The Conceptual Domain of Hunting and Its Negative Representation in Love: A Cognitive-Cultural Analysis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Ph.D. Student of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

As a cognitive process, metaphor objectifies mental concepts in such a tangible form that the study of human mental structure would be possible. The goal of this research is to study the conceptual domain of “hunting” and its negative representation in love “dating and marriage” based on the conceptual metaphor theory and cultural linguistics (Palmer, 1996; Sharifian, 2013). With a reference to the Persian corpus and Persian proverbs we studied the metaphor “marriage is hunting” and its negative representation. Three micro metaphors obtained were “marriage is hunting,” “marriage is theft,” and “marriage is captivity,” which through linguistic metaphoric expressions such as hunting, snapping, enthralling, grabbing, snatching, ensnaring, catching, trapping, capturing, enslaving, and harnessing all bearing a negative emotional connation both in the case of man or the woman. The research findings showed that we witness a negative metaphorical representation of hunting in “marriage”. Sometimes a woman is a valuable catch and the prey for a male hunter but she sometimes takes the role of a hunter and the man is the prey. The results showed that factors such as gender, commitment to cohabitation and the suitability of couples in terms of appearance, economy, age, celibacy and ethical orientation affect metaphorical representations.
Introduction
Metaphor is a cognitive process that represents abstract concepts in tangible form, enabling the study of human mental structures. Recently, there has been growing interest among scholars in exploring the ideological dimensions of metaphor. Gender and ideology are particularly relevant when examining conceptual areas like love and marriage. Cognitive linguistics has extensively studied the target domains of love and marriage, identifying numerous source domains used to conceptualize them. However, the source domain of hunting still requires further exploration from a gender perspective.
This study aims to examine the conceptual metaphors of love, seduction, and hunting, focusing on gender and culture. Our research findings reveal a negative metaphorical representation of hunting in the context of dating and marriage. Sometimes, women are portrayed as valuable prey for male hunters, while in other instances, the roles are reversed. In this article, we address the following questions: 1) What are the micro-metaphors of the macro-metaphor "marriage is hunting" in the domain of love? 2) Which micro-metaphor has the highest frequency, and what accounts for its prevalence? 3) What factors contribute to the negative metaphorical representation of the macro-metaphor "marriage is hunting" in the context of dating and marriage?
Our research is grounded in conceptual metaphor theory and cultural linguistics (Palmer, 1996; Sharifian, 2013) and relies on the Persian corpus and Persian proverbs to study the metaphor "marriage is hunting" and its negative representation.
Methodology and Theoretical Framework
This descriptive-analytical study utilizes a corpus of Persian language data extracted from 30 contemporary Persian works. To identify the conceptual metaphor "marriage is hunting," the following methods have been employed:

Identification of words related to hunting and love, with a focus on the concept of "dating and marriage."
Manual search of the texts in the corpus.
Identification of words in the target domain.
Identification of words in the source domain.

The aim of this research is to examine the conceptual domain of hunting and its negative representation in the context of love (dating and marriage) by drawing on conceptual metaphor theory and cultural linguistics (Palmer, 1996; Sharifian, 2013). Using the Persian corpus and Persian proverbs, we investigate the metaphor "marriage is hunting" and its negative representation.
Cultural linguistics is a branch of linguistics that originates from fields such as anthropological linguistics, complex sciences, cognitive anthropology, cognitive linguistics, cognitive psychology, and distributed cognition (Palmer, 1996; Sharifian, 2013). This field explores the relationship between language, culture, and conceptualization. Cultural conceptualizations emerge through interactions within a cultural group, allowing its members to think collectively and in sync. These conceptualizations develop and evolve over time and across generations (Sharifian, 2013). To comprehend metaphors in a language, one must delve into the culture of the society.
Proverbs play a crucial role in language, as they reflect the values and cultural norms of a society. Passed down through generations, they serve as a testament to the values of a nation.

