METAPHOR AND SYMBOL, 18(4), 311320

Copyright 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Language, Figurative Thought, and

Cross-Cultural Comparison
Zoltn Kvecses
School of English and American Studies
Etvs Lornd University

The articles in this special issue shed refreshing new light on a number of issues in
the cross-cultural study of metaphor and its use in teaching and learning foreign
languages. The theory of conceptual metaphor is emerging in this volume as a new
tool that is capable of providing serious assistance to both teachers and students of
these languages. Yet, the main attraction of the articles, at least for me, is that in addition to giving us this new tool, the articles point to new directions in the
cross-cultural study of metaphor. Boers (this issue) put together a set of exciting articles that will, I believe, stimulate a great deal of future research both in applied
and cognitive linguistics, or as some scholars would call this fledgling field, applied cognitive linguistics (Ptz, Niemeier, & Dirven, 2001).
Low (this issue) discusses one of the most basic issues: How do we go from
metaphorical expressions to conceptual metaphors? This is an especially pertinent
question in light of the many mistaken metaphor analyses in the literature. As Low
shows, it is not easy to arrive at conceptual metaphors, and explicit guidelines are
needed to help applied linguists who see a potential in the theory of conceptual
metaphor for the purposes of language teaching.
The cognitive linguistic view of metaphor is a complex theory. In this view,
metaphor is seen as being constituted by a variety of parts, or components, that interact with each other. These include the following:
(1) Experiential basis
(2) Source domain
(3) Target domain
Requests for reprints should be sent to Zoltn Kvecses , School of English and American Studies,
Etvs Lornd University, Ajtsi Drer sor 1921, H1146 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: zkovecses@
ludens.elte.hu

312
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)

KVECSES

Relationship between the source and the target

Metaphorical linguistic expressions
Mappings
Entailments
Blends
Nonlinguistic realization
Cultural models

A brief explication of the components of metaphor could be given as follows: Conceptual metaphors consist of a source and target domain (2 and 3). The choice of
particular sources to go with particular targets is motivated by an experiential basis
(1). The relation of the source and the target is such that a source domain can apply
to several targets and a target can attach to several sources (4). The particular pairings of source and target domains give rise to metaphorical linguistic expressions
(5). There are basic conceptual correspondences, or mappings, between the source
and target domains (6). Source domains often map materials onto the target beyond the basic correspondences. These additional mappings are called entailments, or inferences (7). The bringing together of a source with a target domain often results in blends, that is, conceptual materials that are new with respect to both
the source and the target (8). Conceptual metaphors often materialize in
nonlinguistic ways, that is, not only in language and thought but in social reality
(9). Conceptual metaphors converge on, and often produce, cultural models, that
is, holistically structured conceptual units (10).
Which of these aspects of metaphor are discussed in the articles, and which
are the ones that are the most important for cross-cultural comparison in a language teaching perspective? On my reading of the articles, two issues stand out:
One is the complex relation between metaphorical linguistic expressions and
conceptual metaphors (and metonymies). The other is the role culture plays in
the use of metaphors.

THE RELATION BETWEEN METAPHORICAL LINGUISTIC

EXPRESSIONS AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS
One major question that several of the authors address is this: How can we express the same figurative meaning in different languages? Based on the work in
this volume (and Charteris-Black, 2002; Deignan, Gabrys, & Solska, 1997),
work by other researchers (Pontoretto, 1994), and some of my own (Kvecses,
2001, 2003; Kvecses & Szab, 1996), I propose the possibilities summarized in
Table 1.
Table 1 shows that the figurative meaning is the same in all cases (except Possibility 4, but see following). Furthermore, I assume that different word forms are

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON

313

TABLE 1
The Expression of the Same Figurative Meaning

Possibility
1
2
3
(4)
5

Note:

Word
Form

Literal
Meaning

different
different
different
different
different

same
different
different
different
different

Figurative
Meaning

Conceptual
Metaphor

(Conceptual
Metaphor and
Metonymy)

