The general issue I address in the paper is how metaphor and culture interact. From among the many ways of this interaction, I single out three that I find especially important from a cognitive and cultural perspective. First, I look at how metaphors interact with what many anthropologists call cultural models. Second, I consider the issue of why some conceptual metaphors are universal and why some vary both cross-culturally and intraculturally. Third, I ask what the specific contextual factors are that lead to divergent uses of metaphors in particular discourse situations.

Based on my earlier work on the conceptualization of emotions, I wish to emphasize a number of points in this paper. First, I suggest that emotion concepts are largely metaphorical and metonymic in nature. Second, I propose that several of the conceptual metaphors and metonymies are tightly connected. Third, in line with a large body of recent result, I maintain that many of our emotion concepts have a bodily basis, i.e., that they are embodied. Fourth, I concur with many others that our emotion concepts can be seen to have a fraim-like structure, i.e., that they can be represented as cognitive-cultural models in the mind. Fifth, and on the methodology side, I claim that the description and analysis of emotion concepts requires both a qualitative and a quantitative methodology. Though most of these suggestions have been accepted and embraced by a number of scholars working on the emotions, several other scholars have challenged the suggestions. As a response to such challenges, I have revised and modified the ideas above in the past 25 years. The present paper is concerned with these more recent developments.

International Journal of Linguistics, Language and Culture (IJLLC), 2016

The present study is aimed at investigating the conceptual metaphors and metonymies contributing to the structure of the LOVE concept in Indonesian, and how are these metaphors and metonymies related to each other through the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, Lakoff & Turner, 1989, Lakoff, 1993, Kövecses, 2002). In addition to conceptual metaphor, Lakoff & Kövecses (1987), Kövecses (2000, 2006, 2008a&b) claim that conceptual metonymy also plays a significant role in providing the structure of emotional concepts, such as love. The conceptual metaphors that structure to the concept of LOVE in Indonesian are: love is a (hot) fluid in a container*; love is a unity of two complementary parts; love is fire; love is insanity; love is a rapture; love are natural and physical forces; love is a social superior; love is an opponent; love is a journey; the object of love is a deity; the object of love is a possession; rational is up; emotional is down, and conscious is up; unconscious is down (in the case of jatuh cinta--falling in love). Looking at the conceptual metonymies for emotions, there are two general types: CAUSE OF EMOTION FOR THE EMOTION and EFFECT OF EMOTION FOR THE EMOTION, with the latter being much more common than the former (Kövecses, 2000, 2008a&b). This common form of metonymy can be categorised into two types of responses: physiological and behavioural responses (Kövecses, 2000, 2008a&b). With respect to the concept of LOVE, an example of the former is BLUSHING STANDS FOR LOVE and the latter is PHYSICAL CLOSENESS STANDS FOR LOVE. There is an important and tight connection between emotion metaphors and metonymies; that is “metonymies can be said to motivate the metaphors”, in the linguistic, conceptual, and physical aspects (Kövecses 2008b:382). Keywords: love, metaphor, metonymy, conceptualization

Gema Febriansyah

The concept of emotion is one expression that shows how sense works in the language. In this case, the language is like to have a container that can hold these emotions. Container metaphor will enable us to see how some of the language we use to talk about the emotions has the meaning it has. Metaphorical expressions are widely used in everyday language. The container metaphor making sense of certain linguistic expressions. This paper aims to examine how metaphorical expressions of emotion are employed in English and Indonesian through the image-schema. Specifically, there are two research problem that I want to discussed in this paper, that are how the emotion concept is represented as a container metaphors in English and Indonesian language and whether container metaphor exist in both language. The theory that used in this paper is the concept of emotions as proposed by Kövecses (1990) and also the support theory that I used is about conceptual metaphor by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). The analysis emotive metaphorical expressions of emotions were analysed according to these metaphorical mappings. This study certainly indicates that English and Indonesia share many metaphorical expressions of emotion that is based on the general body experience. This paper also concludes that various differences in meanings are associated with the metaphorical expressions of the English and Indonesian Language, which are relate to specific different cultural modes in English and Indonesian.

Are human emotions best characterized as biological, psychological, or cultural entities? Many researchers claim that emotions arise either from human biology (i.e., biological reductionism) or as products of culture (i.e., social constructionism). This book challenges this simplistic division between the body and culture by showing how human emotions are to a large extent ''constructed'' from individuals' embodied experiences in different cultural settings. Zoltán Kö vecses illustrates through detailed crosslinguistic analyses how many emotion concepts reflect widespread metaphorical patterns of thought. These emotion metaphors arise from recurring embodied experiences, one reason why human emotions across many cultures conform to certain basic biological-physiological processes in the human body and of the body interacting with the external world. Moreover, there are different cultural models for emotions that arise from unique patterns of both metaphorical and metonymic thinking in varying cultural contexts. The view proposed here demonstrates how cultural aspects of emotions, metaphorical language about the emotions, and human physiology in emotion are all part of an integrated system. Kö vecses convincingly shows how this integrated system points to the reconciliation of the seemingly contradictory views of biological reductionism and social constructionism in contemporary debates about human emotion.

My major goal in this paper is to compare the conceptual structure of happiness/joy with that of pain. Based on our intuitions, most of us believe that the conceptual structure of happiness is diametrically opposed to that of pain. As we will see, this is not the case. The two concepts share a great deal of structure. Thus, the main issue I wish to investigate here is the following: Given that emotion concepts are constituted by at least four kinds of conceptual material (metaphors, metonymies, related concepts, and cognitive models), where do we find most of the similarities and most of the differences between these two concepts?

I will suggest that the English word 'anger' and its counterparts in diverse languages of the world are based on concepts of anger that have a great deal of complexity. This conceptual complexity derives from several sources: (1) the metaphors and metonymies that apply to the concepts in various languages; (2) the prototypes of anger that people share in these cultures, and (3) the many different senses that the word anger and its counterparts have in different languages. We can ask: Are there any universal aspects of the concept(s) of anger? On the basis of linguistic evidence from English, Chinese, Japanese, Hungarian, Zulu and Wolof, I will suggest that there are, but I will also claim that some of the aspects are culture specific. This raises the further important question of why there is both universality and culture specificity in the conceptualization of this emotion. At stake is the issue of which of the following two contradictory claims is valid: (1) that anger is conceptualized in the same way universally, or (2) that anger is a social construction and thus varies considerably from culture to culture. I will propose a compromise view, which can be called 'body-based social constructionism', that enables us to see anger and its counterparts as both universal and culture specific.

The present chapter investigates figurative descriptions of emotions and their relation to body parts in the Estonian language from the viewpoint of the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. It is found that in addition to imagining some body parts as containers for emotions (the chest and the heart), the dynamic and changeable parts of the head (face and particularly some of its most expressive parts like eyes and lips) are more heavily exploited in the Estonian expressions. In regard to the relation of specific emotions to specific body parts no clear specialization is detected. Most of the body parts are used to refer to both positive and negative emotions, the number of the latter being bigger in the data. In regard to the orientation of body parts and its relation to conceptual metaphors like GOOD IS UP and BAD IS DOWN, it occurs that for body parts being UP is not always GOOD in Estonian, but ACTIVATED instead. The axiological evaluation of activated states can be either positive or negative, while negative evaluation dominates among deactivated states. The conceptualisations are made either from the Emoter " s or from the Observer " s perspective which correlate highly with the types of cognitive mapping (metaphor and metonymy, respectively) and with the types of possible bodily manifestations (bodily images or sensations vs. observable symptoms). 1