VNU University of Languages and International Studies

Postgraduate Faculty

Training program: MA in English Linguistics

Course title: Semantics

THE USE OF ARTICLES IN LEARNING ENGLISH AS A

FOREIGN LANGUAGE AMONG SECOND YEAR
STUDENTS AT FELTE, ULIS, VNU

By:
Nguyn Th Lu
Date of birth: 15/02/1988
Place of birth: Thai Binh
Group:
K20C
Tel:
0976 044 933
E-mail:
luu.hulis.vnu@gmail.com
For:
Assoc Prof. Dr. V i Quang
Date due:
15/06/2012

Hanoi, 06-2012

Acknowlegement
Table of Contents

Part A: Introduction
1. Rationale for choosing the topic
2. Aims and objectives
3. Scope of research
4. Theoretical / practical significance of the assignment.
5. Methodology:
- Principles governing the techniques employed
- Approach: (basic / applicative / contrastive / quantitative / qualitative research, .. ).
- Techniques: Procedures, data types & analysis, ...

Part B. Development

1. Literature Review & Theoretical background

This part presents some of the key information related to the concept
metaphors and some recent related studies on metaphors.
1.1.

Definitions of metaphors

Before discussing in detail the functions and the subtypes of metaphors, the
first thing to do is to examine how this language phenomenon has been defined by
different scholars.
Long ago, the well-known philosopher Aristotle was the first to provide a
scholarly treatment of metaphors. According to him, a metaphor consists in giving
the thing a name that belongs to something else; the transference being either from
genius to species, or from species to species, or on the ground of analogy, as cited in
Gibbs (1994:210).
Hurford, Heasley & Smith (2007) went further by viewing metaphors as
conceptual (mental) operations reflected in human language that enable speakers to
structure and construe abstract areas of knowledge and experience in more concrete
experiential terms (p.331). According to this view of metaphor, speakers make use of
a familiar area of knowledge, called the source domain, to understand an area of
knowledge, that is less familiar, the target domain. The source domain is typically
understood through our experience in and with the physical world around us. Take the
utterance This delay will cost us at least two hours as an example for illustration. Here
the source domain is money a precious thing is used to understand the target
domain, which is time. Therefore, the metaphor in this utterance is TIME IS MONEY.
There exist many other definitions of metaphors, among which the one by
Kortle et al. (1997) is quite short but easy to understand. In this definition, metaphors
are means of figurative language, an indirect comparison without a word showing this
comparison, e.g. the word like (p.113). This view of metaphors will be taken as the
end of the discussion on metaphor definitions.
1.2. The reasons for using metaphors

Fainsilber & Ortony (1987) suggested three main reasons for using metaphors.
First, there is the so-called inexpressibility hypothesis. In other words, metaphors used
for expressions that are not easy to explain with literal language. A good example for
this would be: Her eyes are jewels sparkling in the sun.
The second hypothesis suggested is compactness hypothesis. According to this
hypothesis, people can express ideas in a detailed and compact way with metaphors.
For instance, with the sentence The harvest moon is a great pumpkin in the sky. one
can describe the moon as full and bright just by comparing it to a kind of vegetables.
The last reason for using metaphors is supported by vividness hypothesis
which says that thanks to metaphors, utterances are made clearer and more lively.
Look at the utterance During my holiday, I was treated as a queen and swam in the
sea of diamonds for illustration. When people hear this utterance, they will definitely
see that this description not only gives a great detail but also paints a mental picture
and they will feel like to be put in the moment and mentally experience some of what
the speaker has experienced.
1.3.

Types of metaphors
Lakoff & Johnson (1980) divided metaphors into three subtypes which will be

presented below starting with structural metaphors, and following orientational

metaphors and ontological metaphors.
1.3.1. Structural metaphors
Structural metaphors are considered as the biggest group of metaphors. Structural
metaphors are abstract metaphorical systems in which different parts of experiences
which are complex but too abstract are conceptualized with the help of simple but known
experiences. Consider such expressions as following: (1) to defend an argument, (2) the
leader of the discussion, (3) to loose/win a rhetorical fight, and (4) to attack the opponent
with words. With the use of the language of warfare, i.e. defend, leader, loose/win, fight,

and attack, the aforementioned expressions are to present the structural metaphor
DISCUSSION IS WAR.
1.3.2. Orientational metaphors
The second group of metaphors called orientational metaphors is based on the
orientation in space. In other ways, in creating this kind of metaphors, a special
relationship is made based on our experiences of the physical space we have. Examples
of this kind include HAPPY IS UP or HAVING CONTROL IS UP.
Lakoff & Johnson (1980) explained this as follows. In their views, those who are
sad have a bowed posture and happy people are in an upright position. Another possible
explanation could be seen in the fact that heaven which usually stands for happiness is
high above us but hell meaning misery is below us. Therefore, we have such metaphors
as BEING HAPPY IS UP or BEING SAD IS DOWN like in the following expressions I
am feeling up today, Please dont let me down.
1.3.3. Ontological metaphors
Ontological metaphors, which are based on the experience with physical object
and substances in the real world, play a role in structuring human understanding of
abstract concepts and experiences, such as events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc.
There are many kinds of ontological metaphors, one of which is the metaphor
ABSTRACTIONS ARE ENTITIES. Some examples for this are We can see the joy in his
face, The solution is within reach, or a series of questions. According to Lakoff &
Johnson (1980), these metaphors are so common in the daily life that they are rarely even
recognized as metaphors at all. On the other hand, they are regarded as part of the
everyday ordinary language.
Another kind of ontological metaphors is container metaphors, which treats
abstractions as though they were physical containers of various things. Note that this
basis is used for both physical and non-physical objects, as in the following expressions

The city is now out of sight (our eyes are a container object) or There were many
swimmers in the race (the race is considered as a container object).
The other very important group of ontological metaphors is called personification,
which describes an abstract entity as a physical object that is then further specified as
being a person. Here are some examples of personification: (1) This theory explains
everything. or (2) Sleep helps if you are ill. Obviously, a theory cannot explain anything
(1) or sleep cannot help anyone (2), only a person can. However, this way of
conceptualizing entities in human terms by means of personification makes them more
accessible to understanding.
1.3.4. Recent studies on metaphors
Kovecses (2000) conducted a study named Metaphor and Emotion. The study
raises six key questions pertaining to the role and nature of human feeling in the
emotions. His findings are that (1) emotion metaphors largely fall under the generic-level
metaphor and (2) despite the universality of bodily experience on which many our more
specific emotion metaphors are based, we get a large amount of nonuniversality in the
metaphorical conceptualization of emotion. This is due to the variations of the framing or
the experiential focus of the source domains from culture to culture.
Another study I found was Understanding metaphors in everyday language by
Reck (2002). In his study, the author discusses some key issues regarding metaphors and
after that, analyzes the use of metaphors in the politics context. His intention of carrying
out such a study was to show that metaphors are not only means of literal language but
they are actually part of our every-day communication. And his analysis did confirm that
the use of metaphors is so common in everyday language that one cannot even recognize
oneself being metaphorical. Therefore, his conclusion is that metaphors are not only part
of our everyday language but also of our mind.