An Explanation for Metaphorical Oppositions in Conceptualizing ‘Death’ Based on the Theory of Iconicity

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 11, Volume 11, Issue 1, September 2019, Pages 285-311   

Document Type: علمی - پژ‍وهشی

DOI: 10.22067/jlkd.2019.28859

Author

Azadeh Sharifi Moghadam^*

Shahid Bahonar University

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor refers to understanding one idea or a conceptual domain in terms of another. A conceptual domain can be mentally organized out of human experiences which are useful for understanding complex ideas in simple terms. A conceptual metaphor consists of two main roles: the target domain is the abstract concept that we try to understand and the source domain which is the concrete concept from which we draw the metaphorical expressions, for example, in “argument is war”, ‘argument’ is the target and ‘war’ is the source domain. The way the source domain is related to the target domain is referred to as mapping (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003).
In most conceptual metaphors, the relationship between the target domain and its source domains are often fixed and stable. For example, ‘happiness is always up’ and ‘sadness is always down’. However, the concept ‘death’ as the target domain is related to different or even contradictory domains such as ‘death is sometimes up and sometimes down’, ‘death is sometimes light and sometimes dark’ and ‘death is sometimes the beginning and sometimes the end’. The present study aims to identify the metaphorical contradictions in the conceptual domain of death in Persian, as well as to explain them by the theory of iconicity. The questions this research seeks to answer are the following:

A) What are the source domains used for the conceptualization of death?
B) Are they semantically in conformity with each other or not?
C) Is there any iconic relationship between contradictions in language and out of language?
Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

In semiotics, iconicity is defined as a kind of relationship of similarity, resemblance or conformity between the two aspects of a sign (linguistic or otherwise), that is, the signifier and the signified. In an iconic sign, the structure of the form in language may resemble the structure of the signified in or out of language (Haiman, 1985). Onomatopoeic words are the simplest form of iconicity in language. Also, the structure of language may be in iconic relation with the structure of the external world such as the conformity between the order of verbs in a report and the order of events happened in the external world.
More over, cognitive linguistics was introduced by the publication of the book “Metaphors we live by” by Lakoff and Johnson in the 80s. This approach made fundamental changes in the study and analysis of metaphor that remained unchanged since Aristotle. The new approach quickly replaced the classic one and it soon attracted many researchers toward this method of analysis. The term ‘conceptual metaphor’ is well known among Iranian researchers and a significant number of works can be found in this area among which we can name Fallah (2008), Moradi and Forouzani (2008), Kakaie and Jabareh (2014), and Hesampoor, et al. (2015).

Method

The present research is descriptive in type. To find the way, the target domain ‘death’ is conceptualized as well as to find the contradictions in the source domains, approximately 349 samples were extracted from different Persian literary and folklore texts. The literary samples were gathered from the selection of the following poets: Moulana, Ferdowsi, Sepehri, Tavalloli, Aminpoor, Shmloo and Farrokhzad. The folklore samples were extracted from Persian proverbs, tombstones, ad funeral massages. First, the source domains were identified and then metaphorical oppositions were tried to be explained based on the extralinguistic knowledge people believe in.

Results and Discussion

Analyzing the data, the source domains used for conceptualizing ‘death’ are as follows:

Death is up/ down: death is both conceptualized as an upward movement (lexicalized by words like flight, heavenly bodies, crown, etc.) and as a downward movement (words like pouring down, falling in a valley, tumbling down, and melting).
Death is path: death is conceptualized as both the end of the road of life as well as the beginning of a better and new life.
Death is near by/ far away: death is both the means to reach God and rest in heaven and also the reason for separation from loved ones.
Death is light/ dark: the data shows that the two poles of lightness/ darkness scale are used as the source domains for death.
Death is open/closed: death is metaphorically depicted as being enclosed in a tight place such as in a prison. It is also a symbol of freedom and liberation
Death is an animate: death as an inevitable event is conceptualized as a powerful being such as a human or a wild animal.
Death is health/illness: both concepts of ‘health’ having positive semantic load and ‘disease’ with negative semantic load were observed in the data.
Death is food: death is conceptualized as both sweet vs. nauseating food. It may also be a guar vs. bitter drink.
Death is hot/cold: the source domains ‘heat’ and ‘cold’, the former having positive meaning and the latter being negative in meaning are used for the target domain of death.
Death is the beginning/ the end: the two other opposite conceptual metaphors attributed to death are ‘existence vs. inexistence/ nothingless’ rooted in the belief in afterlife.
Conclusion

Data analysis reveals two opposing perspectives on death; one is based on a physical and material approach to death and the other is spiritual and it is rooted in religious beliefs; According to human experience, death is the end of one’s life. Here, death is conceptualized by negative concepts like ‘down’, ‘darkness’ and ‘absencse’. On the other hand, belief in the afterlife conceptualizes death by positive concepts like ‘up’, ‘health’, ‘light’ and ‘heat’. Therefore, there is a kind of conformity or iconic relationship between the opposing conceptual metaphors inside the language and the opposing perspectives toward this concept out of language.

