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

REVIEWS

Kövecses, Zoltán. Metaphors of anger, pride and love: a lexical approach to the structure of concepts. (Pragmatics an d Beyond, VII:8. ) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1986 . Pp. viii + 147.

In this, the first o f three books recently published by the author, Kövecses sets out to study the structures which surround the concepts of anger, pride and love, and he does so using a "lexical approach" which consists of probing "the language used by everyone" (p. 1), i.e. (American) English. The result is an impressive collection not only of metaphors (in that sense, the title of the book is rather misleading), but also of metonymies and other related concepts. Few works are as clearly organized as this one - an d that is about the only really positive thing I can say about it. Goals and method are introduced (chapter 1, pp. 1-10) an d followed b y the three case studies referred to (chapters 2 to 4, pp. 11-37 , 39-60, 61-105). The tw o final chapter s loo k a t implications fo r theories o f conceptua l structur e (chapte r 5 , pp. 107-120 ) an d o f lexica l structure (chapter 6, pp. 121-144). Metonymy and metaphor are as a matter of fact far more important in the study o f concept s tha n i s usuall y believe d b y mainstrea m philosophers , ethnographers and anthropologists. Consider a sentence such as He hungered for love. Traditionally, the verb has been referred t o as the metaphor in this sentence; it replaces a more abstract long for. Accordin g to Kövecses, the entire sentence is an instance of a cognitive phenomenon called a "conceptual metaphor" (there are conceptual metonymies as well) and represented by the capitalized statemen t "LOV E IS A NUTRIENT", i n which "LOVE" is the target domai n an d "NUTRIENT " th e sourc e domain . Unlik e traditiona l metaphors, which are too narrowly defined according to Kövecses, conceptual etaphors do not rely on a pre-existing similarity (there is no such thing in the case of love and nutrient). Kövecses argue s in favour o f the "interactiona l view" (cf. Lakof f & Johnson 1980 ) which 'emphasize s tha t i n many case s metaphors are conceptual devices used for understanding or creating reality, rather than merely describing it' (p. 9). The conceptual metaphors etcetera are listed i n a highly organized way which reveals the existence o f prototypical (and other) cognitive models for each investigated concept. The prototypical models are called "prototype scenarios". In the case o f anger, there are five stages in that scenario: viz., Offending Event , Anger, Attempt at Control, Loss of Control an d Act of Retribution (pp . 28-31). For some reason or other, it does not see m to have occurred to the author that words or notions such as these are typicall y relate d t o the notion o f "anger " an d d o not explain o r AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS summarize it, unless they are themselves properly explained. Unfortunately , they are not. Furthermore, a comparison o f the three studies (conspicuousl y absen t in Kövecses' work ) reveals tha t on e and the same sourc e domai n ofte n help s conceptualize al l three feelings (an d probably others a s well). For instance, "ANGER I S AN OPPONENT" (p. 22), "VANITY IS AN OPPONENT" (p. 58) and "LOVE I S AN OPPONENT" (p. 98). Very often , th e examples fo r each conceptual metaphor are virtually the same, except for the fact that one concept has been substitute d fo r another. Here are som e o f Kövecses' ow n examples:

(1) I wa s overcom e b y ange r / Sh e overcam e he r vanit y / Sh e wa s overcome by love, [source domain: "OPPONENT"; cf. 22,58,98 ]

(2) H e was filled with anger / His good performance filled him with pride / She wa s fille d wit h love , [sourc e domain : "FLUI D I N A CONTAINER"; cf . pp. 14,43,82 ]

What one really would like to know is whether the correspondence is perfect. The non-native speaker wonders whether, with respect to the source domain "OPPONENT", one can be "seized by vanity or pride" as one can be by anger or by love, whether one's "love ca n be appeased" as one's ange r and vanity can be, etc. No suc h informatio n i s provided. Onc e again , i n spit e o f th e richness of the materials provided, the treatment remains too superficial. Chapter 5 opens with the following rather careful summary :

The study of the three emotion concepts, ANGER, PRIDE and LOVE, suggests that at least some concepts have a structure with at least the following parts: a. a system o f conceptua l metonymies relate d t o the concept i n question b. a syste m o f conceptua l metaphor s relate d t o th e concep t i n question c. a set of concepts linked with the concept in question d. a category of cognitive models, some of which, the prototypical ones, representing the concept in question as we commonly think of it. (p. 107)

