METAPHORS OF LOVE IN ENGLISH AND BOSNIAN

1 INTRODUCTION
What do we know about metaphors? They are not something we stop and think about
every time we utter a sentence. Perhaps, they are just stylistic devices we use when we
write a poem and certainly not our way of cognizing the world, some may argue. They
would appear to be wrong; metaphors are not purely a subject matter of stylistics, they
are an inevitable part of our conscious as well as unconscious thinking and acting, even
though we are not aware of their existence. It is through them we get a chance of wording
our inner thoughts as well as endowing words with a particular meaning. What do we
know about feelings? Love, happiness, disappointment, are they clearly defined in the
language? Can we always explain what we feel when we are in control of our feelings,
not to mention the situation when we are excited or upset? What mechanisms are
involved when we are trying to describe our emotional states? Are these mechanisms
personal or rather universal, uniting all human beings, as a result of our ability to use
language as a means of communication? Is there any connection between our ways of
understanding and expressing emotions and a metaphor? This paper is going to discuss
these questions and will focus on differences and similarities between the Bosnian and
English metaphors of love and it will discuss to what extent metaphorization is culturallybound process.

2 CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS
2.1 TRADITIONAL VERSUS COGNITIVE VIEW
Metaphor is not a new concept in language studies. As a figure of speech,the research can
be traced back to classical theorists such as Aristotle who defines metaphor as instances
of novel poetic language and is decorative and ornamental in nature (Lakoff and Johnson
1980) In classical theories of language, metaphor was seen as a matter of language not
thought, and metaphorical expressions were assumed not to be a part of ordinary
everyday language. The word metaphor was defined as a novel or poetic linguistic
expression where one or more words for a concept are used outside of their normal
conventional meaning to express a 'similar' concept' (Lakoff 1993:202). Even today,
metaphor is for most people a device of the poetic imagination and a matter of
extraordinary rather than ordinary language. Moreover, metaphor is typically viewed as a
characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action. For this
reason, most people think they can get along perfectly well without metaphor. This
classical theory turned out to be false. Everyday abstract concepts like time, states, and
emotions turn out to be metaphorical. Metaphor is a part of the ordinary system of
thought and language, not just in the realm of poetic or figurative language. Metaphor is
an indispensible part of ordinary, conventional way of conceptualizing the world.
Metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language, but in thought and action.
Our ordinary conceptual system in terms of which we both think and act, is fundametally
metaphorical in nature. So, is it true that all of us, not just poets, speak in metaphors,
whether we realize it or not? Is it perhaps even true that we live by metaphors?
In 'Metaphors We Live By' George Lakoff, a linguist, and Mark Johnson, a philosopher,
suggest that metaphors not only make our thoughts more vivid and interesting but they
actually structure our perceptions and understanding. In this seminal work, Lakoff and
Johnson challenged the established view of metaphor as linguistic and rethorical and
started to view metaphor as a matter of thought rather than language. 'Our ordinary

conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally

metaphorical in nature' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:3) state Lakoff and Johnson in the
introduction to their book. Since their proposal of conceptual metaphor, the theory sets a
milestone in the history of theoretical development of metahor and continues to thrive in
all of their writings on the subject, conceptual metaphor theorists make it very clear that
they do not view metaphor as being solely, or even primarily, a linguistic phenomenon.
Rather, they consider it a conceptual phenomenon. Lakoff and Johnson(1980) argued that
metaphor constitutes the method by which the mind represents concepts that are not
perceptual in nature: 'Many aspects of our experience cannot be clearly delineated in
terms of the naturally emergent dimensions of our experience. This is typically the case
for human emotions, abstract concepts, mental activitiy... Though most of these can be
experienced directly, none of them can be fully comprehended on their own terms .
Instead, we must understand them in terms of other entities and experiences, typically
other kinds of entities and experiences.' (p 177). Conceptual metaphors are natural and
inevitable. Lakoff and Johnson claim that our conceptual system, in terms of which
human beings both think and act, is basically metaphoric in nature. Furthermore, Lakoff
and Johnson claim that the way we as humans think, what we experience, and what we do
everyday is very much a matter of metaphor. According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980),
'the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of
another'(p5) and 'this may involve preexisting isolated similarities, the creation of new
similarities, and more'(1980,p 154). Every time you think of paying moral debts, or
losing time, or being at a crossroads in a relationship, you are unconsciously activating a
conceptual metaphor circuit in your brain, using it and quite possibly making decisions
and living your life on the basis of your metaphor. And that is just normal. There is no
way around it. 'Our concepts structure what we perceive... and how we relate to other
people. Our conceptual system plays a central role in defining our everyday realities. If
we are right to suggest that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical, then...what we
do every day is very much a matter of metaphor.' (Lakoff and Johnson,1980:3)
A major assumption that is challenged by contemporary research is the traditional
division between literal and figurative language, with metaphor as a kind of figurative

language. This entails, by definition, that what is literal is not metaphorical. Althought the
old literal-metaphorical distinction was based on assumtions that have proved to be false,
one can make a different sort of literal-metaphorical distinction: those concepts that are
not comprehended via conceptual metaphor might be called literal. Thus, while it is
argued that a great many common concepts like causation and purpose are metaphorical,
there is nonetheless an extensive range of nonmetaphorical concepts: thus, a sentence like
'The balloon went up' is not metaphorical. But as soon as one gets away form concrete
physical experience and starts talking about abstractions or emotions, metaphorical
understanding is the norm.

2.2 STRUCTURE OF METAPHOR

Imagine a love relationship described as follows: Our relationship has hit a dead-end
street. Here love is being conceptualized as a journey,with the implication that the
relationship is stalled, that lovers cannot keep going the way they have been going, that
they must turn back, or abandon the relationship altogether. The conceptual metaphor is
LOVE IS A JOURNEY, where the lovers are seen as travelers on a journey together, with
their common life goals seen as destinations to be reached. The metaphor involves
understanding one domain of experience, love, in terms of a very different domain of
exeprience, journeys. Metaphor then seems to function at the conceptual level. According
to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:05) we understand one kind of thing or experience in terms
of something else of a different kind. For example, in the conceptual metaphor,
ARGUMENT IS WAR, we understand argument in terms of war. The metaphor shapes
our language in the way we view argument as war or as a battle to be won. It is not
uncommon to hear someone say 'He won the argument' or 'I attacked every weak point in
his argument'. What we are saying is that the structure of war is mapped onto the
structure of argument to the extent that we see similarities between war and argument.
According to Lakoff and Turner(1989:38-39) the mapping is unidirectional: we use
metaphor to map certain conceptual properties of a conceptual source domain onto a
conceptual target domain thereby creating a new understanding of the target domain, and

