1. Isolating tendencies in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory.
Bartłomiej Rostek & Przemysław Pszczoliński

2. SYNONYMY
LOVE IS A JOURNEY:
Source: journey
Target: love
1. the travelers
1. the lovers
2. the vehicle
2. the love relationship itself
3. the journey
3. events in the relationship
4. the distance covered
4. the progress made
5. the obstacles encountered
5. the difficulties experienced
6. decisions about which way to go
6. choices about what to do
7. the destination of the journey
7. the goal(s) of the relationship

3. LIFE IS A JOURNEY
Source: JOURNEY
Target: LIFE
1. the travelers
1. the people
2. the vehicle
2. the life itself
3. the journey
3. events in the life
4. the distance covered
4. the progress made
5. the obstacles encountered
5. the difficulties experienced
6. decisions about which way to go
6. choices about what to do
7. the destination of the journey
7. the goal(s) of the life

4. Inconsistencies
Progress
Difficulty
Choices
People (as separate units can well be lovers )
The same vocabulary for two
completely different concepts which
points out the fact that we came
across synonymy
At the very beginning it can be easily noted that structural metaphors do not provide
a proper delineation of the two given concepts but only makes them look like
synonymous notions.
Moreover, Kovecses in his book Mind, Metaphor, and Culture (2006) claims that
mappings are static, conventionalized, supraindividual correspondences between
source domain and target domain. If so, apart the fact that these thoroughly different
emotions are both understood in terms of journey, we are apparently given the
universal understanding of the concept of LOVE or LIFE as supraindividual means
characteristic of many communities. Hence we are lead to think that everyone has the
same idea of LOVE as these which are presented by Kovecses.

5. But is it really the proper reasoning? Are the metaphors and their mappings
(submetaphors) applicable then to any range of the situations for the every user
of English language ?
Obviously they are not. Why? Because, as Anna Wierzbicka also argues, their
use is limited to the kind of affection occurring between, for example, erotic
partners while not to the love between a mother and a child. “This means that
„journey‟ is not in any way included in the semantic invariant of the concept „love‟
”. Instead she proposes the following model:
X loves (person) Y.= when X thinks of Y, X feel good feelings towards Y
X feels that he wants to be with Y
X feels that he wants to cause good things to happen to Y

6. Wierzbicka (1999: 14) postulates the understanding of emotions basing on „prototypes‟
(the standardized modes of semantic description) which works perfectly well, although
only out of context.
This is because our cognition is:
 dynamic which may bring asymetries in conceptualization based on various degress
of prominence
 disengaged – we think without useless details accessing the abstarct domain
immediately with no need of going through concrete domain first. Thought is always
less detailed than real experience as we only stimulate attenuating memories.

7. In such a case it can be easily noted that both theories proposed by Kovecses and
Wierzbicka were carefully structured just to prove their ideas, hence they are expert
models, not usage based.
Moreover, Kovecses‟s mappings of love and life projected onto target domain only show
the most important instances appearing in linguistic examples, like it also is in case of the
THEORY IS BUILDING metaphor. Thence it turns out that this type of metaphors only
highlights the most important aspects whereas others are hidden.
THEORY IS BUILDING
The process of building
The physical structure of the building.
The strength.
structure
construction
strength
Highlighting and hiding

8. Additionally, Kövecses proposes that LOVE IS A FLUID IN A CONTAINER to be a
conceptual metaphor of this emotion and gives examples like “She was overflowing with
love” (2000: 26). In general, the CONTAINER image schema, akin to JOURNEY image
schema, can be applied to many other emotions such as PRIDE, SADNESS, FEAR, or
HAPPINESS (Kövecses 2000: 20-30), which yet again proves that in such an instance these
concepts do not have any structure.
The CONTAINER has a top and a bottom, which makes it possible to implement
the metaphor MORE IS UP. These two metaphors work together, so that an
increase in emotional intensity is conceptualized as a rise of the FLUID in the
CONTAINER (Kövecses 1990: 147). Accordingly, an empty CONTAINER
indicates the absence of the emotion. Interestingly, the metaphors LOVE IS A
CONTAINER and LOVE IS A FLUID IN A CONTAINER oppose each other. On
the one hand, LOVE is depicted as some external room or space which we can
enter, leave or get lost in, on the other hand it is perceived of as something
contained inside of us. [internet source 1]
Once again we can see that CMT is the isolating model.

9. The Inconsistencies in the classification of
metaphors and the choice of source domains
AN ARGUMENT IS WAR linguistic expressions ( Kövecses 2002: 5):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Your claims are indefensible.
He attacked every weak point in my argument.
His criticisms were right on target.
I demolished his argument.
I‟ve never won an argument with him.
You disagree? Okay, shoot!
If you use that strategy, he‟ll wipe you out.
He shot down all of my arguments.

10. The misclassification of metaphors
3. His criticisms were right on target.
Instance (3) is a linguistic expression of AN ARGUMENT IS WAR
conceptual metaphor. Why not AN ARGUMENT IS HUNTING?
4. I demolished his argument.
(4) is yet another linguistic expression of AN ARGUMENT IS WAR
conceptual metaphor. Why not AN ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING
[and consequently a line of reasoning in (4) is a part of the
building]?
5. I‟ve never won an argument with him.
Similarly in (5), the sentence is said to be a linguistic expression of
AN ARGUMENT IS WAR. And why not AN ARGUMENT IS A
CONTEST?

11. There is no evidence that the notion of war is closer to the experience,
and thus understanding, of an average speaker than the notions like
hunting or a building.
The provided instances of AN ARGUMENT IS WAR linguistic
expressions may as well be linguistic expressions of different
conceptual metaphors. Thus, the provided classification reflects only
Kövecses‟s interpretation of the examples.

12. abstract [Target Domain]
„It was also noted that the source domains are typically more
concrete or physical and more clearly delineated concepts than the
targets, which tend to be fairly abstract and less delineated ones.” (
Kövecses 2002: 15)
Kövecses claims the notion of war to be a conventional source
domain. The question is: which of these notions, a war or an
argument, is less abstract and more familiar to an average speaker?
In this example, Kövecses suggests that understanding of an
ordinary human experience, an argument, is provided through other
more abstract notion – a war.

13. What is the source of these
inconsistencies?
According to CMT, data for the analysis can be only gathered
from introspection or provided by an expert or dictionary.
Therefore, CMT is an expert model that is not based on a
linguistic corpus and reflects only the conceptualisation of the
expert conducting the research. In other words, the provided
instances have been prefabricated by Kövecses and reflect only
his conceptualisation.
CMT is an expert model = CMT is an isolating model

14. REFERENCES:
1. Wierzbicka, Anna 1999 Emotions Across Languages and Cultures:
Diversity and Universals Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
2. Kövecses, Zoltán 2002 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc
3. The online journal metaphorik.de 16/2009, 87-105
4. Kövecses, Zoltán 2000 Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture,
and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.