4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of contents iv
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Research question 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Organization of the study 3
PART II: DEVELOPMENT 4
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 4
1.1. An overview of Cognitive Linguistics 4
1.2. An overview of Cognitive Semantics 5
1.3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory 7
1.3.1. Definition of Conceptual Metaphor 7
1.3.2. Domain and Mapping 8
1.3.3. Image – schema 9
1.3.4. Levels of Conceptual Metaphor 10
1.3.5. Types of Conceptual Metaphor 11
1.3.6. Some features of Conceptual Metaphor 14
1.4. Animal Metaphor and The Great Chain of Being Metaphor 15
Chapter 2: The Study 18
2.1. Research question 18
2.2. Data Collection 18
2.3. Analytical Framework 19
2.4. Analysis 20


Part I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Over the past century, English has emerged as an international language with its
influence extending to almost every part of the world and almost fields of life. It is an
indispensable medium for diplomacy, aviation, transaction of international trade, scientific and
technological studies, etc. Accordingly, English teaching and learning are becoming
increasingly important. In Vietnam, there seems to exist a commonly-held assumption among
many English learners that in acquiring a foreign language, such linguistic factors as
grammatical, lexical, phonological etc. rules must be put priority and be the centre of the
learning process. Such assumption, though considered reasonable to certain extent, has
somehow shaped a rigid learning method which heavily focuses on linguistics factors and take
other non-linguistic elements for granted. However, it has been pointed out that if we learn
English without studying, at the same time, the underlying aspects of the language, we are
merely using words which might convey improper senses. A lot of language phenomena are
associated with cultural aspects of the country from which the language stems, and some also
reflect the specific way of viewing and experiencing the world of people of that country.
Metaphor is one such phenomenon.
Metaphor is traditionally considered a figure of speech, an ornamental device that is
restricted to literature and poetry and ―exclusive with the realm of ordinary everyday
language‖ (Lakoff, 1993, p. 202). In recent decades, with the increasing interest of cognitive
researchers in the subject, metaphor has been re-defined as a cognitive system that structures
our thoughts and behavior rather than a language phenomenon, hence the term ―conceptual
metaphor‖. According to cognitive linguistics, a conceptual metaphor is a mapping of the
structure of a source domain onto a target domain, in which the target domain is understood in
terms of the source domain. It acts as a powerful thinking mode in which people use their
familiar, material and concrete concepts to know, think about and experience immaterial
concepts which are difficult to be realize, thus obtain better understanding about themselves
and the outside world.

7

8
4. Scope of the study
The study examines a group of domestic animal metaphors. Within the domestic animal
source domain, five sub-domains are chosen: dog, cat, chicken, pig and cow. When a
comparison between humans and animals is made, different features of animals such as
physical appearance features, sounds, and prototypical behaviours can be respectively mapped
onto human domain. In this thesis, the foci will be on those metaphors that describe human
characteristics.
5. Organization of the study
The study consists of three parts. The first part ―Introduction” gives a brief account of
the rationale, scope, aims, research questions and organization of the study. The second and
also the main part of the study, ―Development”, consists of two chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical background, which provides an overview of conceptual
metaphor such as its definition, levels, types and features as well as other central concepts to
understand conceptual metaphor like domain, mapping and image-schema.
Chapter 2: The study. This chapter restates the research question, briefly describes the
data collection procedure as well as presents the analytical framework. The main focus of this
chapter is a discussion on the usage of different expressions with Dog, Cat, Chicken, Pig, and
Cow to denote human characteristics in English.
The last part is “Conclusion”, which summarizes the main findings; draw important
conclusion and offers suggestions for further studies.
The study ends with “Reference” and “Appendix”
represents a major field of studies in cognitive linguistics. Meaning is considered to be