this metaphorical mapping goes in one direction, from source domain to target domain
and not the reverse. The principle of unidirectionality states that the metaphoprical
process typically goes from the more concrete to the more abstract, and not the other way
around.
The mapping takes place at the conceptual metaphor level. The mapping is tightly
structured. There are correspondences according to which entites in the domain of love
(e.g. lovers, their common goals, their difficulties, the love relationship etc.) correspond
systematically to entites in the domain of a journey (the travellers, the vehicle,
destinations etc.). What constitutes the LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor is not any
particular word or expression. It is the mapping across conceptual domains, from the
source domain of journeys to the target domain of love. The metaphor is not just a matter
of language, but of thought and reason. The language is secondary. The mapping is
primary.
As can be seen, metaphors link two conceptual domains, the source domain and the
target domain. The source domain consists of a set of literal entities, attributes, processes
and relationships, linked semantically and apparently stored together in the mind. Source
domains originate in human experience and are not derived from other more fundamental
domains; they include, for example, space, matter and temperature. The target domain
tends to be abstract, and takes its structure from the source domain. Target domains are
therefore believed to have relationship between entities, attributes, and processes which
mirror those found in the source domain. At the level of language, entities, attributes, and
processes in the target domain are lexicalized using words and expressions from the
source domain. These words and expressions are called linguistic metaphorical
expressions to distinguish them from conceptual metaphors. Zoltan Kovecses developed
Lakoff's idea of differentiation between metaphors as mappings and metaphors as
metaphorical expressions, pointing out that metaphorical expressions are solely the
representation of the mappings (Kovecses 2010:45) This means that contemporary
metaphor theorists commonly use the term metaphor to refer to the conceptual mapping,
and the term metaphorical expression to refer to an individual linguistic expression that is

determined by a mapping. Metaphor involves both conceptual mappings and individual

linguistic expressions. But, it is the mappings that are primary and that state the
generalizations that are our principal concern. Since this is the case, the term metaphor is
reserved for the mappings, rather than for the linguistic expressions. Metaphors are
mappings, sets of conceptual correspondences. Such correspondences permit us to reason
about love using the knowledge we use to reason about journeys. Proponents of
Conceptual Metaphor Theory argue that few or even no abstract notions can be talked
about without metaphor. There is no direct way of perceiving them and we can only
understand them through the filter of directy experienced concrete notions.

2.3 THE INVARIANCE PRINCIPLE

Lakoff's (1993) conceptual view of the nature of the mapping between the source and
target domains is further developed by means of the Invariance Principle. Image schemas
are pervasive in our language and experience to stucture many concepts other than
images. They are acquired through our physical experiences of being and acting in the
objective world. For instance, we conventionally use various image schemas to
conceptualize time, which has no shape, no physical structure. TIME can be viewed as a
container ('in ten minutes'), a path ('leave past behind'), an object ('spend 10 minutes'),
spatial orientation ('up to now'). On the other hand, one image schema can be used for
different concepts, for instance, GOOD IS UP ('live up to expectations'), MORE IS UP
('speed up to 60 miles per hour'). As Lakoff (1987,p 275) states: 'Image schemas provide
particularly important evidence for the claim that abstract reason is a matter of two
things: a)reason based on bodily experience, and b) metaphorical projections from
concrete to abstract domains'. Thus, those image schemas structure our experience with
space and structure concepts in abstract domains. Image schemas are the source of
metaphorical mappings for abstract domains. According to Lakoff (1993, p 215) the
Invariance Principle states that: 'Metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology
(that is, the image schema structure) of the source domain, in a way consistent with the
inherent structure of the target domain. The Invariance Principle guarantees that for
container schemas, interiors will be mapped onto interiors, exteriors onto exteriors, and

boundaries onto boundaries; for path schemas, sources will be mapped onto sources,
goals onto goals, trajectories onto trajectories, and so on... One cannot find cases where a
source domain interior is mapped onto target domain exterior, or where a source domain
exterior is mapped onto a target domain path.' In other words, the structure of the image
schema limits what can be mapped. For instance, in the metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY,
the beginning point of life, birth is mapped onto the starting point of a journey, while the
ending point of life, death is mapped onto the destination of the journey.

2.4 HIGHLIGHTING AND HIDING

We have already learned that there is a systematicity that allows us to understand one
concept in terms of another. However, what does systematicity mean? When we talk
about love in terms of a journey, we use vocabulary that is normally applied when
discussing travelling. Thus, systematicity is a pattern that affects the way we talk about
love, allowing us to use words or phrases that previously had been used to different
concepts (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:7). Kovecses points out that when a metaphor
concentrates on one or more features of a concept, it highlights those features. However,
when one aspect of a given concept is highlighted, the other ones will be hidden
(2002:80). Checking which features are highlighted or hidden in the following metaphors
of love will give more light to this issue. LOVE IS SUBSTANCE (She was filled with
love. He poured out his affection on her. She couldn't hold in her love for him any
longer.) LOVE IS A NATURAL FORCE (She swept me off my feet. Waves of passion
came over him. She was carried away by love.) (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:49). As we can
see conceptual metaphors create and describe the target domain by directing attention at
or hiding different angles of it. Thus, in LOVE IS SUBSTANCE metaphor, the aspect of
content is highlighted, whereas the possible chance of development of a romantic feeling
is concealed. The examples of LOVE IS A NATURAL FORCE metaphor reveal that
love cannot be controlled as well as show the intensity of the emotion. However, the
aspect of an emotional enrichment, which is also present when people experience such an
overwhelming feeling, is hidden.

2.6 CONCLUSION
To conclude, a metaphor is one in which one idea, or conceptual domain ,is understood in
terms of another. The conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions
to understand another conceptual domain is known as the source domain. The conceptual
domain that is understood this way is the target domain. Conceptual metaphors typically
employ a more abstract concept as target and a more concrete or physical concept as their
source. Understanding one domain in terms of another involves a set of fixed
correspondences or mappings between a source and a target domain. To know a
conceptual metaphor is to know the set of mappings that applies to a given source-target
pairing. It is these mappings that provide much of the meaning of the metaphorical
linguistic expreesions that make a particular conceptual metaphor manifest.

