Metaphors of Love

in

English and Russian

Irina Popaditch

Department of Humanities

Mid Sweden University

English Linguistics

C-level

Supervisor: Mats Deutschmann

January 2004

1

Table of Contents: 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 2. Cognitive Linguistics ............................................................................................................. 3 3. Structural metaphors .............................................................................................................. 5 4. Orientational Metaphors....................................................................................................... 13 5. Container Metaphors and Cases of Personification ............................................................. 14 6. Source and Target Domains ................................................................................................. 16 7. Metaphorization as a Culturally-bound Process................................................................... 17 8. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 19 9. Works Cited.......................................................................................................................... 21

2

1. Introduction

What do we know about metaphors? They are not something we stop and think about every

time we utter a sentence. Perhaps, they are just stylistic devices we use when we write a poem

and certainly not our way of cognizing the world, some may argue. They would appear to be

wrong – metaphors are not purely a subject matter of stylistics, they are an inevitable part of

our conscious as well as unconscious thinking and acting, even though we are not aware of

their existence. It is through them we get a chance of wording our inner thoughts as well as

endowing words with a particular meaning.

What do we know about feelings? Love, happiness, exhaustion, disappointment,

are they clearly defined in the language? Can we always explain what we feel when we are in

control of our feelings, not to mention the situations when we are excited or upset? What

mechanisms are involved when we are trying to describe our emotional states? Are these

mechanisms personal or rather universal, uniting all human beings, as a result of our ability to

use language as a means of communication? Is there any connection between our ways of

understanding and expressing emotions and a metaphor?

This essay is going to discuss these questions in terms of the cognitive metaphor

theory, presented by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their book Metaphors We Live by in

1980. The essay will focus on differences and similarities between the Russian and English

metaphors of love and it will discuss to what extent metaphorization is a culturally-bound

process.

Before we start our discussion, it is important to emphasize the fact that we are

going to understand metaphor as a cognitive tool, helping us to activate categories of our

conceptual system and providing connections between them. Such metaphors most often

result in a literal expression in a language. In that way they differ from a metaphor as a

stylistic device, the latter belonging to the sphere of the imaginative language.

3

2. Cognitive Linguistics

”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” starts the Bible. The Bible of the

cognitive linguistics would probably start with categories. ”Without our ability to categorize,

we would not function at all, either in the physical world or in our social and intellectual

lives” (Lakoff 1990:6) explains Lakoff in his Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. We cannot

understand a thing without tracing its origin or placing it into some mental storage together

with those things which it mostly resembles. In doing so we accumulate a huge amount of

entities and characteristics of different concepts (in the form of categories), and constitute our

knowledge by pieces during our life time. Later, we lean on this knowledge when learning

and classifying unknown concepts. Cognitive linguistics studies the existing correlations

between human processes of cognition and images of the external world.

In the beginning of the eighteenth century, the British school of philosophers,

among them there were John Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, David Hartley and John

Stuart Mill, suggested the following:

”thought is governed by two laws. One is contiguity: ideas that are frequently experienced

together get associated in the mind. Thereafter, when one is activated, the other is activated too.

The other law is resemblance: when two ideas are similar, whatever has been associated with the

first idea is automatically associated with the second (Pinker 1997: 113).

However, the philosophers’ major concern was to trace the origin of reason, thus

they believed that ”the mind is separate from, and independent of, the body” (Lakoff 1990:9).

Eleanor Rosch ( Rosch & Merris,1975) by her proposing the prototype theory (stating that

categories can be presented through best examples, which she called ”prototypes”)

emphasized the fact that ”… such matters as human neurophysiology, human body

movement, and specific human capacities to perceive, to form mental images…” (Lakoff

4

1990:7) are highly influential in human processes of categorization. Following in her steps,

George Lakoff understands categorization as: ”… a matter of both human experience and

imagination – of perception, motor activity, and culture on the one hand, and of metaphor,

metonymy, and mental imagery on the other” (Lakoff 1990:8).Thus, interpreting categories as

a mixture of experiential and imaginative, George Lakoff, together with Mark Johnson,

propose a theory of a cognitive metaphor, which was meant to clarify the relationships

between the experiential and the imaginative in our conceptual system.