10
equated with conceptualization, or to be more specific, in the human interpretation of the
world. It is subjective, anthropocentric, and reflects dominant cultural concerns and culture-
specific modes of interaction as well as features of the world as such (Lakoff 1987, Langacker
1991, Wierzbicka 1988). In that sense, man's conceptual system is postulated to be grounded
or ―embodied‖ in his physical experience, i.e. conceptual categories, and the meanings of
words, sentences and other linguistic structures are considered to be motivated and grounded
in one's concrete, direct experience with the surrounding world with which one interacts.
1.2. An Overview of Cognitive Semantics
As an indispensable part of cognitive linguistics, cognitive semantics is concerned with
investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic
structure encoded by language (Evans and Green, 2006). It is concerned most directly with the
form of the internal mental representations that constitute conceptual structure and with the
formal relations between this level and other levels of representation. In specific terms,
scholars working in cognitive semantics investigate knowledge representation (conceptual
structure), and meaning construction (conceptualization). Cognitive semanticists have
employed language as the lens through which these cognitive phenomena can be investigated.
Consequently, research in cognitive semantics tends to be interested in modelling the human
mind as much as it is concerned with investigating linguistic semantics.
Cognitive semantics is not a single unified framework. Those researchers who identify
themselves as cognitive semanticists typically have a diverse set of foci and interests.
However, there are a number of guiding principles that collectively characterize a cognitive
approach to semantics which can be stated as follows: (i) Conceptual structure is embodied;
(ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure; (iii) Meaning representation is encyclopedic;
and (ix) Meaning-construction is conceptualization (Evans and Green, 2006)
(i) Conceptual structure is embodied
A fundamental concern for cognitive semanticists is the nature of the relationship
between conceptual structure and the external world of sensory experience. One idea that has

recruitment of background knowledge. It follows from this view that meaning is a process
rather than a discrete ―thing‖ that can be ―packaged‖ by language. 12
1.3. Conceptual Metaphor Theory
Since the appearance of Cognitive Linguistics in the mid 1970s, metaphor has received
great amount of attention by scholars such as Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1987) and
Turner (1987) who have devoted their research to studying this phenomenon. In Metaphors
We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson propose Conceptual Metaphor Theory which postulates that
metaphors develop through experiences and become a part of our basic conceptual system.
Through our bodily experiences we learn to connect one thing to something else and the
mapping is stored in our brain. Thus, the use of metaphor reflects speakers‘ ideas and the
interactions with the world. Assuming that the human ordinary conceptual system is
metaphorically structured, metaphor in Lakoff and Johnson‘s description is not simply a
means of expression, but a means of conceptualization (Deignan, 2005; Kövecses, 2005). It
resides in thought, and structures thinking and knowledge; and it is grounded in physical
experience (Deignan, 2005, p. 13) Hence, metaphor is primarily a matter of conceptual
structure, and derivatively a matter of language: ―Metaphor is a tool so ordinary that we use it
unconsciously and automatically it is irreplaceable: metaphor allows us to understand our
selves and our world in ways that no other modes of thought can.‖ (Lakoff & Turner, 1989, p.
xi). Therefore, it should not at any time be forgotten is that the Conceptual Metaphor Theory is
not merely a linguistic theory of how figurative language works, but a theory of language,
cognition and reasoning.
In the later part, some of the key concepts in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory such as
domain and mappings, image-schema, levels of conceptual metaphor, types of conceptual
metaphor as well as some of its basic features are explained in details.
1.3.1. Definition of Conceptual Metaphor
Lakoff and Johnson argue that ―the essence of metaphor is understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another‖ (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, p. 5). Thus, from

the travelers
the vehicle
the journey
the distance covered
the obstacles encountered
Target: LOVE
 the lovers
 the love relationship itself
 events in the relationship
 the progress made
 the difficulties experienced

14
decisions about which way to go
the destination of the journey
 choices about what to do
 the goal(s) of the relationship
In the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY, Lakoff and Johnson use the above
mappings as evidence that love is conceptualized as a journey in the English language. People
in a long-term love relationship are expected to have both an individual and joint purpose in
life. Each individual‘s life can be seen as a journey and a couple‘s life together can also be
seen as a journey to common goals. An individual journey is difficult and the task of choosing
and pursuing common goals is even more difficult. Thus, LOVE IS A JOURNEY is a
complex metaphor that concerns the difficulties faced in setting and pursuing common goals
by people in a long-term love relationship
1.3.3. Image-schema
Another concept central to conceptual metaphor theory is image-schema. According to
Geeraets (2006, p.12), ―an image-schema is a regular pattern that recurs as a source domain
(or a structuring part of a source domain) for different target domains‖. In his book ―The body
in the mind‖ (1987), Mark Johnson proposed that embodied experience gives rise to image

conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY can be manifested through numerous
metaphorical expressions as follows:
LOVE IS A JOURNEY
Look how far we‟ve come.
We‘re at a crossroads.
We‘ll just have to go our separate ways.
We can‘t turn back now.
I don‘t think this relationship is going anywhere.
Where are we?
We are stuck.
It‘s been a long, bumpy road.
This relationship is a dead-end street.
We‘re just spinning our wheels.
Our marriage is on the rocks.
We‘ve gotten off the track.

16
This relationship is foundering
1.3.5. Types of conceptual metaphors
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) distinguish three fundamental types of conceptual metaphor,
namely structural, ontological, and orientational.
1.3.5.1. Structural metaphors
Structural metaphors make up the largest portion in conceptual metaphors. According to
Lakoff & Johnson (1980, p.197), structural metaphors ―involve the structuring of one kind of
experience or activity in terms of another kind of experience or activity.‖ To put the same
thing differently, in structural metaphor, one concept is understood and expressed in terms of
another structured, sharply defined concept. The cognitive function of such a metaphor is to
enable speakers to understand target A by means of the structure of source B.
For instance, war is a concept that is frequently mapped onto target domain such as
argument. We know that war is a concrete concept referring to a very complex process that

The most typical and representative example of ontological metaphor is container
metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). We are physical beings, bounded and separated from the
rest of the world by the surface of our skins, and we experience the rest of the world as outside
us. Each of us is a container, with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation. We project our
own un-out orientation onto other physical objects that are bounded by surfaces. Thus we also
view them as containers with an inside and an outside. Rooms and houses are obvious
containers. Moving from room to room is moving from one container to another; that is,
moving out of one room and into another. We project this conception on to our natural
environment, or even to those abstract, unbounded events, actions and activities. Thus we have
the following expressions. For example, THE MIND IS A CONTAINER metaphor:
I can‘t get the tune out of my mind.
He‘s empty-headed.
His brain is packed with interesting ideas.
Do I have to pound these statistics into your head?
I need to clear my head.

18
Ontological metaphors like these are so natural and so pervasive in our thought that they
are usually taken as self-evident, direct descriptions of mental phenomena. The fact that they
are metaphorical never occurs to most of us.
1.3.5.3. Orientational metaphors
Orientational metaphors ―structure concepts linearly, orienting them with respect to
non-metaphorical linear orientations.‖ (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p.196). In other words,
orientational metaphor organizes concept by giving them a spatial orientation, such as up-
down, front-back, center-periphery, etc. These spatial orientations arise from the fact that we
have bodies of the sort we have and that they function as they do in our physical environment
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p.462). The cognitive function of orientational metaphors is to
allow for coherency among the target concepts in the conceptual system. Two typical
examples of orientational metaphors are GOOD IS UP and BAD IS DOWN. Some
metaphorical expressions motivated by these orientational metaphors are as follows:

Lakoff (1993) proposes the Invariance Principle to guarantee that the mapping is
consistent in the both the source and target domain. The Invariance Principle states:
―Metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology (i.e. the image-schema structure) of
the source domain in a way that is consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain‖
(Lakoff, 1993, p. 125). That is, not only the topology of the source domain transferred remains
invariant but also that the mapping remains consistent with the supposedly logical structure of
the target domain. Accordingly, the Invariance Principle first limits the choice of source
domains for a particular target domain as well as in a second step the possibilities for
individual mappings. In a container schema, for example, source domain interiors correspond
to target domain interiors; exteriors correspond to exteriors, and so on. One cannot find cases
where a source domain interior is mapped onto a target domain exterior, or where a source
domain exterior is mapped onto a target domain path.
1.3.5.3. Systematicity
The idea that metaphors are systematic is fundamental to conceptual metaphor theory.
Metaphorical systematicity allows highlighting and focusing on certain aspects of the target
domain. Conceptual metaphor theory uses the term ―highlighting‖ to refer to the selective
mapping of source domain features onto target domains, and the suppression of other features