2 TYPES OF METAPHORS
2.1 THE CONVENTIONALITY OF METAPHORS
The questions that arise under the theme is how deeply rooted the metaphor is; how
widely-used and accepted it is by the ordinary public. Thus, to define the deegre of the
metaphor's conventionality, one should trace the usage of the metaphor in speech; to see
how well established it is in our minds. Here Kovecses proposes a term 'conceptualized',
or highly conventionalized metaphor, that is 'a metaphor that is well established and
deeply entreched (Kovecses 2010:34). This approach supports the idea of the world being
deeply metaphorical, since in our ordinary communication use of metaphor can remain
unnoticed; we may use it without deliberate purpose. If one says: 'He has defended his
point of view.', or 'We have to construct a new strategy', or 'The business is growing fast',
the speaker will recognize the idea immediatelly. This allows us to assume that such
conceptual metaphors are highly conventional. They can be comprehended easily by the
majority of recipients. Such highly conventional metaphors are considered in opposition

to the unconventional or novel metaphors. The mappings can still be conventional but the
metaphorical expressions used to deliver the idea to the target domain can be
unconventional in their nature. The metaphors of such type can be found not only in
poetic language; a lot of contemporary commercial artists, politicians, journalists and
representatives of other professions are in constant search for such non-standard
linguistic expressions to manifest their ideas. The example of this kind of metaphors
could be: 'Stop the world. I want to get off.'. The mapping of the metaphor is LIFE IS A
JOURNEY, which is a purely conventional conceptual metaphor. But the metaphorical
expressions chosen for manifesting the idea are out of ordinary and seem unconventional.

2.2 THE FUNCTION OF METAPHOR

Z. Kovecses suggests there should be three kinds of metaphors distinguished in
accordance to their cognitive function, namely ,structural, ontological and orientational
ones.
2.2.1 STRUCTURAL METAPHORS
Structural metaphors arise when the source domain provides 'rich knowledge structure for
the target concept' (Kovecses 2010:37). Different parts of experiences which are complex
and a bit too abstract are conceptualized with the help of simple but known experiences.
In other words, one concept is understood and expressed in terms of another structured,
sharply defined concept. Kovecses explicates the idea using the concept of time. Let us
consider the following examples: The time for action has arrived. I'm looking ahead to
Christmas. Time is flying by. Thanksgiving is coming up soon. (Kovecses 2010:38). We
can see that the conceptual metaphor can be represented as a mapping TIME PASSING
IS MOTION OF AN OBJECT. The observer has a steady position and the things, objects
are moving towards him. In contrast, the following mapping can arise- TIME PASSING
IS AN OBSERVER'S MOTION OVER A LANDSCAPE with the following examples:
His stay in Russia extended for many years. We passed the time happily. We are getting
close to Christmas. In these metaphorical expressions the time gains steady fixed position

and the observer is moving towars it. The understanding of both source domain and target
domain make the metaphor clear and comprehensible .'One concept is metaphorically
structured in terms of another.' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 14)
2.2.2 ONTOLOGICAL METAPHORS
Collins Concise English Dictionary provides the following definition of ontology: 'the
branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being.' (Collins Concise English
Dictionary 2008:1166). Ontological metaphors are less transparently projected from the
source domain to the target concept. Their task is to provide new ontological status to
general categories of abstract target concepts. Ontological metaphors involve ways of
viewing intangible concepts, such as feelings, activities, and ideas as entities. When we
identify these experiences as substances, we can 'refer to them, categorize them, group
them, and quantify them- and by this means, reason about them.' (Lakoff and Johnson
1980:25) The abstract notions can be referred to as entities. This can be achieved through
the introduction of ontological metaphors that might serve the purpose of quantifying,
identifying, referring, setting goals etc. In other words, they contribute to the
comprehension of nonphysical objects as an entities. An abstraction, such as an activity,
emotion, or idea, is represented as something concrete, such as an object, substance,
container, or person. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson provide the following examples to
manifest the use of ontological metaphors: 'I can't keep up with the pace of modern life'
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980:27) - Life course is perceived as speed of some physical
object. His emotional health has deteriorated recently. 'The pressure of his responsibility
caused his breakdown' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:27) - Health, emotional state of a
person or work appear to adopt some physical abilities not usual to the abstract notions.
'He went to New York to seek fame and fortune. I want to find true happiness in this life.'
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980:27) - Fame and happiness are apprehended as physical objects
that could be lost, found, moved etc.
Personification can be assumed of as a form of ontological metaphor. A physical object is
mapped to the target domain as a human being. Such mappings allow us to perceive non-

human entities through human characteristics, motivations, actions, etc. Consider the
following examples: 'Inflation is eating up our profits. This fact argues against the
standard theories. Life has cheated on me' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:33) The examples
above have one feature in common,they characterize the nonhuman in terms of human
behaviour. Here are several kinds of ontological metaphors: container metaphor- an
ontological metaphor in which some concept is represented as having an inside and
outside, and capable of holding something else (I've had a full life. Life is empty for him.
Her life is crammed with activities. Get the most out of life) Entity metaphor- an
ontological metaphor in which an abstraction is represented as a concrete physical object.
In the following sentences mind is represented as a machine or a brittle object (My mind
is not operating today. Her ego is very fragile. You have to handle him with care since his
wife's death.) Substance metaphor- an ontological metaphor in which an abstraction, such
as an event, activity, emotion, or idea is represented as material (There was a lot of good
sprinting in the race. I couldn't do much sprinting until the end)
2.2.3 ORIENTATIONAL METAPHORS
Orientational metaphors can be opposed to the structural ones in such a way that they do
not build the metaphorical structure of one concept in terms of another, but
rather'...organize a whole system of concepts with respect to one another' (Lakoff and
Johnson 1980:14). They are given the term of orientational due to their spatial focus: inout, up-down, from-to, etc. They organize concepts by giving them a spatial orientation.
According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:14), orientational metaphors involve the
mapping of attributes in the domain of spatial orientation onto other conceptual domains.
Typically orientations such as UP/DOWN and BACK/FRONT constitute source domains
with attributes that are mapped onto target domains such as states and emotions. These
metaphors are not random, they are based on the structure of our bodies, and how we
physically interact in a specific culture or environment. The nature of orientational
metaphors lays deeply in our physical structure or culture. Spatial orientations arise
because we have bodies of the sort we do; we see things in front of us, below us, above
us, etc. So we sometimes associate abstract ideas that do not really have a location with a

particular place in space. They claim that these spatial orientations are based on the
nature of the human body and the way the body operates in our physical environment.
Human beings walk erect. This means that they have the ability to overcome the
gravitational force. As a result of this the erect body has a positive connotation. This is
the reason why UP has positive connotations and it is thus common to relate most
positive feelings to movement up, and negative ones to movement down. We can
reclassify Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphors and their instantiations according
to two categories, that is, those that are above level and those that are below level.
HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN
I'm feeling up. My spirits rose. You are in high spirits. I'm feeling down. I'm depressed.
He is really low. My spirits sank. I fell into a depression. (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:15)
CONSCIOUS IS UP;UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN
Wake up. I'm up already. He fell asleep. He dropped off to sleep. He sank into a coma. He
is under hypnosis.
HEALTH AND LIFE ARE UP;SICKNESS AND DEATH ARE DOWN
He is at the peak of his health. He fell ill. Lazarus rose from the dead.
HAVING CONTROL OR FORCE IS UP;BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL OR FORCE
IS DOWN
I have control over her. I'm on top of the situation. He is at the height of his power. He is
in the high command. His power rose. He ranks above me in strenght. He is under my
control. He fell from power. His power is on the decline. He's my social inferior.
MORE IS UP;LESS IS DOWN
My income rose. His income fell last year.

