A Study On Metaphorical Cognition In The Chinese Context

As emerging cognitive linguistic scholars of the late1970s and early1980s, Lakoff and Langacker presented an oppositional view to Chomsky’s Transformational-Generative Grammar in1980. In their book, Metaphors We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson defined metaphor as a cognitive tool rooted in the human mind, constructing a huge "Metaphor Empire" through the metaphorical concept; their researches even caused a "metaphor mania". When the theory was introduced into China, Chinese scholars, instead of giving more rational criticisms, made more efforts to find related references and proofs in Chinese literature, which resulted in a "collective aphasia"This paper makes an effort to review Lakoff s metaphor theory in a more objective manner, and analyze it in terms of conceptual metaphor. Various research methods, both domestic and abroad, are critiqued, with an emphasis on finding differences in terms of conceptual metaphor, metaphorical cognition, and most importantly, methodology to better fit the research in the Chinese context.It is found that Lakoff s conceptual metaphor theory has quite a number of contradictions and problems, for example, problematic definition of conceptual metaphor theory, paradox between the first and the third principles among its philosophical basis, various contradictions between conceptual metaphor and metaphorical expression, problems in primary metaphors, irrationality for understanding conceptual metaphors, defects of physical cultural experiential basis and internal coherence, as well as among metaphorical mapping mechanism and metaphorical resemblances. Besides, Lakoff is trapped in his own logic that metaphor influences human actions, and even in metaphors in terms of which people both think and act. But actually his conclusions, his proofs and the ways of proving, are not convincing. All these prompt a motivation to set up a localized framework for the theory in the Chinese context.Lakoff s metaphorical cognition is not without problems, either. Many classical Chinese quotes indicate that, metaphor exists in a limited scope. However, the role of western metaphorical cognition has been enlarged beyond limit, resulting in the universal metaphor in our world. That is not the case. In this paper, metaphor, by its nature, is defined as comparison; cognition through metaphorical thinking would cause results that deny the very existence of cognitive essence, which is essential in the traditional Chinese culture. Lakoff’s theory would then deprive the Chinese people of their metaphorical cognition. Besides, the cognitive features like Chinese cognitive dependence in a high-context culture are simply ignored along his line of thought. All these make a critical review of his theory necessary in metaphorical researches.When we deconstruct the theory of metaphorical cognition, there is no denying that this western theory provides a useful method—a cognitive study of language. But theoretical supports from the native literature are needed. According to the "three speeches" theory of Chuang Tzu, the philosophical root is pursued in the nature of "Unity of the being and the self, Taoism of losing self, which enables the conduit metaphor as "Connotation lies in Speech" to be a thinking mode of the Taosit Body, and becomes a Sinicized narrative mode that metaphors come into being. These should be a foundation for constructing the localized metaphorical cognition.Towards that direction, this paper attempts to follow the more recent drive to realize what is known as the "Academic Sinicization". In a certain sense, these efforts capture the aims and significance of this research. This paper, meanwhile, agrees with what Feng Youlan proposed:"follow to talk" and "continue to talk". In addition, this paper tries to find a new route to localize western theories based on the review of Chinese Pre-Qin Zi Theory and Jing Theory.In this paper, a sinicized narrative mode is also provided for Chuang Tzu’s fable, with reviewing language philosophy of Pre-Qin Chinese Scholars, especially Hsun Tzu’s epistemology of "Mind and Things" from native culture. That leads to the construction of a Chinese theory of language philosophy, its own theoretical construct and characteristics different from the western metaphorical cognitive theory.The significance of this paper lies in the construction of a proper perspective and reasonable way to help develop Chinese localized cognition through the combination of the criticism of the western conceptual theory and the assimilation of the oriental cultural background.