This theory of the cognitive metaphor is grounded on the assumption that

metaphor is not a ”matter of mere language” (Lakoff 1985:159) but that of thought and

cognition. The authors abandon the Aristotlian ”substitutionist view on metaphor” where

metaphor is defined as ”the application to one thing of the name belonging to another”

(www.compapp.dcu.ie). This definition leads to the understanding of metaphor not as ”an

essential feature of human communication”, but rather a ”formula for achieving more

colourful expression” (www.compapp.dcu.ie). Lakoff and Johnson argue that metaphors are

integral part of our knowledge and consequently can not be easily explained in terms of our

”communicative competence” (Finegan 1999:12).

How do we conceptualize emotions? In the classical theory of categories the

emotions are viewed as ”having no conceptual content” (Lakoff 1990:327). However, there

must be some, as we can imagine and express exactly how it felt when we were disappointed,

happy, or in love before. Our facial muscles react differently depending on a situation. The

vocal cords and intonation can betray the way we are feeling at a particular moment. Besides,

there must be some image which is stored in our mind as well, which we can consciously

refer to and provide wording for. The subject of this essay being metaphors of love, we are

going to argue that it is due to the existence of metaphor we can fully comprehend this

feeling.

5

3. Structural metaphors

”Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally

metaphorical in nature”(Lakoff 1980:3) state Lakoff and Johnson in the introduction to their

book Metaphors We Live by. How do the authors explain that a concept is metaphorical as

well as the fact that it structures our everyday activity? (Lakoff 1980:4). Let us take the

LOVE IS WAR metaphor (Lakoff 1980:49), which is an example of structural metaphor, the

most productive type of cognitive metaphors:

•He is known for his many rapid conquests (Rus. On izvesten svoimi chastymi

pobedami)

•She fought for him but his mistress won out (Rus: Ona za nego borolas’, no ego

ljubovnitsa oderzhala pobedu)

•He overpowered her (Rus: On slomal ee soprotivlenie)

•He made an ally of her mother (Rus: On nashel sojuznika v litse ee materi)

•He is slowly gaining ground with her (Rus: On postepenno ee zavoevyvaet)

(All English and Russian expressions given as examples in this essay correspond closely;

moreover, they are almost literal translations of one another, which are frequently and

commonly used in both languages).

These examples clearly show that we not only talk about love in terms of war.

We can actually fight for a person in order to save a relationship. Any war presupposes two

different sides, between which the fight is going on, we see the same situation in a marriage:

either the partners can attack each other (the competition between male and female), or the

enemy can come from the outside. Someone gets the trophy in the end.

Is there any background to our thinking of love in terms of war? If we go back

to the animal world, we can find the same competition there: the male representatives are

fighting and competing with each other in order to attract a female. Fortunately, humans have

6

invented ”more sophisticated techniques for getting our way” (Lakoff 1980:62), the war being

one of these. As Lakoff points out, the human conflict undergoes exactly the same stages as

the fight between animals, those of ”establishing and defending territory, attacking, retreating

and surrendering”(Lakoff 1980:62). The way we act is directly expressed in our language,

thus the LOVE IS WAR metaphor reflects one side of this feeling, namely that of a fight

(Lakoff 1980:61-68).

The LOVE IS WAR metaphor is found and widely used in Russian as well, that

makes us think that this aspect of love, namely WAR, is present in both English and Russian;

furthermore, the languages have developed similar ways of expressing it. If we talk about love

as the examples above suggest, either in English or in Russian, ”we would not be viewed as

speaking metaphorically, but as using the normal everyday language appropriate to the

situation”(Lakoff 1980:51). However, there are some instances of how this metaphor can

result in a figurative expression: ”There came battalions of her admirers” (Rus: Bot pribyli

bataljony ee poklonnikov). All these examples, the literal expressions and the figurative one,

prove that ”metaphors are not random but instead coherent systems, in terms of which we

conceptualize our experience” (Lakoff 1980:41). To fight/srazhatjsya, an ally/sojuznik, to

overpower/oderzhat’ verkh, to gain ground/imet’ uspekh, battalions/bataljony, etc, are

instances of the same defining domain, that of WAR (Lakoff 1980:61-68). We coherently use

the WAR terminology when talking about a feeling.

Keeping in mind that ”the essence of metaphor is understanding and

experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (Lakoff 1980:5), we can say that LOVE is

”partially structured, understood, performed and talked about in terms of WAR” (Lakoff

1980:5). We say ”partially” because every metaphor has its ”used” and ”unused” parts, we do

not transfer all characteristics from the domain of WAR to that of LOVE but only some of

them (Lakoff 1980:52) ”Our conventional ways of talking about love presuppose a metaphor

7

we are hardly even conscious of.(…) We talk about love that way because we conceive of it

that way - and we act according to the way we conceive of things” (Lakoff 1980:59).