GOOD IS UP;BAD IS DOWN

We hit a peak last year. Things are looking up. He does high quality work. It has been
downhill ever since.

3 EXPERIENTIAL BASIS FOR METAPHORS

Why do we have the conventional metaphors that we have? Or: Is there any reason why
conceptual systems contain one set of metaphorical mappings rather than another? Take a
simple case: MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN. There are other languages with these
metaphors, but none in which the reverse is true, where MORE IS DOWN; LESS IS UP.
Why not? The answer is that the MORE IS UP metaphor is grounded in experience- in
the common experience of pouring more fluid in a container and seeing the level rise, or
adding more things to a pile and seeing the pile get higher. These are thoroughly
pervasive experiences; we experience them every day of our lives. MORE corresponds in
such experiences to UP and LESS corresponds to DOWN. These correspondences in real
experience form the basis for the correspondences in the metaphorical cases, which go
beyond the cases in real experience. In 'Prices rose' there is no correspondence in real
experience between quantity and verticality, but understanding quantity in terms of
verticality makes sense because of the existence of a regular correspondence in so many
other cases. Consider another case: KNOWING IS SEEING metaphor ( I see what you
are saying). The experiential basis ,in this case, is the fact that most of what we know
comes through vision, and that in the overwhelming majority of cases, if we see
something, then we know it is true. Experiential bases motivate metaphors, they do not
predict them. Thus, not every language has a MORE IS UP metaphor, though all human
beings experience a correspondence between MORE and UP in their experience. What
this experiential basis does predict is that no language will have the opposite metaphor
LESS IS UP. It also predicts that a speaker of language that does not have that metaphor
will be able to learn that metaphor much more easily than the opposite metaphor.

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) state, 'Our general position is that conceptual metaphors are
grounded in correlations within our experience' (p155). According to them, there are two
types of experiential correlations: experiential cooccurrence and experiential similarity..
An example of experiential cooccurrence is the MORE IS UP metaphor. MORE IS UP is
based on the cooccurrence of two types of experiences: adding more of a substance and
seeing the level of substance rise. No experiential similarity is involved in this case at all.
As for experiential similarity, one example is LIFE IS A GAMBLING GAME. This
example describes life experiences as gambles in terms of losing or winning. Thus, the
metaphor is grounded in experiential similarity.

4 METAPHOR AND CULTURE

Another issue that Lakoff and Johnson discuss is the question whether all cultures share
the same conception of the world. A certain class of metaphors seems to be universal.
These are a result of our bodily interaction with the physical environment. We can,
therefore, say they are products of embodiment. An example of a metaphor that is an
outcome of embodiment is the conceptual orientational metaphor GOOD IS UP. This
conceptual metaphor is a result of our spatial orientation. However, some conceptual
metaphors are culture specific. Different cultures may have different value systems that
may result in different interpretations of experiences from other cultures. In other words,
the same experience by, on the one hand, an English person and, on the other hand, a
Bosnian person may be interpreted differently.
So, are there any universal conceptual metaphors? Kovecses (2002:163) maintains that
there is no simple answer to the question whether there are any conceptual metaphors that
can be found in all languages. Kovecses proposes that the best approach to find an answer
to this question is to look at some conceptual metaphors that one can find in some
languages and then check whether the same metaphors exist in typologically very
different languages. Kovecses points out that if they exist in these languages as well we
can postulate that they may be universal. Kovecses (2002:163) argues that if we discover

that the same conceptual metaphor exists in several unrelated languages we are faced
with an additional question why this conceptual metaphor exists in such different
languages and cultures. In an attempt to illustrate this Kovecses (2002:163) cites the
conceptual metaphors for happiness as follows: BEING HAPPY IS BEING OFF THE
GROUND, BEING HAPPY IS BEING IN HAVEN, HAPPY IS UP, HAPPINESS IS
LIGHT, HAPPINESS IS VITALITY, HAPPINESS IS FLUID IN A CONTAINER,
HAPPINESS IS A CAPTIVE ANIMAL, HAPPINESS IS AN OPPONENT, HAPPINESS
IS A RAPTURE, A HAPPY PERSON IS AN ANIMAL THAT LIVES WELL,
HAPPINESS IS A PLEASURABLE PHYSICAL SENSATION, HAPPINESS IS
INSANITY, HAPPINESS IS A NATURAL FORCE. Kovecses gives examples in which
these conceptual metaphors occur in English, Chinese, and Hungarian. Kovecses
emphasises that these three languages are typologically completely unrelated and
represent very different cultures of the world. Kovecses (2002:165) then questions how it
is possible for such differnt languages and cultures to conceptualize happiness
metaphorically in such similar ways. He proposes three possible answers to this question:
it is an accidental occurrence, it is a case of one language borrowing from the other
language, or it is a question of the conceptual metaphors being motivated by universality
so that they occur in these cultures. Kovecses (2002:163) proposes the following
explanatory hypothesis for the existence of so-called universal metaphors: 'The reason is
that, as liguistic usage suggests, English-speaking, Hungarian, Japanese, Chinese people
appear to have similar ideas about their bodies and seem to see themselves as undergoing
the same physiological processes when in a state of anger, duh, ikari, nu and so forth.
They all view their bodies and body organs as containers. And, also linguistic evidence
suggests they respond physiologically to certain situations (causes) in the same way.'
Kovecses compares the metaphorical expression ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A
CONTAINER as manifested in the conceptual metaphor in English, Hungarian, Japanese,
Chinese, Zulu, Polish, Wolof and Tahitian. Kovecses starts with the study of the
conceptual metaphor in English, he states that English examples such as 'You make my
blood boil.', 'Simmer down.', 'Let him stew.' presuppose a container. According to
Kovecses (2002:166) all the preceeding examples assume a container (corresponding to
the human body), a fluid inside the container, as well as the element of heat as a property

of the fluid. It is the hot fluid or more precisely the heat of the fluid that corresponds to
anger. We map our knowledge of the behaviour of hot fluids in closed containers onto the
concept of anger. According to Kovecses the conceptual metaphor is almost identical in
Hungarian. That is, there are no significant differences in the Hungarian expressions
compared to the expressions in English. Kovecses (2002:168-170) goes on to exemplify
the similarities of the ANGER metaphor in English and other languages. Kovecses
(2202:171) concludes that all these similarities in all these unrelated languages can be
attributed to embodiment. One can say that universal conceptual metaphors are a result of
the way our bodies interact with the physical environment. This is to say that there are
bound to be similarities in the ways unrelated language types and different cultures
conceptualize certain experiential phenomena.

