaluate from the outside, as it were, the progress they have made.Sentences 1 and 6 constitute such objective evaluations. While these Englishsentences can easily be translated into Hungarian word for word, all the Hungar-ians I have asked were of the opinion that the corresponding Hungarian sen-tences are not really used in everyday conversations in a natural way. In otherwords, it seems that Hungarians make explicit their evaluations of their love re-lationships with less ease than those Americans do whose language is character-ized by sentences such as 1 and 6. This kind of self-evaluation may be related toan observation that was brought to my attention by Josephine Tudor, a nativespeaker of British English (personal communication, November, 2002). Tudorobserved that British speakers of English would primarily use the metaphoricalexpressions belonging to the LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor of other people,rather than of themselves. Furthermore, on occasions when they do use the ex-pressions of themselves, they tend to qualify them with all kinds of hedges, suchas rather, a bit, dont you think, and so on. Thus, the American explicitness con-

318 KVECSES

cerning ones success or difficulties in love relationships reflects a degree of ex-troversion that is not found in many other cultures, including Hungarian andBritish cultures.

As these differences in the subtler details of linguistic expression show, two lan-guages or varieties may have the same conceptual metaphor but the linguistic ex-pression of the conceptual metaphor may be influenced or shaped by differences incultural-ideological traits and assumptions characterizing different cultures. Sub-tle linguistic differences point to certain cultural-ideological traits that appear to bedeeply entrenched and widespread in American and Hungarian culture. TheLOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor is a conceptual metaphor that is highly moti-vated cognitively. It consists of primary metaphors that are based on universalhuman experiences (e.g., Grady, 1997), such as PURPOSES AREDESTINATIONS. But the metaphor is not only cognitively but also culturally mo-tivated. As the cultural factors change from culture to culture, so does the metaphorand its linguistic expression. In it, the cognitive and the cultural are fused into a sin-gle conceptual complex. In this sense, what we call conceptual metaphors are justas much cultural entities as they are cognitive ones.

REFERENCES

Boers, F. (2003). Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor.Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 231238.

Charteris-Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay andEnglish. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 104133.

Charteris-Black, J. (2003). Speaking with forked tongue: A comparative study of metaphor andmetonymy in English and Malay phraseology. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 289310.

Deignan, A. (2003). Metaphoric expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol, 18,255271.

Deignan, A., Gabrys, D. & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguisticawareness raising activities. ELT Journal, 51(4), 353360.

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge, England: CUP.Grady, J. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267290.Kvecses , Z. (2001). A cognitive linguistic view of learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Ptz (Ed.),

Applied cognitive linguistics (pp. 87115). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Kvecses, Z. (2003). Metaphor in culture. Unpublished manuscript, Etvs Lornd University.Kvecses, Z., & Szabo, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive linguistics. Applied Linguistics,

17(3), 326355.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Littlemore, J. (2003). The effect of cultural background on metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and

Symbol, 18, 273288.Low, G. (2003). Validating metaphoric models in applied linguistics. Metaphor and Symbol, 18,

239254.Pontoretto, D. (1994). Metaphors we can learn by [Electronic version]. Forum, 32(3), Retrived from

http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vol5/vol132/no3/p2.htm

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON 319

Ptz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2001). Applied cognitive linguistics. Berlin, Germany:Mouton de Gruyter.

Sgi, O. (2002). Translating metaphors in literature from English to Hungarian: The case of NabokovsLolita. Unpublished term paper, Etvs Lornd University, Budapest, Hungary.

320 KVECSES