Love, as well as other feelings and emotions, is quite an abstraction. It is

difficult for us, if not impossible, to comprehend these concepts without a metaphor.

According to Lakoff, we conceptualize the more abstract concept in terms of more concrete,

”the non-physical in terms of the physical” (Lakoff 1980:59). The ability to cope with abstract

notions is the evidence and the result of the adequate development of an individual. A child

starts to understand the mechanisms of metaphorization rather early, since the latter has its

origin in our very basic physical experience.

Structural metaphors are highly conventional, we must learn them while

acquiring or learning a language. They originate, as Lakoff (1990:35-40) argues, from either

”scientific” or ”folk” theories. The ”scientific” theories are based on proved assumptions,

such as that fire makes the water boil, that the sun warms the earth, etc. Thus, the LOVE IS

HEAT metaphor (the examples will follow) can be scientifically explained as follows: when

we are in love, we get excited, the heart strikes more rapidly, we get hot, nervous, sometimes

even redden. The body temperature rises, that allows us to see the connection between LOVE

and HEAT through the similarity of physical experience.

The ”folk” theory would suggest, as for example in Russian, that when we fall

in love, we usually become silly and absent-minded. ”Poterjal golovu ot ljubvi” (He has lost

his head because of love), this example would perfectly fit under the LOVE IS MADNESS

metaphor (the examples will follow). Even though there is no scientific evidence proving that

one, when in love, necessarily loses his or her mind, this ”folk” belief has found its expression

in the form of proverbs and sayings in the Russian language. Sometimes, the ”folk” theories

can directly contradict the facts of the scientific research.

8

LOVE IS WAR is not the only example of structural metaphors of love. There

are others as well, viewing different aspects of the feeling, some of them exist in both English

and Russian, others do not.

LOVE IS MADNESS: I am crazy about her (Rus: Ja ot nee bez uma). She drives

me out of my mind (Rus: Ona svodit menja s uma). He constantly raves about her (Rus: On

postojanno bredit o nej). He has gone mad over her (Rus: Ona svela ego s uma). I am just wild

about Harry (Rus: Garri delaet iz menja dikarku). I am insane about her (Rus: Ja skhozhu po

nej s uma)(Lakoff 1980:49). Wild, mad, angry and crazy are well-understood by us, we do not

have any difficulties in specifying our feeling or behaviour when we experience any of these

emotions or mental states. Furthermore, we are aware of the fact that each of these emotions

is slightly different from the others, and that some of them evoke stronger feelings than the

others do. Madness with all its implications belongs to our most natural and basic experiences

and therefore gives us a clue of how we feel about love. The existence of the same metaphor

is predetermined in many languages, because it involves our most basic instincts and

reactions, it is an unalienable part of our development.

LOVE IS MAGIC: She cast her spell over me (Rus: Ona menja okoldovala).

The magic is gone (Rus: Volshebstvo ischezlo). I was spellbound (Rus: Ja byl ocharovan).

She had me hypnotized (Rus: Ona menja zagipnotizirovala). He has me in trance (Rus: On

vvodit menja v trans). I am charmed by him (Rus: On ocharovan ee sharmom). She is

bewitching (Rus: Ona okoldovyvaet) (Lakoff 1980:49). For centuries humans have been

fascinated with things connected with magic, as it provided the explanation for the unknown.

We are unlikely to find out how the very sensation of love appears, that is why we call it

magic. This metaphor is extremely productive in Russian, moreover, the verb ocharovyvat’

(meaning to hypnotize, to cast spell) is most commonly used when talking about women’s

ability to charm men, and not vice versa. ”In the Slavonic mythology women are thought to

9

have power over forces of evil, darkness and disease” (Grushko 2003:97), this explains the

Old Russian tradition of matriarchy, where women functioned as intermediaries between their

own husbands and the ancient gods.

LOVE IS A PATIENT: This is a sick relationship (Rus: Eto slabyj sojyuz). They

have a strong, healthy marriage (Rus: U nikh krepkij prochnyj brak). We are getting back on

our feet (Rus: My prikhodim v sebja). Their marriage is on its last legs (Rus: Ikh brak

dozhivaet poslednie dni). It is a tired affair (Rus: Eto iznurennyj soyuz) (Lakoff 1980:49). It

takes time to cure one’s heart (Rus:Trebuetsja vremja, chtoby vylechit’ bol’noe serdtse). ”It is

folly to pretend that one wholly recovers from a disappointed passion. Such wounds always

leave a scar” (Longfellow). Most of us know what it means to be ill, it is a very basic

experience for all human beings, that is why we are able to comprehend this aspect of any

relationship. In Russian there is an expression: ”Ja bol’na ne vami”,word by word translation

”I am not sick because of you”, meaning ”I am not interested in you”.