(Conceptual
Metonymy)

same
same
(s/d)
(s/d)
same
same
(s/d)
(s/d)
same
different
(s/d)
(s/d)
different
different
(s/d)
(s/d)
[no metaphor] [no metaphor [no metonymy]
same
and metonymy]
[by means of
literal meaning]

Parentheses indicate that only conceptual metaphor is discussed.

utilized in different languages in the expression of meaning (although there are occasional exceptions to this). The literal meaning of an expression with a figurative
meaning may be either the same or different in the two languages. Finally, there are
three cognitive devices that each also may be either the same or different in the two
languages. The cognitive devices include conceptual metaphor, conceptual
metonymy, or their combination (metaphor and metonymy combined).
Let us take a closer look at these possibilities and, for simplicitys sake, consider only conceptual metaphor. The first possibility involves cases where in one
language we have a word form that has a particular literal meaning and a corresponding figurative meaning based on a particular conceptual metaphor, and in the
other language, we have a different word form that has the same literal meaning
and the same figurative meaning based on the same conceptual metaphor.
The second possibility involves cases where in one language we have a word
form that has a particular literal meaning and a corresponding figurative meaning
based on a conceptual metaphor, and in the other language we have a different
word form that has a different literal meaning and the same figurative meaning
based on the same conceptual metaphor.
The third possibility involves cases where in one language we have a word form
that has a particular literal meaning and a corresponding figurative meaning based
on a conceptual metaphor, and in the other language we have a different word form
that has the same literal meaning and the same figurative meaning based on a different conceptual metaphor.
The fourth possibility (given as Possibility 5 in the table) involves cases where
in one language we have a word form that has a particular literal meaning and a
corresponding figurative meaning based on a conceptual metaphor, and in the
other language we have a different word form that has the same figurative meaning
that is expressed by a literal meaning.

314

KVECSES

This last possibility is not really an option for most cognitive linguists; figurative
meaning cannot really be expressed in literal ways. The meaning of, say, blow ones
stack, cannot be rendered by the phrase get very angry or one of its equivalents in
other languages (Gibbs, 1994). On the other hand, a functionally equivalent different figurative meaning carried by a different word form with a different literal meaning based on a different conceptual metaphor can, curiously, be used to express the
same figurative meaning in another language (given as Possibility 4 in the table).
This often happens in translations of literary works (Sgi, 2002).
However, as Charteris-Black (this issue) shows, we also can ask the following
related question: What figurative meanings can the same literal meaning express in
two languages? As his article indicates, the answer is that we get a set of new patterns, presented in Table 2.
As can be seen, in this situation it is the literal meaning that is kept constant (as
when we ask how the words literally meaning mouth in English and Malay are
used figuratively).
What is the use of all this? I think a major advantage of this way of looking at
metaphors (and other cognitive devices) in different languages is that we could
systematically study and compare metaphors across languages. More specifically,
we could find out which of the possibilities previously mentioned characterizes the
typical ways of expressing figurative meanings in two or more languages (Table 1),
and the typical ways in which literal meanings are put to use in the expression of
figurative meaning in two or more languages (Table 2). Needless to say, the pedagogical implications would be significant if we had a description of languages
along these lines.

METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

All of the authors bring up the issue of how culture interacts with metaphor. As I
read them, they all advocate the view that culture plays a major role in the use of
metaphorical language. Littlemore (this issue) and Charteris-Black (this issue)
make this point especially forcefully. Although Deignan (this issue) agrees with
TABLE 2
Figurative Uses of the Same Literal Meaning

Possibility
1
2
Note:

Word
Form

Literal
Meaning

Figurative
Meaning

Conceptual
Metaphor

(Conceptual
Metaphor and
Metonymy)

(Conceptual
Metonymy)

different
different

same
same

different
same

s/d
s/d

(s/d)
(s/d)

(s/d)
(s/d)

Parentheses indicate that the only conceptual metaphor is discussed.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON

315

this in general, she also makes the important point that the metaphors we use today
may not reflect current understandings about our culture. It is our job in the future
to find out in which cases this is true and in which ones it is not or it is only partially
true.
The issue of the relation between metaphor and culture is all-important and
takes a variety of forms. For this reason, let me second the authors of this volume
with my own case study that presents yet another form of the metaphorculture interaction. I will analyze in some detail one of the best-known conceptual metaphors in the cognitive linguistic literature: LOVE IS A JOURNEY.
Two languages may share a conceptual metaphor and the conceptual metaphor
may be expressed by largely overlapping metaphorical expressions, but the expressions can reveal subtle differences in the cultural-ideological background in which
the conceptual metaphor functions. A good case in point is the metaphor LOVE IS
A JOURNEY (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Following are the American English examples as given by Lakoff and Johnson, together with their Hungarian counterparts: (The translations were arrived at jointly with 20 English-speaking Hungarian students of mine in the Department of American Studies at Etvs Lornd
University, Budapest.)
LOVE IS A JOURNEY.
(1) Look how far weve come.
?Nzd milyen messzire jutottunk.
[Look how far reach-1st PERS PL-PAST]
?Ltod milyen messzire jutottunk?
[See how far reach-1st PERS PL-PAST]
(2) Were at a crossroads.
Vlaszt eltt llunk.
[crossroads before stand-1st PERS PL-PRES
(3) Well just have to go our separate ways.
*Kln utakra kell lpnnk.
[Separate ways-on (LOC) must step-1st PERS PL]
Elvlnak tjaink.
[Separate-3rd PERS PL way-POSS-PL]
(4) We cant turn back now.
*Nem fordulhatunk vissza.
[Not turn-can-1st PERS PL back]
(Innen) mr nincs visszat.
[(from-here) already no back-way]
(5) I dont think this relationship is going anywhere.
Nem hiszem, hogy ez a kapcsolat vezet valahova.

316

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

KVECSES

[Not think-1st PERS that (CONJ) this the relationship lead-3rd PERS
somewhere]
Nem hiszem, hogy ennek a kapcsolatnak van rtelme.
[Not think-1st PERS that (CONJ) this-POSS the relationship-POSS is
meaning]
Where are we?
?Hol vagyunk/tartunk most?
[where be/keep-1st PERS now]
Were stuck.
*Elakadtunk.
[get-stuck-1st PERS]
Kapcsolatunk elakadt/ktyba jutott/bedgltt.
[relationship-POSS get-stuck-1st PERS]
Its been a long, bumpy road.
Hossz, rgs t ll mgttnk.
[long bumpy way stand-3rd PERS behind-1st PERS]
This relationship is a dead-end street.
?Ez a kapcsolat zskutca.
[this the relationship dead-end-street]
Zskutcba jutottunk.
[dead-end-street reach-1st PERS PL PAST]
Were just spinning our wheels.
*Csak prgetjk a kerekeinket.
[Only spin-1st PERS-PL the wheel-PL-POSS-ACC]
Ez (mr) csak felesleges erlkds/kinlds.
[This (already) only superfluous effort]
Our marriage is on the rocks.
*Hzassgunk van sziklkon.
[marriage-POSS is rock-PL-LOC]
Hzassgunk ztonyra futott.
[marriage-POSS aground run-3rd PERS PAST]
Weve gotten off the track.
*Kisiklottunk.
[get-off-track-1st PERS-PAST]
?Kapcsolatunk kisiklott.
[relationship-POSS get-off-track-1st PERS-PAST]
Kapcsolatunk megfeneklett.
[relationship-POSS run-aground-3rd PERS-PAST]
This relationship is foundering.
*Ez a kapcsolat sllyed(flben van).
[This the relationship founder-3rd PERS(ing-PROG)]
Kapcsolatunk megfeneklett.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON

317

[Relationship-POSS run-aground-3rd PERS-PAST]

