The Correspondences between the Source and Target Domains

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Regarding the present study, the sources and targets do not overlap with each other (except

for ACTIVITY). In the current data, the metaphorical correspondences generally follow the

direction from the more concrete domains to the more abstract domains. Though ACTIVITY

can serve as the source and the target, it does not contradict the notion that metaphorical

correspondences are unidirectional. When ACTIVITY is a source, it is used to conceptualize

MENTAL ACTIVITY or COMMUNICATION. When ACTIVITY is a target, the source employed

in a metaphor is OBJECT rather than MENTAL ACTIVITY or COMMUNICATION. The current

data then supports the view that the direction of the correspondences between sources and

targets is not reversible.

5.3 The Correspondences between the Source and Target Domains

Past studies have shown that a source may map to different targets. In Lin’s (2003)

study on Southern Min, the body parts in the BODY domain were found to conceptualize

OBJECT, SPACE, and TIME domains. Liu’s (2010) research showed that the source domain

JOURNEY can realize LOVE, DREAM PURSUIT, CULTURE PRESERVATION, and so forth.

Likewise, studies (Lakoff & Johnson 1980c; Kövecses 2002) in English provide different

metaphors that shared the same sources. For example, the source domain OBJECT can map to

NONPHYSICAL ENTITIES, EVENTS, and ACTIONS (Kövecses 2002: 35); SPATIAL

ORIENTATIONS can map to CONSCIOUSNESS, QUANTITY, STATUS (Lakoff & Johnson 1980c:

15-17); CONTAINER can map to LAND AREAS, VISUAL FIELDS, and STATES (Lakoff &

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Johnson 1980c: 29-32). Although past studies have offered different instances of the

one-source-to-many-targets correspondences, they do not provide evidence from a

quantitative perspective. The present study surveys the frequency of the source-to-target

correspondences in metaphors in daily conversation. Results based on the current data are in

line with previous research. All the sources which have at least two tokens—OBJECT, SPACE,

ACTIVITY, FICTIVE MOTION, CONTAINER, and PATH—can correspond to various targets (see

Tables 13 and 14 in Chapter 4). In the current data, OBJECT maps to 52 kinds of targets, and it

is usually used to conceptualize STATE, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, GROUP, TIME, SPEECH

CONTENT and many other targets. The source SPACE corresponds to 10 kinds of targets, and

it is commonly employed to conceiveconcepts like TIME, SEQUENCE, DEGREE,and so forth.

PATH is used to realize four kinds of targets. FICTIVE MOTION maps to three kinds of targets,

ACTIVITY and CONTAINER respectively map to two kinds of targets. In the current data,

OBJECT is used to conceive most kinds of targets. This may be due to the fact that OBJECT

serves various purposes (e.g., quantifying, identifying aspects, categorizing, etc.) to help us

reason about abstract concepts. We also utilize SPACE to conceptualize many targets, which is

in agreement with Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980c: 17) claim that most of our basic concepts

can be organized in terms of orientation metaphor. We can find a small number of

source-domain concepts are utilized to conceive numerous target-domain concepts. In

Kövecses’s (2002: 20) words, “[t]his is an extremely simplified world, but it is exactly the

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

simplified nature of this world that enable us to make use of part of it in creating more

abstract ones”.

Most of time, a single abstract concept is not completely or exactly defined by a single

concrete concept. Lakoff and Johnson (1980b) suggested that an abstract concept is usually

conceptualized in terms of more than one concrete concept. Different metaphors will define

different aspects of an abstract concept. Study on Chinese has provided evidence for this view.

Yu’s study showed that EMOTION can be conceptualized through FIRE, GAS, and spatial

orientations. It was also found TIME is conceived in terms of MOTION, SPACE, and PATH.

Both Wang (2010) and Lai (2011) collected the expressions of LOVE metaphors from pop

songs in Mandarin/Southern Min. It is found LOVE could be realized by OBJECT,

CONTAINER, ANIMAL, PLANT, JOURNEY, SPACE, and so forth. Studies in English also

provide a great amount of evidence for the many-sources-to-one-target correspondences. For

example, INFLATION can be conceptualized through ENTITY and PERSON (Lakoff & Johnson

1980c). LIFE can be metaphorically manifested by PLAY and GAMBLING GAME (Kövecses

2002). However, most of the studies did not offer evidence from a quantitative perspective.

The present study surveys the targets which can map to multiple sources together with their

frequency. In the current data, several targets can be understood in terms of different sources;

the targets are TIME, MENTAL ACTIVITY, SPEECH CONTENT, SEQUENCE, and DEGREE (see

Tables 16 and 17 in Chapter 4). TIME can be conceived via four kinds of sources, MENTAL

‧

ACTIVITY can be conceptualized via three kinds of sources, SPEECH CONTENT can map to

twokinds of sources. The source OBJECT is the common concept used to reason about TIME,

MENTAL ACTIVITY, and SPEECH CONTENT in daily conversations. Both SEQUENCE and

DEGREE can correspond to SPACE and OBJECT; we find more cases where the two targets are

conceptualized in terms of SPACE. Findings from the present study then offer more empirical

evidence to support the notion that an abstract concept is commonly conceived through more

than one concrete concept and the idea that metaphors based on different sources may profile

different aspects of a concept.