LOVE IS A JOURNEY: Look how far we have come (Rus: Posmotri, kak

mnogo my dostigli). We are at a crossroads (Rus: My na pereputje). We shall just have to go

our separate ways (Rus: Nam nuzhno idti kazhdomu svoim putem). I do not think this

relationship is going anywhere (Rus: Nashi otnoshenija zashli v tupik). Where are we? (Rus:

Gde my?). We are stuck (Rus: My zastrjali). We have gotten off the track (Rus: My soshli s

kursa/puti). (Lakoff 1980:44-45). ”The course of true love never did run smooth”

(Shakespeare). ”Love (…) is looking outward together in the same direction” (de Saint-

Exupery).

Steven Pinker in his book How the Mind Works points out: ”We are using space

and motion as a metaphor for more abstract ideas” (Pinker 1997:352), that explains why the

LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor is so often used in English and Russian when talking about

love. However, in English this metaphor is not homogeneous in nature, as it refers to different

10

kinds of journeys. ”Car trip: It’s been a long, bumpy road; Train trip: We’ve gotten off the

tracks; Sea voyage: Our marriage is on the rocks”, the fact that they ”are all journey

metaphors, makes them coherent” (Lakoff 1980:45). This distinction is not as clearly made in

Russian.

Most probably, due to richness of the English sea-faring tradition, English has

many expressions containing the ”sea voyage” element. However, in the history of Russia we

find evidence proving the fact that the most important cultural and trade centres of the country

were built far from seas. Peter the Great is said to have opened a ”window” to Europe through

the development of ship-building industry, which he initiated, and the foundation of Saint

Petersburg in the beginning of the eighteenth century. Until this time Russians had no

experience of seas, here we clearly see how our immediate environment (close to /distant

from sea) can influence linguistic expressions.

LOVE IS A PHYSICAL FORCE: I could feel the electricity between us (Rus:

Ja mog chuvstvovat’ rasrjady mezhdu nami). I was magnetically drawn to her (Rus: Menja k

nej pritjagivalo). They are uncontrollably attracted to each other (Rus: Ikh nekontroliremo

tjanet drug k drugu). His whole life revolves around her (Rus: Vsja ego zhizn’ vraschaetsja

vokrug nee). The atmosphere around them is always charged (Rus: Atmosfera mezhdu nimi

vsegda razryazhena). There is incredible energy in their relationship (Rus: V ikh

otnoshenijakh neverojatnaya energiya) (Lakoff 1980:49). This metaphor arises naturally from

our awareness of the external world. Due to the revolutionary discoveries of such scientists as

Newton, Einstein and others we have learned about natural forces, magnetism, electricity,

gravitation, etc. Moreover, we can observe, measure and try them, and through them we can

define and measure the strength of our emotions.

LOVED ONE IS A POSSESSION: My friend stole my love from me (Rus: Moj

drug ukral u menja moju ljubov’). You are all I have got (Rus: Ty vse, chto u menja est’). I

11

am going to get him back (Rus: Ja zapoluchu ego nazad). I am yours - be mine (Rus: Ja tvoj –

bud’ moej)(cogsci.berkeley.edu). You are my own (Rus: Ty – moj). This metaphor stayed

rather passive in Russian during the years of communist ideology, which aimed at

demolishing the very concept of possession and owning; but nowadays this metaphor is as

common in the Russians’ vocabulary as its English counterpart is in the vocabulary of

English-speaking people.

LOVE IS HEAT: I am burning with desire (Rus: Ja gorju zhelaniem). We have

discussed the possible origin of this metaphor when talking about ”scientific” theories.

LOVE IS A CREATION: We are made for each other (Rus: My sozdany drug

dlja druga); to make love (Rus:? Zanimatjsya ljubovjyu) (Thesaurus Roget). It is difficult to

translate ”to make love” into Russian, because all expressions concerning sex and the

relationships between the sexes were considered to be extremely intimate and thus were

taboos for many decades. The language was highly censored, the ”unsuitable” words could

never appear in the people’s conversations. Nowadays the situation is changing rapidly, the

language starts borrowing words in order to fill in the existing gaps in the vocabulary. This is

most often achieved through a primitive translation of an English expression into Russian,

without taking into consideration the peculiarities of the country’s development and culture.