Findings

In this article, we analyze proverbs to examine the cultural factors that give rise to negative representations within the conceptual metaphor "marriage is hunting." The research findings reveal a negative metaphorical representation of hunting in the context of dating and marriage. In some instances, a woman is portrayed as a valuable catch, with her male partner as the hunter. However, the roles can also be reversed, with the woman becoming the hunter and the man the prey.
These representations are complex, but from a cognitive perspective, their significance lies in how they draw upon the source domain of hunting, shaping the thinking and reasoning about love and seduction in the texts under study. Using the Persian corpus and Persian proverbs as a reference point, we investigate the metaphor "marriage is hunting" and its negative representation. Our analysis identifies three micro-metaphors: "marriage is hunting," "marriage is theft," and "marriage is captivity." These metaphors employ linguistic expressions such as hunting, snapping, enthralling, grabbing, snatching, ensnaring, catching, trapping, capturing, enslaving, and harnessing to convey a negative emotional connotation, regardless of whether the subject is a man or a woman.
Discussion and Conclusion
This research aimed to explore the conceptual metaphor "marriage is hunting" and its negative portrayal in the context of dating and marriage. Our study was based on Lakoff's (1980) conceptual metaphor theory and drew upon cultural linguistics (Palmer, 1996; Sharifian, 2013). Metaphors serve as essential tools for cultural conceptualization. While they significantly aid in understanding life and the world, they also contribute to cultural understanding (Sharifian, 2015: 6).
To analyze the negative metaphorical representation of the hunting domain in dating and marriage, we examined the cultural factors that contribute to this portrayal by analyzing Persian proverbs. Proverbs are a significant aspect of language, reflecting the values and cultural norms of society, and they are passed down from one generation to another. Our findings indicated that these metaphors sometimes convey negative connotations toward women and, at other times, toward men, influenced by prevailing social values. This suggests that societal ideology and cultural values impact the metaphorical representation of the concept of hunting in relation to marriage.
In Iranian society, three crucial cultural factors influence the positive and negative emotional connotations of metaphorical representations in the hunting domain of dating and marriage. We discovered that gender, commitment to cohabitation, and the compatibility of couples—considering factors such as appearance, financial status, age, celibacy, and ethical orientation—play a significant role in these metaphorical representations.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Afghani, A. (1961). Shohare Ahoo khanom. Tehran: Negah. (In Persian)
Afrashi, A., Hesami, T., Salas, B. (2012). A comparative survey of orientational conceptual metaphors in Spanish and Persian. Comparative Literature Research, 3(4 (12)), 1-23. (In Persian)
Alavi, B. (1934). Chamedan. Tehran: Nagha. (In Persian)
Alavi, B. (2019). Salariha. Tehran: Negha. (In Persian)
Alizadeh, Gh. (1994). Chaharrah. Tehran: Nagha. (In Persian)
Caballero, R., & Ibarretxe-Antunano, I. (2009). Ways of perceiving, moving, and thinking: Re-vindicating culture in conceptual metaphor research. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 268-290. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.268
Dehgan, B. (2005). Comprehensive dictionary of Persian proverb. Tehran: Persian Language and Literature Academy, Nashre Asar. (In Persian)
Fasih, I. (1974). Didar dar Hend. Tehran: Winter. (In Persian)
Fauconnier, G (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220
Gandomkar, R. (2019). Unidirectionality of conceptual metaphors: A criticism based on Persian metaphors. Language Science, 6(10), 179-206. doi: 10.22054/ls.2019.26879.1097 (In Persian)
Grady, J. E. (2007). Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 189-190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hejazi, M. (2001). Paricheher. Tehran: Dadar. (In Persian)
Isfahani, H. (1972). Haji Baba Isfahani. Tehran: Hagigat. (In Persian)
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture and body in human feeling. New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Cross-cultural experience of anger: A psycholinguistic analysis. In M. Potegal (Ed.). International Handbook of Anger (pp. 157-174). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89676-2_10
Lakoff, G. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.; pp. 202-252). Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. London: The university of Chicago press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1994). Culture, cognition and grammar. In M. Putz (Ed.). Language Contact and Language Conflict (pp. 25-53). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.71.02lan
López Maestre, M. D. (2020). Gender, ideology and conceptual metaphors: Women and the source domain of the hunt: Complutense Journal of English Studies, (28), 203-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/cjes.68355
McCagg, P. (1998). Conceptual metaphor and the discourse of philanthropy. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1998(22), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/pf.2203.
Morales Perez, I. (2019). Conceptual metaphors and Brexit: A preliminary study. Revista de Lenguas Para Fines Especificos, 25(1), 107-126.    https://ojsspdc.ulpgc.es/ojs/index.php/LFE/article/view/1046
Nilipour, R. (2015). Cognitive linguistics: The second epistemological revolution in linguistics. Tehran: Hermes. (In Persian)
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Parsipur, Sh. (1976). Sag va zemestane boland. Tehran: AmirKabir. (In Persian)
Parvizi, R. (1967). Lolye sarmast. Tehran: AmirKabir. (In Persian)
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.). Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, New York, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sabahi Garaghani, H., Heidarian Shahri, A., & Mohammad Hosseinzadeh, A. (2015). Examining conceptual metaphor in surah Baqarah (Cognitive linguistics approach). Prose Journal of Persian Literature, 19(39), 85-107. (In Persian)
Sardadvar, H. (2014). Az sayde mahi ta padeshahi. Tehran: Par. (In Persian)
Sharifian, F (2013). Introduction to cultural linguistic (L. Ardebili, Trans.). Tehran: Nevise Farsi. (Original work published 2011) (In Persian)
Sharifian, F (2015). Cultural linguistics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture (pp. 478–492). London; New York: Routledge.
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.). Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application (pp. 225-282). New York: Plenum Press.
Tavakkoli Garmaseh, M. (2020). Double nature of metaphorical conceptualization of love in Persian: A cognitive approach. Journal of Zabanpazhuhi, 12(36), 309-331. https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2020.14541.1301 (In Persian)
Tonekaboni, F. (1977). Rah raftan rouye rail. Tehran: AmirKabir. (In Persian)
Wickman, S. A., Daniels, M. H., White, J. L. & Fesmire, S. A. (1999). A “Primer” in conceptual metaphor for counselor. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 13-18.
Zarghani, S. M., & Ayad, M. (2014). Transformation of metaphor of Love from Sanai to Rumi. Journal of Mystical Literature, 6(11), 43-80.        https://doi.org/10.22051/jml.2015.1924 (In Persian)
Zarghani, S. M., Mahdavi, M. J., & Ayad, M. (2013). Cognitive analysis of love metaphors in Sanā'ī’s ghazals. New Literary Studies, 46(4), 1-30. doi: 10.22067/jls.v46i4.22056 (In Persian)