Keywords

“conceptual metaphors”; “iconicity”; “source domain”; “target domain”; “concept of death”

References

1. امین‌پور، قیصر (1363). در کوچۀ آفتاب. تهران: برگ.

2. ـــــــــــــ (1368). تنفّس صبح. تهران: سروش.

3. ـــــــــــــ (1372). آیینه‌های ناگهان. تهران: افق.

4. ـــــــــــــ (1388). به قول پرستو. تهران: افق.

5. انجم‌روز، بهرام (1383). «حیات مرگ در شریان‌های ادبیات»، مجلۀ ادبیات داستان،. شماره 80، 54-75.

6. تولّلی، فریدون (1369). بازگشت. شیراز: نوید.

7. ــــــــــــــ (1370). شگرف. تهران: جاویدان.

8. حسام‌پور، سعید؛ نبوی، سعید و حسینی، اعظم (1394). «مرگ و مرگ‌اندیشی در اشعار اخوان ثالث، شاملو و فروغ فرخزاد». پژوهش‌نامه ادب غنایی،10:124، 77-96.

9. روشنفکر، کبری و ذوالفقاری، کبری (1390). «بررسی تطبیقی ژرف‌اندیشی در شعر محمود درویش و قیصر امین‌پور». فصلنامه نقد و ادبیات تطبیقی (پژوهش‌های زبان و ادبیات عربی) 1، 2، 99-130.

10. زورورز، مهدیس؛ افراشی، آزیتا و عاصی، مصطفی (1392). «استعاره‌های مفهومی شادی در زبان فارسی: یک تحلیل پیکره‌مدار». زبان و گویش‌های خراسان دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، 5، 9، 49-72.

11. سپهری، سهراب (1374). هشت کتاب. تهران: طهوری.

12. شاملو، احمد (1372). مرثیّه‌های خاک. تهران: زمانه.

13. ــــــــــــ (1382). ابراهیم در آتش. تهران: نگاه.

14. فرّخ‌زاد، فروغ (1383). مجموعۀ اشعار. تهران: شادان.

15. فردوسی، ابوالقاسم (1386). شاهنامه. تصحیح شدۀ سعید حمیدیان. تهران: قطره.

16. فلاح، مرتضی ( 1387). «سه تگاه به مرگ در ادبیات فارسی». پژوهش زبان و ادبیات فارسی،1، 11، 223-254.

17. کاکایی، قاسم و جباره‌ناصرو، محبوبه (1393). «بررسی تطبیقی مرگ‌اندیشی از دیدگاه خیام و عطار»، فصلنامۀ اندیشه دینی دانشگاه شیراز، 3، 52، 113- 136.

18. محسنی، محمدرضا و فهیم‌کلام، فهیمه (1391). «تامل در مرگ و نظام هستی در شعر گورستان پل والری و رباعیات خیام». فصلنامه پژوهش‌های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی، 3، 11، 157- 173.

19. مرادی‌کوچی، سکینه و فروزانی، فرزانه (1387). «سایه روشن مرگ در شعر؛ بررسی روانشناختی مفهوم مرگ در شعر مهدی اخوان ثالث و سهراب سپهری»، همایش روانشناسی و کاربرد آن در جامعه، مرودشت.

20. مقیاسی، حسن و مهدی مقدسی‌نیا (1390). «مقایسه‌ای میان مکانیزم‌های استعاری زبان عربی در تبیین مفهوم مرگ و شهادت»، همایش ملی فرهنگ ایثار و شهادت، قم، دانشکده اصول دین.

21. مولانا جلال‌الدّین بلخی (1386). کلّیّات شمس تبریزی. تصحیح شدۀ بدیع‌الزّمان فروزانفر، جلد اوّل، تهران: طلایه.

22. میرزایی، فرامرز، شریفیان، مهدی و پروانه، علی(1389). «مرگ‌اندیشی خیامی در آثار دو شاعر فارسی و عربی: صلاح عبدالمنصور و نادر نادرپور». فصلنامه پژوهش‌های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی،1، 5، 159-177.

23. نوروزی‌داوودخانی، نورالله (1391). «معانی، تصاویر و تعابیر مرگ در اشعار سهراب سپهری و فریدون توللی». پژوهش‌نامه ادب غنایی،10، 18، 185-198.

24. وجدانی، فریده (1390). «سیمای مرگ در شعر فردوسی و ناصرخسرو». پژوهشنامه ادبیات غنایی،9، 16، 175-196.

25. Agha Golzadeh, F. & Pourebrahim, Sh. (2013). “Death Metaphor in Religious Texts: A Cognitive Semantic Approach”. International Journal of Humanities. 20(4). PP: 61-78.

26. Anderson, E. R. (1998). A Grammar of Iconism. 2nd. Edition. London: Associated Press.

27. Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics: Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publication Company.

28. Grady, C. (2007). “Metaphor”. In: the Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, eds. D. Geerartes and H. Cuykens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29. Haiman, J. (1985). Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publication Company.

30. Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd. Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago press.

32. ---------------. (2003). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001