As a result, many people, especially the old, get frustrated and disappointed, seeing how the

moral values they used to live with are being ruined.

LOVE IS A FRAGILE OBJECT: They broke up. Her heart was broken (Rus: Ee

serdtse razbilos’ na melkie kusochki). It is as impossible to do something about a broken vase,

as about a broken heart.

LOVE IS A UNITY: We are one (Rus: My-odno tseloe). She is my other/better

half (Rus: Ona - luchshee vo mne).He is a perfect match (Rus: On –prekrasnaja para).

(cogsci.berkeley.edu)

12

LOVE IS WINE: This metaphor is very often used in Russian: P’yan ot lyubvi

”drunk with love”; Ee vzglyad menja p’yanil ” She gave me a fuddling/exhilarating look”;

durmanyaschij zapakh; ”fuddling smell”,etc. Here we can see the Eastern influence, where the

same metaphor is very productive: Ya p’yan bez vina ot ulits, po kotorym proshla ona ”I am

drunk without wine, with the streets where she has been...” runs an Azerbaijanian song. The

same metaphor is found in Omar Khayam’s poems (a Tadjik poet). Russians seem to have

further developed the Latin expression ”In vino veritas”(The truth is in wine) under the

Eastern influence; as a result of this development the LOVE IS WINE metaphor appeared.

LOVE IS A CULT: Raba lyubvi ”the slave of love”; Ya preklonyayus’ pred

toboj ”I worship you”; Ya u tvoikh nog ” I am at your feet”, etc. In Russian this metaphor is

productive due to the image of a woman-guardian called bereginya ”guardian” from the

Slavonic mythology. She took care of the sick and those who were in love, she is the symbol

of a happy marriage.

The main purpose of all structural metaphors is to present how we conceptualize

the more complicated concepts, such as feelings, in terms of more concrete, physically

experienced concepts. The source domain – LOVE- is

”a superordinate concept, a concept which is fairly abstract. By contrast, our principle metaphors

WAR, MADNESS, FIRE, FRAGILE OBJECT, etc can be called basic-level concepts, concepts

that are information-rich and rich in conventional mental imagery. Let us call the metaphors

based on such concepts ”basic-level metaphors”(Lakoff 1990: 406).

We have discussed that there is a system according to which we structure our

conceptual sphere, the metaphors are coherent, even if not homogeneous in nature. Different

structural metaphors of love present different aspects of this feeling, it would be impossible to

become aware of all shades of such an abstraction as love without these metaphors.

13

4. Orientational Metaphors

Another kind of the cognitive metaphor Lakoff and Johnson have called orientational

metaphor, ”one that does not structure one concept in terms of another but instead organizes a

whole system of concepts with respect to one another” (Lakoff 1980:14). They give us a clue

about how the reality of a definite culture is structured. ”Such metaphorical orientations are

not arbitrary ” as they have their origin and basis in ”our physical and cultural experience”

(Lakoff 1980:14). Knowing that the sun brings about light and life, we can on analogy assume

that the light itself is UP (as it comes from above), the darkness, on the contrary, alongside

danger, uncertainty (most often associated with it) is DOWN. Consequently, happiness,

wealth, health, stability will be UP, whereas misfortunes, poverty, disease, instability will be

DOWN in the Western society (Lakoff 1980:14-21). Getting back to our metaphors of love,

we can analyze the expression ”to fall in love” in terms of the orientational metaphor.

Thousands of English-speaking people do it every day without actually falling

anywhere, if we neglect Aerosmith’s literal interpretation ”falling in love is hard on your

knees”. How has the expression ”to fall in love” become possible in the language? If we try to

explain the fact in terms of William Nagy’s (1974) polar oppositions up-down, in-out, front-

back; where, according to Nagy, RATIONAL IS UP; EMOTIONAL IS DOWN (in the

Western society intellect is superior, the feelings are inferior and therefore suppressed), we

can interpret ”falling in love” as losing our common sense, being influenced by the feelings,

that is falling from the intellectual domain to the emotional one. ”Beyond rational free willed

values are emotive feelings. To be emotive is to lose rational, free-willed self-control”

(http://hometown.aol.com)

This loss of self-control is clearly expressed in the Russian language: ”Poterjal

golovu ot ljubvi”, meaning ”He has lost his ability to think because of love”; or ”Durakam

14

vezet v ljubvi”, meaning ”Love favours fools”, and there are some others. If we look at the

Russian folk tales, the most typical hero of which is a fool, having neither fortune nor capable

of doing a thing, nonetheless, it is this very personage, who wins the love of the beautiful

princess and lives happily ever after.

