The Criticism, Analysis, and Comparison of Classic Metaphors with Lakoff and Johnson’s Conceptual Metaphors

  • Masroureh Mokhtari Assistant Professor of Persian Language and Literature, University City researcher. mmokhtari@uma.ac.ir
  • Askar Salahi Professor of Language and Literature Farsyf City University researcher. salahi@uma.ac.ir_A
  • Kambiz Fathi Persian Language and Literature PhD student, researcher, University of mohaghegh Ardabili
Keywords: Eloquency Criticism, Metaphor, Conceptual Metaphors, Cognitive Linguistics, Lakoff and Johnson.

Abstract

In recent years, metaphor has attracted the attention of scholars and poets as well as readers of literary passages because of including features like exaggeration, brevity, and artistic and literary beauty creations. According to the linguists, majorities of language materials as well as the most complicated scientific theories are understood by metaphor. Since several studies are done and published with the application of Lakoff and Johnson theory, there is a question concerning the similarities in two different attitudes in two languages and literary domains that they accorded and conceptualized. After the case study and library study about classic metaphor in old books and the content analysis and its comparison with metaphor with its new concept, the present study concluded that despite the existing similarities and differences, theory of cognitive linguists is relatively exaggerated and in most of cases, many suggested issues in contemporary theory is the same as concepts of classic eloquence theory which have been raised with different titles. Also, in spite of benefits, the contemporary theories left some issues related to classic metaphors unanswered and is not responsive to some eloquence questions considering the society’s language and literary demands.

Author Biographies

Masroureh Mokhtari, Assistant Professor of Persian Language and Literature, University City researcher. mmokhtari@uma.ac.ir
Assistant Professor of Persian Language and Literature, University City researcher.
Askar Salahi, Professor of Language and Literature Farsyf City University researcher. salahi@uma.ac.ir_A
Professor of Language and Literature Farsyf City University researcher.
Kambiz Fathi, Persian Language and Literature PhD student, researcher, University of mohaghegh Ardabili
PhD student

References

Dehkhoda, A. (1997). loqat nāmeh, Vol. 2, Tehran: University of Tehran Press.

Erfan, H. (2012). karāneha, Vol. 3, Tehran: Hejrat.

Ferdowsi, A. (2007). ʃāhnāmeye Ferdowsi, Tehran: Shaghayegh.

Fotuhi, M. (2014). balāqate tasvir, Tehran: Sokhan.

Hafez. Sh. (2013). divāne hāfez, by: Khatib Rahbar, Kh., Tehran: Safi Alishah.

Haghbin, F. (2013). zabānʃenāsiye ɂirani, Tehran: Markaz.

Homayi, J. (1992). fonune balāqat va sanāate ɂadabi, Tehran: Homa.

Jakobson, R. (2002). Linguistics and literary criticism, Translated into Persian by: Maryam Khouzan and Hossein Payande, Tehran: Nashre Ney.

Karimi, T. and Z. Alami Mehmandoosti. (2013). ɂesteɂārehāye mafhumi dar divāne ʃams bar mabnāye koneʃe hessiye xordan, Literary Criticism, Vol. 6, No. 24, pp. 143-168.

Lakoff, G. and Johnsen M. (2014). Metaphors We Live By, Translated into Persian by: Hajar Agha Ebrahimi, Tehran: Nashre Elm.

Lakoff, G. (2011). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, Translated in to Persian by: Farhad Sasani, Tehran: Sorehye Mehr.

Mowlana, J. (1995). Mathnawi, Collected by: Tofigh Sobhani, Tehran: Ershade Eslami.

Rajaei, M. (2013). mo’ālim al-balāqat, Shiraz: Farabi.

Shafiei Kadkani, M. (1993). sovare xiyāl dar ʃeɂre fārsi, 4th Edition, Tehran: Agah.

Shamisa, S. (1993). bayān, Tehran: Majid.

Tajlil, J. (2010). ɂasrār al-balāghat, Tehran: University of Tehran Press.

Zarrinkoob, A. (2014). ɂarastoo va fanne ʃeɂr, Tehran: Amir Kabir.

Published
2018-02-28
How to Cite
Mokhtari, M., Salahi, A., & Fathi, K. (2018). The Criticism, Analysis, and Comparison of Classic Metaphors with Lakoff and Johnson’s Conceptual Metaphors. LANGUAGE ART, 3(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.22046/LA.2018.01
Section
Article