When it comes to expressing the more intangible aspects of life, languages tend to employ the instruments of metaphor and metonymy in order to relate attributes of more concrete phenomena to the abstract phenomenon in question. This is especially true when the vast field of human emotions is concerned. With the world’s languages differing in a myriad of ways in all sub-categories of structure-focused linguistics one might expect that the range of metaphors found in different languages should be just as limitless. Interlingual examinations of the metaphors used for articulating emotions, however, suggest that there are limits on the communicative resources employed (see Emanatian 1995, 163). In this paper I want to explore the idea that even completely unrelated languages may have a bias towards the use of certain communicative resources when certain universal human emotions are to be expressed linguistically. I want to take a closer look at common metaphors used for the articulation of lust and attitudes towards sex in four different languages, detect parallels and differences and propose that the three semantic domains of EATING, HEAT, and ANIMALS, might be cross-culturally favored as vehicles for conceptualizing feelings of lust and desire. I will argue that even completely unrelated cultures and languages tend to draw on these three metaphorical domains when attitudes towards sex and sexual activities are to be articulated.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Metaphor Theory
2.1 The Objectivist View of Metaphor
2.2 The Contemporary View of Metaphor
3. Sexual metaphors: A cross-linguistic overview
3.1 Source domain: HEAT
3.2 Source domain: HUNGER/EATING
3.3 Source domain: ANIMAL
3.5 Source domain: INSANITY
3.6 Source domains: SPORT and MACHINE
3.6 Summary and Juxtaposition
4. Discussion
4.1 Mapping: LUST IS HEAT
4.2 Mappings: LUST IS HEAT / SEX IS EATING
4.3 Mapping: A SEXUAL ACTOR IS AN ANIMAL
4.4 Non-universal source domains
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
7. Internet sources
8. Addendum
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines how languages use metaphorical language to express feelings of lust and attitudes toward sex. It aims to determine if universal conceptual domains—specifically EATING, HEAT, and ANIMAL—are employed across diverse, unrelated cultures by analyzing linguistic examples from English, German, French, and the Bantu language Chagga.
- Cross-cultural analysis of sexual metaphors.
- Application of Lakoff and Johnson's contemporary metaphor theory.
- Investigation into universality versus cultural specificity in language.
- Comparison of Indo-European and Bantu linguistic frameworks.
- Evaluation of metaphorical productivity across different source domains.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Source domain: HEAT
Examples for the source domain HEAT can be found in all four of the languages I compared. The resulting mapping is LUST IS HEAT. While the metaphors in English, German and French have very similar connotations (a lustful person feels heat, sexual desire is equated with heat, a desired person emanates heat, the intensity of a sexual encounter can be described in terms of temperature), the examples in Chagga, while still similar to the other languages, have a slightly different angle to them (only the desired person—in the given examples: a woman—is attributed with the feeling of heat):
LUST IS HEAT
ENGLISH: He is so hot! → He is very attractive, sexually.
GERMAN: Du bist heiß wie ein Vulkan! → You are as hot as a volcano!
FRENCH: Elle est une fille chaude. → She is a sexually desirable girl.
CHAGGA: nékeókya / nékahâ → "She roasts." / "She burns."
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the research interest in cross-linguistic metaphors for human emotions, specifically lust and sex, comparing English, German, French, and Chagga.
2. Metaphor Theory: Reviews the traditional objectivist view of language versus the contemporary cognitive approach established by Lakoff and Johnson.
3. Sexual metaphors: A cross-linguistic overview: Categorizes linguistic expressions for sexual metaphors into specific conceptual source domains like HEAT, EATING, and ANIMAL.
4. Discussion: Analyzes the reasons for universality in metaphorical mapping and explores how culture acts as a filter for metaphorical expression.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes findings on the interplay between biological dispositions and cultural influences in shaping human metaphorical thought.
6. Bibliography: Lists the academic sources used to support the theoretical and comparative analysis.
7. Internet sources: Provides references for specific cultural phenomena, such as the baseball metaphor for sex.
8. Addendum: Includes visual material to illustrate complex, multi-faceted metaphors in pop culture.
Keywords
Metaphor, Cognitive Linguistics, Conceptual Metaphor, Lust, Sexual Desire, Cross-Cultural Analysis, Source Domain, Target Domain, Chagga, Indo-European Languages, Mapping, Bodily Experience, Cultural Filter, Language, Semantics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper explores whether languages from different cultures share similar metaphorical ways of expressing universal human emotions, specifically focusing on lust and sexual attitudes.
Which languages are analyzed in this study?
The study conducts a cross-linguistic comparison of English, German, French, and the Bantu language Chagga.
What is the primary goal of the author?
The goal is to test the hypothesis that human beings rely on specific universal semantic domains—such as HEAT, EATING, and ANIMAL—to conceptualize lust, regardless of genetic or cultural differences.
What methodology does the author apply?
The paper employs a comparative cognitive linguistics approach, using the framework of conceptual metaphor theory as defined by Lakoff and Johnson.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It provides a detailed breakdown of various metaphorical source domains, mapping specific linguistic expressions across the four languages and identifying parallels and divergences.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Metaphor, Cognitive Linguistics, Cross-Cultural Analysis, Lust, Sexual Desire, and Conceptual Mapping.
Why is the Chagga language included in this comparison?
Chagga is included because it is a genetically unrelated Bantu language, which provides a meaningful contrast to the three Indo-European languages (English, German, French).
What conclusion does the author reach regarding metaphor variation?
The author concludes that while universal bodily experiences often produce universal metaphors, culture acts as a filter, allowing or preventing certain mappings based on historical and social context.
How is the "baseball metaphor" relevant to the study?
The baseball metaphor serves as a case study for culture-specific mapping (SEX IS BASEBALL), demonstrating how sports popularity influences the language of sexual encounters in the U.S.
Does the author identify any limitations in the research?
Yes, the author notes that data for Chagga is limited, derived primarily from one male speaker's elicited examples, suggesting the need for further research involving female perspectives.
- Quote paper
- Nico Tobias Wirtz (Author), 2012, Eat Me! - A cross-cultural, cross-linguistic analysis of conceptual metaphors for lust and sex, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/209097