Besides, the process of falling in love is an unconscious one (one can not force

him/herself into loving somebody else), thus, proceeding from the metaphor: CONSCIOUS

IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN (Nagy’s explanation for these metaphors is based on the

fact that humans sleep lying down and stand up when they awaken), we can conclude that the

”falling” has actually taken place – to the level of the unconscious.

If we look at another example ”the fallen woman”, understanding the latter as

the one who sells love, and keeping in mind Nagy’s scheme VIRTUE IS UP; DEPRAVITY

IS DOWN, we can clearly see what moral standards exist in the Western world. Thanks to

Einstein’s law of gravitation we know that falling is easier than climbing, thus complying

with the existing moral values which is achieved through hard work of self-perfection

cements your respected position in the society; the opposite will ruin your situation and place

you at the bottom of the social ladder, or you will simply fall from grace. (Nagy’s metaphors

were taken from Lakoff 1980:14-21).

5. Container Metaphors and Cases of Personification

Another kind of the cognitive metaphor, viewed in Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live

by is the container metaphor. The authors define the latter as follows: ”Each of us is a

container, with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation. We project our own in-out

orientation onto other physical objects that are bounded by surfaces”(Lakoff 1980:29). The

assumption that our world is organized as a certain container presupposes the existence of a

boarder between the outer environment and the inner content of the container. This is quite

15

obvious with the example of rooms, houses and other objects having artificial or natural

boundaries, but the matter gets more complicated when it comes to our personal conditions,

states or feelings. He is in love, he entered a state of euphoria, we are out of trouble now, etc

(Lakoff 1980:32) clearly show that we conceptualize our emotions and states as a container

and conceptualize what we feel and experience as being inside it (Lakoff 1980:30).

Rus vlyubit’sya means ”to fall in love”, where the prefix –v-(which can be

translated as –in-) denotes direction and is usually used on entering a limited territory, such as

a room. When attracted to somebody, the Russians ”put” their feelings ”into” that person, the

latter is a container; whereas the feeling itself is experienced as being inside this container.

The final suffix –sya- marks reflexivity of verbs, thus the verb vlyubit’sya literally would

mean that one places his/her affection into somebody else, treating that other person’s body as

a ”CONTAINER FOR THE EMOTIONS” (Lakoff 1990:383).

The cases of ”personification” (Lakoff) are especially interesting. Lakoff defines

them as ”metaphors where the physical object is further specified as being a person” (Lakoff

1980:33). This means that we endow non-living objects, events, experiences, etc with human

characteristics, activities and motivations (Lakoff 1980:33-34).

If we look at the metaphor of love, we can see that love is personified in the

following verbs: love can eat you up and go (Rus: Lyubov’ s’edaet cheloveka i ukhodit), it can

give you hope (Rus: lyubov’ daet nadezhdu) and expect you to handle (Rus: zhdet vashikh

dejstvij) - love acts just as humans do. It needs nurturing and care (Rus: ljubvi nuzhna zabota

i ukhod) as a pampered child. Love can be blind (Rus: ljubov’ slepa). It can hurt (Rus: ranit)

us and we blame (Rus: vinim) it for that. Furthermore, love goes through exactly the same

stages as individuals do in the course of their lives: it comes to life (Rus: poyavlyaetsya), it

can age (Rus: vzrosleet): (young (Rus: molodaya) love versus mature (Rus: zrelaya) love); it

lasts, becomes mature and can even die (Rus:mozhet umeret’). Love even has the features of

16

a human character: it can be tender (Rus: nezhnaya), heartless (Rus: besserderchnaya), strong

(Rus: sil’naya), unreasonable (Rus: bezrassudnaya), unreliable (Rus: nenadezhnaya), etc.

6. Source and Target Domains

If we look at the endearments found in English, why is it quite popular to address your loved

one by ”honey”, ”sweetheart” and ”chicken”; whereas ”little donkey”and ”my sausage” are

not so common? There must be some pattern of choosing as well as understanding the terms

of endearment, they are rather conventional and the associations between the qualities or

appearances are not that random as they can seem at the first sight. If we look at the

endearments containing the animalistic element, the most common ones would be: sugar

lamb, sweet chicken, teddy/ huggy bear, turtledove, tiger, etc. Why do we choose these

animals? The answer is fairly obvious: we find some of their features attractive and readily

borrow these appealing, most often psychological characteristics and apply them to the person

we love. Lakoff and Johnson argue that this kind of imprecation of conceptual spheres is not

accidental or occasional but rather regular and conventional (Lakoff 1980:67). Using Lakoff’s

terminology, we refer to the already nominated object, the animal, as the SOURCE domain

and the person to be nominated the TARGET domain. Thus, if from a lamb (SOURCE) we

”borrow” tenderness and need for protection, with a tiger it is strength and power which

appeal to us.