4.1 CULTURAL VARIATION IN CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS

Kovecses (2002:183) notes that in addition to universality there will also be cultural
variation in the same conceptual metaphors occuring in different languages. He bases his
observations on a study of metaphor relating to emotions. He points out that the studies
have revealed that metaphors for anger found in English have also been found in
Japanese. However, it has also been found that there is a large number of anger
expressions that group around the Japanese concept of hara (literally belly). This
culturally significant concept is unique to Japanese culture and so the conceptual
metaphor ANGER IS IN THE HARA is limited to Japanese. Kovecses (2002:186)
identifies two main causes of cultural variations. These are: broader cultural context (the
governing principes and the key concepts in a given culture), and the natural and physical
environment in which different cultures are located. Kovecses (2002:186-187) claims that
at a generic level (that is the general conceptual metaphor) a given metaphor is very
similar across cultures. However, at a specific level we can notice important differences
in this metaphor. The following quotation captures what Kovecses (2002:187) assumes
about the effect of the natural and physical environment on conceptual metaphors: 'The
natural and physical environment shapes a language, primarily its vocabulary, in an
obvious way; consequently, it will shape the metaphors as well. Given a certain kind of

habitat speakers living there will be attuned subconsciously to things and the phenomena
that are characteristic of that habitat and they will make use of these things and
phenomena for the metaphorical comprehension and creation of their conceptual
universe.'

5 METAPHORS OF LOVE
In the previous chapter we have managed to understand that thanks to metaphor, which is
a crucial part of everyday life, we are able to conceptualize the world we live in. We have
admitted that metaphor cannot be treated only as stylistic device. Such an idea proves that
our reasoning as well as our behaviour reflect the way we metaphorically comprehend
everything that happens in our lives. How do we conceptualize emotions? Powerful
emotions, love being one of them, are inevitable parts of the human existence. Thus
metaphors such as LOVE IS FIRE or LOVE IS A CONTAINER help us to understand
this overwhelming feeling. We can imagine and express exactly how it feels to be
disappointed, happy, or in love. Needless to say, there are certain psychological effects
that occur when we are in love: increased body heat, blushing, increased heart rate. Our
facial muscles react differently depending on a situation. The vocal cords and intonation
can betray the way we are feeling at a particular moment. Besides, there must be some
image which is stored in our mind as well, which can consciously refer to and provide
wording for. The subject of this essay being metaphors of love, we are going to argue that
it is due to the existence of metaphor we can fully comprehend this feeling and see if
there are any similarities in English and Bosnian language.

5.1 STRUCTURAL METAPHORS OF LOVE

Let us take the LOVE IS WAR metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:4)
He is known for his many rapid conquests (Bos. On je poznat po svojim cestim
osvajanjima)

She fought for him but his mistress won out (Bos. Ona se je borila za njega,ali njegova
ljubavnica je odnijela pobjedu.)
He overpowered her (Bos. Nadvladao ju je.)
He made an ally of her mother (Bos. Napravio je saveznika od njene majke.)
He is slowly gaining ground with her. (Bos. Postepeno je pridobija.)
All English and Bosnian expressions given as examples correspond closely; moreover,
they are almost literal translations of one another, which are frequently and commonly
used in both languages. These examples clearly show that we not only talk about love in
terms of war, we can actually fight for a person in order to save a relationship. Any war
presupposes two different sides, between which the fight is going on, we see the same
situation in a marriage; either the partners can attack each other, or the enemy can come
from the outside. Someone gets the trophy in the end.
Is there any background to our thinking of love in terms of war? If we go back to the
animal world, we can find the same competition there: the male representatives are
fighting and competing with each other in order to attract a female. Fortunately, humans
have invented 'more sophisticated techniques for getting our way' (Lakoff and Johnson
1980:62), the war being one of these. As Lakoff points out, the human conflict undergoes
exactly the same stages as the fight between animals, those of 'establishing and defending
territory, attacking, retreating and surrending' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:62). The way we
act is directly expressed in our language, thus the LOVE IS WAR metaphor reflects one
side of this feeling; namely that of a fight (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:61-68)
The LOVE IS WAR metaphor is found and widely used in Bosnian as well, that makes us
think that this aspect of love, namely WAR, is present in both English and Bosnian;
furthermore, the languages have developed similar ways of expressing it. If we talk about
love as the examples above suggest ,either in English or in Bosnian, 'we would not be
viewed as speaking metaphorically, but as using the normal everyday language
appropriate to the situation' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:51). All these examples prove that
'metaphors are not random but instead coherent systems, in terms of which we
conceptualize our experience'(Lakoff and Johnson 1980:41). To fight/boriti se, an
ally/saveznik, to overpower/prevladati,to gain ground/pridobijati,etc are instances of the

same defining domain, that of WAR (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:61-68). We coherently use
the WAR terminology when talking about a feeling.
Keeping in mind that 'the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one
kind of thing in terms of another' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:5),we can say that LOVE is
'partially structured, understood, performed and talked about in terms of WAR' (Lakoff
and Johnson 1980:5). We say partially because every metaphor has its 'used' and 'unused'
parts, we do not transfer all characteristics from the domain of WAR to that of LOVE but
only some of them (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:52). 'Our conventional ways of talking
about love presuppose a metaphor we are hardly even conscious of,... We talk about love
that way because we conceive of it that way-and we act according to the way we
conceive of things' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:59)
Structural metaphors are highly conventional,we must learn them while acquiring or
learning a language. They originate, as Lakoff (1990:35-40) argues, from either
'scientific' or 'folk' theories. The 'scientific' theories are based on proved assumptions,
such as that fire makes the water boil, that the sun warms the earth, etc. Thus, the LOVE
IS HEAT metaphor can be scientifically explained as follows; when we are in love, we
get excited, the heart strikes more rapidly, we get hot, nervous, sometimes even redden.
The body temperature rises, that allows us to see the connection between LOVE and
HEAT through the similarity of physical experience.
The 'folk' theory would suggest, as for example in Bosnian, that when we fall in love,we
usually become silly and absent-minded. ' Izgubio je glavu zbog ljubavi.' (He has lost his
head because of love.), this example would perfectly fit under the LOVE IS MADNESS
metaphor. Even though there is no scientific evidence proving that one, when in love,
necessarily loses his or her mind, this 'folk' belief has found its expression in the form of
proverbs and sayings in the Bosnian language. Sometimes, the folk theories can directly
contradict the facts of the scientific research.