What doe s Kövecse s hav e i n min d whe n h e state s tha t 'concept s have a structure'? The answer, in fact, is given on p. 2: 'my main emphasis will be on how a single concept... is structured internally'. The present reviewer believes that what the author has done is something entirely different , fo r the simpl e (but probably controversial) reason that concepts have no internal structure. They cannot be analyzed (cf. Allan 1986:382) ; they can merely be described. One of the best descriptive tools I know of is Wierzbicka's natural semantic 230 REVIEWS metalanguage (NSM) , extensively discusse d i n volum e 1 0 (1989) o f th e Quaderni di semantica an d also in various forthcomin g publication s (e.g . Wierzbicka to appear). It is a metalanguage of words, not of semes. I am more and more convinced that semes or distinctive features o f meaning comparable to those that mak e u p the phoneme s o f a language d o not exis t a s such . Phonemes can be analyzed into clearly identifiable features that have distinctive qualities and are phonetically recognizable: their objective existence leaves no doubt whatsoever. Words can be analyzed into morphemes, and morphemes into phonemes, but there is no way we are ever going to discover features of meaning whose existence can be objectively ascertained. The semantic features that are believed to make up the meaning of a word such as man ('human' + 'male' + 'adult') are not objectively ascertainable. In his last chapter, Kövecses deals with implications o f his approach fo r theories of lexical structure. He discusses polysemy, collocations and semantic fields. An impressive amount of work has been done in the latter area over the last sixty years (from Trier 193 1 to the present day; for a recent addition, cf . Peeters 1991). There is a fair deal of competition between rival theories, and a rather unsettling terminological confusion which may have a hampering effect . Nevertheless, hundreds of scholars have contributed positively to this area of study which remains very much alive today. How much of this is reflected in the book under review? Not too much: only two authors are quoted. Kövecses creates the impression that nothing happened between Trier (1931) and Lehrer (1974), nor after the latter. It is indicative not only that the 1931 text mentioned by the author was in fact published in 1934, and has been mixed up with the monograph published three years earlier, but also that Lehrer (1974) is referred to under the title Semantics [sic] fields an d lexical structure. A Hungarian, Kövecses has clearly studied semantic field "theory" (as if there were only one) through American glasses only. It is sad to see that the number of American scholars who know more about semantic fields tha n what they have read in Lehrer is extremely low. As a result, one cannot take Kövecses' observations seriously: they are built on sand rather than on firm foundations.

REFERENCES Allan, K. 1986. Linguistic meaning, Vol. 1 . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kövecses, Z. 1988 . The language of love: the semantics of passion in conversational English. Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer Books. Kövecses, Z. 1989. Emotion concepts. New York/Heidelberg: Springer. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University o f Chicag o Press. Lehrer, A. 1974 . Semantic fields and lexical structure. Amsterdam: North Holland. Peeters, B. 1991. "More about axiological fields".C/L 36 . 113-136 . Trier, J. 1931. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes. Heidelberg: Winter. Trier, J. 1934 . "Das sprachliche Feld: eine Auseinandersetzung." Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung 10 . 428-449 . Wierzbicka, A. To appear. Lexical universals and universals of grammar. In Kefer M. & van der Auwera J. (eds), Meaning and grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

231 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

Reviewed by Bert Peeters Department of Modern Languages University of Tasmania GPO Box 252C Hobart TAS 7002 AUSTRALIA

This is a very useful volume summarising much of the sociolinguistic work on w ch a s those b y Turne r (1966), Bauer (1986) , Burchfield (1988 ) an d Gordo n (1988 ) concentrat e entirely on lexicon and/or phonology; others such as Bauer (1987, 1988) have begun t o investigat e morphosyntacti c variation . B y contrast , th e studie s represented here fall into five mai n areas: attitudes, phonological variation, Maori/NZE relationships, ethnography of communication and pragmatics. After an introduction by the editors which foreshadows th e twelve papers and places them in a more general context, there are three papers on attitudes to NZE; all are based on a Labovian Subjective Reaction Test (SRT; Labov 1966 ch.l 1). The first, by Gordon and Abell, reprints a 1983 paper on prescriptivist stereotypes abou t NZE which is not widely availabl e an d appends to it the results of Abell's 198 0 thesis, a Christchurch SRT. The second, by Vaughan & Huygens, is based on an SRT conducted in 1979 by Huygens in Auckland and is revised from a version published in 1983 . The third SRT paper is by Bayard, based on Dunedin data collected in the late 1980s; this paper is further developed and extended in Bayard (1991). Bayard also provides an excellent summary and overview of the three SRTs in the conclusion of his paper. As in Australia, it appears that the overt prestige of RP and of cultivated NZE is in decline; Bradley & Bradley (forthcoming) contains a longitudinal study which demostrates this for AusE, where the process is much more advanced. The SRT papers also bear on the issue of Maori English: whether this still exists and if so whether it can be distinguished fro m Pakeha (Anglo) NZE. Vaughan & Huygens state (pp.62-3) that Maori speakers are not identifiable as such, an d Bayar d (p.92 ) note s tha t Broa d NZ E i s ofte n associate d wit h speakers of Maori or Pacific Islander background. This debate is continued in the paper by Allan on HRT, in which it is shown that HRT is more frequent in

232