What about the endearments containing the word ”sweet” or referring to the

sweet things, such as candy man, honey/honey pie, sweetheart/sweetie, sugar babe/lips? Do

we associate food with love? Probably, Steven Pinker’s explanation is the most suitable:

”Children learn to associate sweets with pleasure because parents use sweets as a reward for

eating spinach”(Pinker 1997:57).

17

The endearments in Russian are of a different kind. The process of borrowing

some characteristics from the SOURCE domain and applying them to the TARGET one is

essentially the same. The difference is found in the make-up of the SOURCE domain. The

tradition of the folk-lore is very rich and still influential in the Russian culture, thus many

terms of endearment are connected with nature and symbols of the Slavonic mythology. It is

fairly common to address your loved one by rechen’ka moya(fem.)/ moj rucheek (masc.) ”my

river”; yablon’ka moya (fem.) ”my apple tree”; moya lebedushka (fem.) ”my swan”; moj

zajchik (masc.) ”my hare”; moje solnyshko (used with both genders) ”my sun”. All the nouns

are most commonly used with a diminutive suffix to express tenderness. In addition, there are

two expressions which are taken from a folk tale in their original form: golub’ moj sizokrylyj

(masc.) ”my rock dove” and sokol moj yasnyj (masc.) ”my pure falcon”.

Although the language of love is extremely creative, we have to use the limited

thematic vocabulary in order to be understood and taken seriously. Furthermore, we have to

create within a definite cultural frame.

7. Metaphorization as a Culturally-bound Process

All human beings are unique due to our different ways of getting accustomed to the

environment we are raised in. However, nature has created us alike, this can be proved by:

• neuro-genetic similarity of human beings: our minds are organized in the same

complicated way the world over. We cognize the world with the same mental processes,

common operations of deduction, induction, analysis,etc;

• physical and physiological similarity: we all inhale oxygen; we have the same

upright posture, our bodies function alike;

• the universality of our socio-cultural structure: we are all ”communal animals”,

we perform similar social functions (to some extent) (Pinker 1997: 260-267).

18

These similarities suggest that we should normally have equal ability to cognize

the external world. Thus, we can understand metaphors as well as see the connections

between different linguistic expressions. However, humans do not develop in isolation, we are

closely connected with each other by our culture and environment. ”We exist within physical

environments, some of them radically different – jungles, deserts, islands, tundra,

mountains,cities, etc.”(Lakoff 1980:146). Besides, we are raised in a system of well-

established standards and taboos, which our society and epoch have imposed on us. The same

processes of cognition are not enough for us to understand each other properly, we must as

well have the same cultural and historical base.

While discussing the metaphors of love we have noticed many parallels between

the structural metaphors of English and Russian. We can see that different aspects of love are

structured in terms of the same concrete concepts in both languages. Such concepts as WAR,

MADNESS, FRAGILE OBJECT, PATIENT, HEAT, etc are a part of the European/Western

history, that is why they are equally understood by the speakers of English and Russian.

What cultural and historical events could have preconditioned these similarities?

We have all been influenced by the Greek and Roman philosophers and have inherited our

today’s values from these ancient cultures. We have been raised with the Greek myths and

legends, which have, no doubt, left a trace in our imagination. Besides, the fact that we have

been brought up in the Christian world with the ideas and morality associated with the latter,

has, to varying degrees, depending on an individual, affected our way of thinking. Moreover,

we are bound to tackle the results of Darwin’s and Freud’s ideas in order to find the identity

of our own.

What about the similarities between the orientational metaphors, such as

HEALTH IS UP, DARKNESS IS DOWN, etc.? We all lie down when we are asleep and ill,

19

we have upright posture; and Einstein’s law of gravitation has influenced all of us. This kind

of metaphor is directly linked to our physical experience.