LOVE IS WAR is not the only example of structural metaphors of love. There are others
as well, viewing different aspects of the feeling, some of them exist in both English and
Bosnian, others do not.
LOVE IS MADNESS: I am crazy about her (Bos: Lud sam za njom).
She drives me out of my mind (Bos: Ludim zbog nje).
He has gone mad over her (Bos: Poludio je zbog nje).
I am just wild about Harry ( Bos: Luda sam za Harrijem.)
I am insane about her (Bos: Sisao sam s uma zbog nje) (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:49).
Wild, mad, angry and crazy are well-understood by us, we do not have any difficulties in
specifying our feeling or behaviour when we experince any of these emotions or mental
states. Furthermore, we are aware of the fact that each of these emotions is slightly
different from the others, and that some of them evoke stronger feelings than the others
do. Madness with all its implications belongs to our most natural and basic experiences
and therefore gives us a clue of how we feel about love. The existence of the same
metaphor is predetermined in many languages, because it involves our most basic
instincts and reactions, it is unalienable part of our development.
LOVE IS MAGIC: She cast her spell over me (Bos: Ocarale me je).
The magic is gone (Bos: Nestalo je magije).
I was spellbound (Bos: Zacaran sam).
She had me hypnotized ( Bos: Hipnotizirala me je).
He has me in trance (Bos: U transu sam zbog njega).
I an charmed by him (Bos: Ocarana sam njime) (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:49)
For centuries humans have been fascinated with things connected with magic, as it
provided the explanation for the unknown. We are unlikely to find out how the very
sensation of love appears, that is why we call it magic. This metaphor is extremely
productive in Bosnian, moreover, the verb 'ocarati' (meaning to hypnotize, to cast spell) is
most commonly used when talking about women's ability to charm men, and not vice
versa.

LOVE IS A PATIENT: This is a sick relationship (Bos: Ova veza je bolesna).

They have a strong,healthy marriage (Bos: Imaju zdrav brak).
We are getting back on our feet (Bos: Dolazimo sebi).
Their marriage is on its last legs (Bos: Njihov brak prozivljava posljednje dane)
It is a tired affair ( Bos: To je zamarajuci odnos) (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:49).
Most of us know what it means to be ill, it is a very basic experience for all human
beings ,that is why we are able to comprehend this aspect of any relationship.
LOVE IS A JOURNEY: Look how far we have com (Bos: Pogledaj dokle smo dosli). We
are at a crossroads ( Bos: Na raskrsnici smo).
We shall just have to go our separate ways (Bos: Morat cemo krenuti svako svojim
putem.)
I do not think this relationship is going anywhere (Bos: Mislim da ova veza ne
napreduje).
Where are we? (Bos: Gdje smo?).
We are stuck (Bos:Zapeli smo).
We have gotten off the track (Bos:Sisli smo sa pravog puta). (Lakoff and Johnson
1980:44-45)
Metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY is often used in English and Bosnian when talking
about love. However, in English this metaphor is not homogeneous in nature, as it refers
to different kinds of journeys. Car trip: Its been a long, bumpy road; Train trip: Weve
gotten off the tracks; Sea voyage: Our marriage is on the rocks, the fact that they are all
journey metaphors, makes them coherent (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:45). This distinction
is not as clearly made in Bosnian.
LOVE IS A PHYSICAL FORCE: I could feel the electricity between us (BOs: Osjetio
sam privlacnost medju nama )
I was magnetically drawn to her ( Bos: privukla me poput magneta)
They are uncontrollably attracted to each other ( Bos: Nekontrolisano privlace jedno
drugo )
His whole life revolves around her ( Bos: cijeli njegov zivot se vrti oko nje )

The atmosphere around them is always charged ( Bos: Atmosfera je uvijek napeta )
There is incredible energy in their relationship ( Bos: Postoji nevjerovatna energija u
njihovom odnosu ) ( Lakoff and Johnson 1980:49 ).
This metaphor arises naturally from our awareness of the external world. Due to the
revolutionary discoveries of such scientists as Newton, Einstein and others we have
learned about natural forces, magnetism, electricity, gravitation, etc. moreover, we can
observe, measure and try them, and through them we can define and measure the strength
of our emotions.
LOVED ONE IS A POSSESSION: My friend stole my love from me ( Bos: prijatelj mi
je ukrao ljubav )
You are all I have got ( BOs: ti si sve sto imam )
I am going to get him back ( Bos: Vratit cu ja njega )
I am yours-be mine ( Bos: Tvoja sam-budi moj )
You are my own ( Bos: Ti si sve moje )
LOVE IS FIRE: I dont want to get burned again. (Bos: Ne zelim da se opecem)
My hearts on fire. (Bos: Moje srce gori od ljubavi)
That kindled love in his heart. (Bos: Ta plamteca ljubav u njegovom srcu)
He was consumed by love. (Bos: Obuzela ga je ljubav) (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:49)
LOVE IS HEAT: I am burning with desire ( Bos: Gorim od zelje )
We have discussed the possible origin of this metaphor when talking about scientific
theories.
LOVE IS A CREATION: We are made for each other ( Bos: stvoreni smo jedno za drugo)
LOVE IS A FRAGILE OBJECT: They broke up. Her heart was broken ( Bos: Prekinuli
su. Njeno srce je slomljeno )
LOVE IS A UNITY: We are one ( Bos: Mi smo jedno )

She is my other/better half ( Bos: Ona je moja druga/bolja polovina )