20
is termed ―hiding‖. The concept areas of source and target domains are complex, and different
aspects are highlighted in different metaphors, thus when a source or target domain has
multiple mappings, the individual mappings represent different sets of highlighted features.
For example, the metaphor ―ARGUMENT IS WAR‖ highlights the adversarial nature of
arguments but hides the fact that argument often involves an organized development of a
particular topic. In contrast, the metaphor ―AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY‖ highlights the
progressive aspects of arguments while hiding the confrontational aspects.
1.3.5.4. Explanatory function and creativity
Certain issues such as abstract conceptual domains, theoretical constructs, and
metaphysical ideas could hardly be understood or conceptualized at all without recourse to
conceptual metaphor. In order to grasp thorough understanding of such concepts, the common

At the bottom of the ―chain‖ stand various types of inanimate objects such as metals,
stones and the four elements. Higher up are various members of the vegetative class, like
flowers and plants. Then come animals; then, human beings and finally at the very top is God.
Within each level there are sub-levels defined by different degrees of complexity and power in
relation to each other. The ―Great Chain of Being‖ metaphor, thus, presupposes that the
natural order of the cosmos is that higher forms of existence dominate lower forms of
existence.
Furthermore, in terms of attribute of each level, the upper level contains attributes of the
levels below it, but it consists of some attributes the lower doesn‘t have. For example, animal
instincts are properties of animals and the upper beings humans, but humans think and have
rationalities which animals do not. Moreover, the attributes of the upper beings are more
specific and distinct since they do not appear in the lower ones. In this sense, when we apply

22
the Great Chain of Being to animal metaphors, we may find that human beings at the higher
level in the hierarchy contain the attributes that animals such as pig and tigers have. For
instance, pigs have its own instincts like gluttonous, while tigers are wild and fierce in nature.
All the attributes like gluttonous and fierce can be found among human beings as well so that
there are some associations between them.
As can be inferred from the Great Chain of Being, people are at the higher level, which
indicates it is more difficult to define their attributes. As a result, animals may be assisted to
explain these more abstract attributes. By comparing animals to humans, the more abstract
attributes of humans may be understood more easily. Lakoff and Turner (1989, p. 172) point
out that the Great Chain of Being Metaphor is ―a tool of great power and scope because it
allows us to comprehend general human character traits in terms of well-understood
nonhuman attributes; and, conversely, it allows us to comprehend less well- understood
aspects of the nature of animals and objects in terms of better-understood human
characteristics.‖
animal categories, different lexical items referring to male, female, and young animals are
included in the search as well since many of them carry metaphorical meaning when applied
to human. The thesis will also include some instances taken from Vietnamese sources to
illustrate the conceptualization of domestic animal names between the two languages. These
Vietnamese expressions have been obtained from short stories and online newspapers such as
Vnexpress.net, Tienphongonline.com.vn, Vietnamnet.vn, Giadinh.net. However, they are
merely used for reference, and a detailed description of how domestic animals represent
human characteristics in Vietnamese and a contrastive analysis between the two languages are
beyond the scope of the study.
All in all, an inventory of 80 English metaphorical expressions were collected for our
analysis. The metaphorical expressions can take the form of a single lexical item (a noun, verb,
or adjective) or be combined with other lexical items in a phrase or an idiom to denote a
human character trait. Most of the instances are used colloquially or as slang or addressing

24
terms, some can be of old usage. Once they were collected, they were grouped and analyzed
according to the analytical framework provided below.
2.3. Analytical Framework
The analytical framework employed in the study is based on the theory of structural
metaphor and the mapping from source to target domain.
As proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), a structural metaphor refers to a conceptual
metaphor that is constructed from one conceptual structure to another. With the help of the
structural metaphor, we can use the words concerning one concept to talk about and
comprehend another concept. Hence, the metaphor that employs ascribed attributes of
domestic animals to understand human characteristics is a typical example of structural
metaphor.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) use the TARGET DOMAIN IS SOURCE DOMAIN
formula to describe the metaphorical connection between the two domains in a conceptual
metaphor. More precisely, the conceptual metaphor consists of a structural mapping between
the target domain and source domain, in which the target domain is then understood in terms