As to the differences, we have found in the course of the research, they are

preconditioned by the cultural peculiarities of the speakers of Russian and English. No culture

can be identical with another. Furthermore, within one culture there can appear subcultures,

which invent the values of their own. When it comes to two different languages, it is usually

very difficult to translate a word from one language into the other without taking into

consideration the cultural aspect of our metaphorical thinking. Even though that newly

translated word follows the same metaphor in both languages without disturbing the inner

coherence of the metaphor itself, such a word can not completely fit into the system of values

and norms coded in the languages. We have seen such attempts of translating the English

expression “to make love” into Russian. There are more unsuccessful examples, such as the

translation of the English “pumpkin”, with its meaning of endearment, into a corresponding

Russian word which refers to the vegetable only and does not have any positive connotation.

”All experience is cultural through and through, we experience our ”world” in such a way that

our culture is already present in the very experience itself”(Lakoff 1980:57).

8. Conclusion

In this essay we have discussed metaphors of love in English and Russian in order to find

some similarities and differences between them. From the beginning of the essay we assumed

that feelings and emotions,LOVE being one of them, are extremely difficult to comprehend.

In the course of our analysis we have proved that the cognitive metaphor is influential in our

lives as a universal means of understanding complex matters. Through studying and analyzing

literal expressions of a given language we become aware of various aspects of complicated

concepts they refer to. Through studying and analyzing cognitive metaphors we become

20

aware of the processes of analogy, association and analysis which take place in the course of

our development. It is through metaphor we get an adequate picture of the complexity of the

external world.

The most productive type of the cognitive metaphor in both Russian and English

proved to be the structural metaphor. Moreover, the two languages share almost all structural

metaphors of love with only small deviations within each of them. These deviations can be

explained by the peculiarities of the cultural and historical development of the languages; as

well as the speakers’ different ways of treating reality. Here we should take into consideration

the ambitions of each of us, our social backgrounds, age, sex, health, economic situation, etc.

The cognitive metaphor is culturally-bound. It can be both motivated (non-arbitrary) in the

cases of orientational metaphors as well as conventional (arbitrary) – the cases of structural

metaphors.

Metaphor organizes our external reality and structures our every day activity.

The literal expressions we use in order to express our emotions are dictated by metaphor

which is systematic in character. That is why we do not find any expression, which would not

follow the pattern given by a general metaphor. If HEALTH had been DOWN (with all

linguistic expressions fitting under it), then in the Western world it would have contradicted a

more basic metaphor GOOD IS UP. Even the figurative expressions are the products of the

same general metaphors and are meant to fit into the metaphorical system of a language.

In structuring the abstract emotion of LOVE, metaphor provides us with many

sides of the same concept we were not aware of before. ”The primary function of metaphor is

to provide a partial understanding of one kind of experience in terms of another kind of

experience” stated Lakoff and Johnson in Metaphors We Live by. Metaphors are not something

really existing in the external world, but they become real to us because it is through them we

create our subjective meaning of the objective events and things.

21

9. Works Cited

Primary sources:

Finegan, Edward. 1999. Language:Its Structure and Use. 3rd ed. Heinle & Heinle.

Gorbachevich, K.S.; E.P. Khablo. 1979. Slovar’ Epitetov Russkogo Literaturnogo Yazyka

(The Descriptive Adjectives of Russian Dictionary) Moscow:Nauka.

Grushko, E.A.; Y.M Medvedev. 2003. Mify i Legendy Drevnej Rusi (Myths and Legends of

Old Russia). Moscow:Eksmo.

Lakoff, George, Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:University of Chicago

Press.

Lakoff, George. 1990. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago:University

of Chicago Press.

Pinker, Steven. 1997. How the Mind Works. New York:Norton.

Roget’s Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases. 1988. ed. Susan M.Lloyd.London:Penguin.

Secondary sources:

AOL Hometown. 12 December 2003. ”Trinitarian Nature of Man.”

http://hometown.aol.com/trinitine/essay2.htm 1-5.

”Aristotle” 11 December 2003. www.compapp.dcu.ie/~~tonyv/trinity/aristotle.html

Kövecses, Zoltán. 1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride and Love: a Lexical Approach to the

Structure of Concepts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamin’s Publishing

Company.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 1990. Emotion Concepts. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, London:Springer-

Verlag.

”Love Is Heat”, ”Love Is Magic”, ”Love Is A Unity”, ”Loved One Is A Possession” 22

October 2003. http://cogsci.berkeley.edu/metaphors/

22

Pinker, Steven. 1995. The Language Instinct: the New Science of Language and Mind.

London:Penguin.

Varela, Francisco J.;Evan Thompson; Eleanor Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind:Cognitive

Science and Human Experience. Cambridge:MIT Press.