He is a perfect match ( Bos: On savrseno odgovara ) ( cogsci.berkeley.edu )
Since then they moved in together and are inseparable. (Bos: Otkako zive zajedno
nerazdvojni su)
It just tore us apart. (Bos: To nas je jednostavno razdvojilo)
I dont ever want to lose him, he means the world to me, and without him Id be broken.
(Bos: Nikad ga ne zelim izgubiti, cijeli je moj svijet, bez njega bih bila slomljena)
The examples show that the parts which form a whole correspond to the lovers in a
relationship. In the ideal case they share the feeling of love, probably to an equal degree,
and live in a state of harmony (Kovecses 1988:56). Correspondingly, when this UNITY
breaks apart, one of the lovers no longer loves the other one. The last example even
indicates that the separate parts of the whole cannot exist independent of each other. Most
English expressions in this category can be rendered into Bosnian and serve the same
meaning and metaphorical sense.
In metaphor LOVE IS NUTRIENT found by Kovecses (1986), the concept of love is
regarded as something edible. Concerning the metaphorical concept of love in both
English and Bosnian, the commonality goes with something which is edible, being a sort
of material. But as for the metaphorical concepts of love, the difference lies in the fact
that love is solidity in English, whereas it is solidity and liquidity in Bosnian. The
following expressions in both English and Bosnian will crystallize this issue. I am
starving for love. She is starved for affection. He is love-starved. Hungered for love.
(Gladna sam/Zeljna sam/Zedna sam ljubavi/Zedjam za tobom)
The main purpose of all structural metaphors is to present how we conceptualize the more
complicated concepts, such as feelings, in terms of more concrete, physically experienced
concepts. The source domain LOVE is a superordinate concept, a concept which is fairly
abstract. By contrast, our principle metaphors WAR, MADNESS, FIRE, FRAGILE
OBJECT, etc can be called basic-level concepts, concepts that are information-rich and
rich in conventional mental imagery. Let us call the metaphors based on such concepts
basic-level concepts ( Lakoff 1990;406 )

We have discussed that there is a system according to which we structure our conceptual
sphere, the metaphors are coherent, even if not homogeneous in nature. Different
structural metaphors of love present different aspects of this feeling, it would be
impossible to become aware of all shades of such an abstraction as love without these
metaphors.

5.2 ORIENTATIONAL METAPHORS OF LOVE

Another kind of the cognitive metaphor Lakoff and Johnson have called orientational
metaphor, one that does not structure one concept in terms of another but instead
organizes a whole system of concepts with respect to one another ( Lakoff and Johnson
1980:14 ). They give us a clue about how the reality of a definite culture is structured.
Such metaphorical orientations are not arbitrary as they have their origin and basis in
our physical and cultural experience ( Lakoff and Johnson 1980:14 ). Knowing that the
sun brings about light and life, we can on analogy assume that the light itself is up ( as it
comes from above ), the darkness, on the contrary, alongside danger, uncertainty ( most
often associated with it ) is DOWN. Consequently, happiness, wealth, health, stability
will be UP, whereas misfortunes, poverty, disease, instability will be DOWN in the
Western society (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:14-21). Getting back to our metaphors of
love, we can analyze the expression to fall in love in terms of the orientational
metaphor.
Thousands of English-speaking people do it every day without actually falling anywhere.
How has the expression to fall in love become possible in the language? If we try to
explain the fact in terms of William Nagys (1974) polar oppositions up-down, in-out,
front-back; where according to Nagy, RATIONAL IS UP; EMOTIONAL IS DOWN (in
the Western society intellect is superior, the feelings are inferior and therefore
suppressed), we can interpret falling in love as losing our common sense, being
influenced by feelings, that is falling from the intellectual domain to the emotional one.
Beyond rational free willed values are emotive feelings. To be emotive is to lose
rational, free-willed self-control (http://hometown.aol.com).

This loss of self-control is clearly expressed in the Bosnian language: Izgubio je pamet
zbog ljubavi, meaning He has lost his mind because of love.
Besides, the process of falling in love is an unconscious one (one cannot force
him/herself into loving somebody else), thus, proceeding from the metaphor:
CONSCIOUS IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN (Nagys explanation for these
metaphors is based on the fact that humans sleep lying down and stand up when they
awaken), we can conclude that the falling has actually taken place-to the level of the
unconscious. (Nagys metaphors were taken from Lakoff and Johnson 1980:14-21).
Orientational metaphors of love are not present in Bosnian language. There is not even
one metaphorical expression in the category of orientational metaphor.

5.3 ONTOLOGICAL METAPHORS OF LOVE

He is in love, he entered a state of euphoria, we are out of trouble now, etc (Lakoff and
Johnson 1980:32) clearly show that we conceptualize our emotions and states as a
container and conceptualize what we feel and experience as being inside it (Lakoff and
Johnson 1980:30). Love is conceptualized as forming a container itself, which is outside
the body. Instead of having the emotion inside us, we seem to move into the love
container when we feel this emotion. A person stays there as long as the feeling is
present, and moves out of the love container when they stop feeling this emotion.
Kovecses (1990:144-159) points out that the CONTAINER metaphor is an important
concept in the field of emotions and that it works in two ways. The emotions are either
conceptualized as a FLUID IN A CONTAINER, with the CONTAINER in most cases
supplied by the human body, or as BEING A CONTAINER itself. Expressions that
represent this conceptual metaphor are for example the following: We have been going
out for three months now, but we fell in love after going out for three weeks. But sadly
when were falling out of love, we often dont see it coming. People get so lost in love
that they rarely see it coming. The first example indicates that not only one person, but
even two people can enter the LOVE CONTAINER, which means they love each other.
Accordingly, leaving the CONTAINER is understood as the end of the emotion of love,
as we can see in the second example. A more specific version of the CONTAINER