(2) They appeared cocky even before they went one goal up
The lexical item ―cock‖ literally designates the adult male of the domestic chicken.
When applying to humans, it refers to an adult man and is generally associated with the idea of
leadership. Accordingly, the expression ―cock of the walk‖ in example (1) is used to describe
an over-confident man who tends to show his ruling role and be conceited about his position.
This is owing to the fact that on the farm, cocks usually fight for supremacy until one
remained – the supreme leader, or cock of the walk. The winner would then not only rule the
chicken coop but also dominate ―the walk‖ or the chicken yard, and no other cock is allowed
to enter the territory under the rule of the winning cock. Likewise, the lexeme ―cocky‖ in
example (2) denotes an unpleasantly and rudely confident man. The usage of this word may
originate from the brash self-confidence that is associated with the cock when ruling the roost
– to announce the break of the day, to have the run of the females, to chase the other males and
to eat whatever and whenever he wants.
(ii) ARROGANT YOUNG MEN ARE PUPPIES/ PUPS
(3) You ungrateful puppy!
(4) You saucy young pup!

26
In example (3) and (4), ―puppy‖ and ―pup‖ are two words denoting a juvenile dog which
is less than one year old, but when referring to human, both convey negative connotation of an
empty-headed but impertinent young man. This association is based on the analogy between
behaviour of juvenile dogs and young men. It is at the juvenile stage that a puppy starts to
change and the cheeky behaviour arrives. Many young men, at the transferring stage from
teenagers to adults, tend to have a too high self-esteem, always considering themselves the
best among their peers, bragging about their abilities and being disrespectful to others. Such
people are often called ―puppies‖ or ―pups‖ in a critical sense. This usage of these words is
even more emphatic when accompanied with such adjectives as ―conceited‖, ―saucy‖,
―ungrateful‖, ―proud‖, ―cheeky‖ etc.
Among the instances collected from Vietnamese sources, the concept of arrogance can
be found in two idioms in which the names of cat and dog are employed as in the following

to defer eating and play with its prey instead of immediately killing and wolfing it down like
other hunting animals.
In addition, the name of cats specifically and negatively associated with women. One
hypothesis accounting for the relationship between this domestic animal with spiteful females
is from historical cause. In England and in many other European countries during the
witchcraft trials in the 17
th
century, witches, mostly females, were credited with supernatural
powers that allowed them to assume the form of different animals, especially black cats. By
transforming themselves into forms of cats, they were supposed to easily cast spells on their
victims (Leach, 1964; Sax, 2001; cited in Rodriguez, 2009 ). From this belief might stem the
associations of cats with spiteful women. Another cause may arise from the association of
women‘s fighting with the cats‘ fighting behaviour. When cats fight, they use their sharp
teeth and claws to hurt the other cats; likewise, a fighting among women typically involves
scratching, slapping, hair-pulling, and shirt-shredding as opposed to punching or wrestling that
are usually observed in men‘s fighting. That is the reason why it is believed that a generic
characteristics of women is having the soul of a cat.
In Vietnamese folk understanding, cats are also known for being sly, independent and
even treacherous; accordingly, they have come to represent human maliciousness through such
expression as ―mèo già khóc chuột con‖:
(10) Tội ác tày trời, ấy vậy còn " mèo già khóc chuột con”

28
In example (10) ―mèo già khóc chuột con‖ (an old cat cries for a small mouse) denotes a
two-faced person who means to harm other people while pretending to feel sorry for and be
sympathetic with them. However, while the name of cat in English is specifically used as
designating terms for women, in Vietnamese, it can refer to both males and females.
(ii) MALICIOUS WOMEN ARE BITCHES
(8) You are putting the men down and they don‟t like it; they think you are being a bitch.
(9) She bitched about Dan but I knew she was devoted to him.