metaphor is indicated in the last example, where the CONTAINER seems to be a kind of
labyrinth. Getting lost is a loss of orientation and control, which means that LOVE can
interfere with our normal functioning. Bosnian does not employ this kind of metaphor.
Another CONTAINER metaphor for LOVE is proposed by Kovecses. He claims LOVE
IS A FLUID IN A CONTAINER to be a conceptual metaphor of this emotion and gives
examples likeShe was overflowing with love. She is filled with love. She is brimming
with love. My heart being filled with your love. His eyes were full of love. (2000:26).
The FLUID IN A CONTAINER metaphor is conventional in Bosnian, too. Bosnian
metaphorical expressions which reveal such a kind of metaphor are as follows: biti pun
ljjubavi, oci pune ljubavi, srce puno ljubavi, ispunjen ljubavlju. CONTAINER metaphors
in Bosnian are body parts including heart, eyes and body itself. The CONTAINER has a
top and a bottom, which makes it possible to implement the metaphor MORE IS UP.
These two metaphors work together, so that an increase in emotional intensity in
conceptualized as a rise of the FLUID in a CONTAINER (Kovecses 1990:147).
Accordingly, and empty CONTAINER indicates the absence of the emotion.
Interestingly, the metaphors LOVE IS A CONTAINER and LOVE IS A FLUID IN A
CONTAINER oppose each other. On the one hand, LOVE is depicted as some external
room or space which we can enter, leave or get lost in. On the other hand, it is perceived
of as something contained inside of us.
The cases of personification are especially interesting. Lakoff defines them as metaphors
where the physical object is further specified as being a person (Lakoff and Johnson
1980:33). This means that we endow non-living objects, events, experiences, etc with
human characteristics, activities and motivations (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:33-34).
If we look at the metaphor of love, we can see that love is personified in the following
verbs: love can give you hope (Bos: ljubav daje nadu), it needs nurturing and care (Bos:
potrebna joj je paznja I briga), love can be blind (Bos: ljubav moze biti slijepa), it can
hurt (Bos: ljubav boli) and we blame it for that (Bos: krivimo ljubav za bol).
Furthermore, love goes through exactly the same stages as individuals do in the course of
their lives: it comes to life (Bos: ozivljava), it can age (Bos: sazrijeva), it lasts (Bos:

traje), becomes mature (Bos: zrela ljubav) and can even die (Bos: ljubav moze umrijeti).
Love even has the features of a human character: it can be tender ( Bos: njezna) heartless
(Bos: okrutna), strong (Bos.jaka), unreasonable (Bos:nerazumna), etc.

6 METAPHORIZATION AS A CULTURALLY-BOUND
PROCESS
All human beings are unique due to our different ways of getting accustomed to the
environment we are raised in. However, nature has created us alike. These similarities
suggest that we should normally have equal ability to cognize the external world. Thus,
we can understand metaphors as well as see the connections between different linguistic
expressions. However, humans do not develop in isolation, we are closely connected with
each other by our culture and environment. We exist within physical environments, some
of them radically different-jungles, deserts, islands, tundra, mountains, cities, etc.
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980:146). Besides, we are raised in a system of well-established
standards and taboos, which our society and epoch have imposed on us. The same
processes of cognition are not enough for us to understand each other properly, we must
as well have the same cultural and historical base.
While discussing the metaphors of love we have noticed many parallels between the
structural metaphors of English and Bosnian. We can see that different aspects of love are
structured in terms of the same concrete concepts in both languages. Such concepts are
WAR, MADNESS, FRAGILE OBJECTS, PATIENT, HEAT, etc are a part of the
European history, that is why they are equally understood by the speakers of English and
Bosnian. What cultural and historical events could have preconditioned these similarities?
We have all been influenced by the Greek and Roman philosophers and have inherited
our todays values from these ancient cultures. We have been raised with the Greek myths
and legends, which have, no doubt, left a trace in our imagination. We have read the same
poets and writers.

What about the differences between the orientational metaphors, such as RATIONAL IS
UP; EMOTIONAL IS DOWN, etc.? It could be a culturally-bound difference. Bosnian
culture is probably different from the Western culture in the sense that it does not think of
emotions as something negative, and reason as something positive. This could be why
there are no orientational metaphors of this type. Orientational metaphors CONSCIOUS
IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN is present in Bosnian language. This means that both
cultures see love as something which makes us lose control.
There are some differences in the ontological metaphors as well. There are two
ontological metaphors in English: LOVE IS A CONTAINER; LOVE IS A FLUID IN A
CONTAINER. Bosnian language only employs the second one, therefore the two
languages are only partially similar in this case.
As to the differences, we have found in the course of the research, they are
preconditioned by the cultural peculiarities of the speakers of Bosnian and English. No
culture can be identical with another. Furthermore, within one culture there can appear
subcultures, which invent the values of their own. When it comes to two different
languages, it is usually very difficult to translate a word from one language into the other
without taking into consideration the cultural aspect of our metaphorical thinking. Even
though that newly translated word follows the same metaphor in both languages without
disturbing the inner coherence of the metaphor itself, such a word cannot completely fit
into the system of values and norms coded in the languages. We can see this in attempts
to translating the English expression to make love into Bosnian (voditi ljubav). All
experience is cultural through and through; we experience our world in such a way that
our culture is already present in the very experience itself (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:57)

7 CONCLUSION

In this essay we have discussed metaphors of love in English and Bosnian in order to find
some similarities and differences between them, from the beginning of the essay we
assumed that feelings and emotions, LOVE being one of them, are extremely difficult to
comprehend. In the course of our analysis we have proved that the cognitive metaphor is
influential in our lives as a universal means of understanding complex matters. Through
studying and analyzing literal expressions of a given language we become aware of
various aspects of complicated concepts they refer to. Through analyzing and studying
cognitive metaphors we become aware of the processes of analogy, association and
analysis which take place in the course of our development. It is through metaphor we get
an adequate picture of the complexity of the external world.
According to the above-stated comparative analyses of data, it can be concluded that
although there were some cultural differences in conceptualizing the emotion of love in
English and Bosnian, the two languages share most of the general conceptual metaphors.
That is, most Bosnian metaphorical expressions can be literally rendered into English and
vice versa and serve the same metaphorical meaning and effect.
The most productive type of the cognitive metaphor in both Bosnian and English proved
to be the structural metaphor. Moreover, the two languages share almost all structural
metaphors of love with only small deviations within each of them. These deviations can
be explained by the peculiarities of the cultural and historical development of the
languages; as well as the speakers different ways of treating reality. Here we should take
into consideration the ambitions of each of us, our social backgrounds, age, sex, health,
economic situation, etc. The cognitive metaphor is culturally-bound. It can be both
motivated (non-arbitrary) in the cases of orientational metaphors as well as conventional
(arbitrary)- the cases of structural metaphors.
Metaphor organizes our external reality and structures our every day activity. The literal
expressions we use in order to express our emotions are dictated by metaphor which is
systematic in character. That is why we do not find any expression, which would not
follow the pattern given by a general metaphor. If HEALTH had been DOWN with all

linguistic expressions fitting under it), then in the Western world it would have
contradicted a more basic metaphor GOOD IS UP. Even the figurative expressions are the
products of the same general metaphors and are meant to fit into the metaphorical system
of a language.
In structuring the abstract emotion of LOVE, metaphor provides us with many sides of
the same concept we were not aware of before. The primary function of metaphor is to
provide a partial understanding of one kind of experience in terms of another kind of
experience stated Lakoff and Johnson in Metaphors We Live By. Metaphors are not
something really existing in the external world, but they become real to us because it is
through them we create our subjective meaning of the objective events and things.