Ez a kapcsolat mr nem tart sokig.
[This the relationship already not last-3rd PERS long]
As can be noticed, most of the American English examples translate into Hungarian in a straightforward way. In most cases where English has a metaphorical
word or expression with a particular literal meaning, Hungarian also has a word or
expression with the same or similar literal meaning. This would suggest that the
conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY is expressed linguistically in much
the same way in the two languages. Although this is largely true, we can notice
subtle differences in the details of linguistic expression. For example, in Sentence
1 English uses the verb come, whereas Hungarian uses jut, meaning something like
get to a place after experiencing difficulties and in Sentence 3 we find we (have
to go our separate ways), with we in subject position, whereas in Hungarian it is
our roads (that separate). The question we have to ask is this: Are these differences in detail isolated, accidental, and without any real significance in the study
of metaphorical thought in culture, or, on the contrary, are they systematic, motivated and of significance in the study of this thought? I propose that the latter is the
case. I believe that larger cultural themes, or topics, that have the potential to distinguish different cultures manifest themselves and recur in many of the examples.
In several examples, the American English sentences foreground active
agents and deliberate action on the part of these agents, as opposed to the foregrounding of a passive relationship and relative passivity on the part of the people participating in the love relationship in Hungarian. In Sentences 7 and 12, for
example, we have an agent in English (we), whereas the corresponding Hungarian sentences foreground the relationship itself as a passive entity that undergoes
some event (being stuck in 7 and foundering 12). The difference may be suggestive of a more action-oriented versus a more passivity-oriented attitude to love
and to life in general. In addition, in Sentence 1, the active verb come is used in
English, where Hungarian has the verb jut (corresponding to reach). The Hungarian verb emphasizes the difficult nature of, and hence the effort required in,
making progress in the relationship; the English verb, by contrast, downplays
any difficulties in the progress.
Other sentences suggest that decisions about relationships are influenced by internal considerations of active agents in English, while they seem to be influenced
by external conditions in Hungarian. Decisions to act in certain ways are metaphorically understood in terms of choosing to go along one path rather than another. Thus, decisions about either staying together in the relationship or moving
on with the relationship are conceptualized as choosing (or not choosing) certain
paths. In Sentence 3, in English two active agents (we) are making a(n internal
mental) decision (probably based on some external factors), whereas in Hungarian
it is the fork in the road (an external condition) that is forcing the agents to go their

318

KVECSES

separate ways. We can find something similar in Sentence 4, where in English decisions are made internally by the agents, as opposed to Hungarian where, again,
an external condition (that there is no road going back) is forcing the lovers to
make the choice (of not going back). In other words, it seems that in English internal considerations of external conditions cause people in a love relationship to act
in certain ways, whereas in Hungarian external conditions directly force the lovers
to act in certain ways. Thus, the English LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor has
agents who are involved in an internal way (mentally, conceptually) in making decisions, unlike the Hungarian metaphor that has agents who are externally forced
to make decisions about their relationship. In general, perhaps all this can be related to a more fatalistic attitude to life in the case of Hungarians.
Sentence 10 suggests a further difference in culturally entrenched outlook on
love relationships. In the English version, two active agents are trying to move the
relationship ahead (by spinning wheels) despite the impossibility of the task (spinning wheels do not move the car forward). The wheels are spinning but there is no
motion forward. Spinning the wheels is an action intended to move the relationship
(the car) forward. In other words, the agents are making a continued and concerted
effort to achieve progress. Thus, in addition to goal-orientedness, this suggests optimism, determination, and perseverance in achieving ones goals. By contrast, the
corresponding Hungarian sentence explicitly states what is only implied by the
English one; namely, that superfluous effort and energy is spent on something that
does not work. Hungarian, thus, attaches much less importance to the necessity of
achieving ones goal, and it expresses resignation and a tendency to give in to
forces that are beyond ones control. This difference might be related to a distinction between a more success-oriented and a less success-oriented attitude to problematic situations in life.
A final difference concerns the naturalness with which the people in the relationship evaluate from the outside, as it were, the progress they have made.
Sentences 1 and 6 constitute such objective evaluations. While these English
sentences can easily be translated into Hungarian word for word, all the Hungarians I have asked were of the opinion that the corresponding Hungarian sentences are not really used in everyday conversations in a natural way. In other
words, it seems that Hungarians make explicit their evaluations of their love relationships with less ease than those Americans do whose language is characterized by sentences such as 1 and 6. This kind of self-evaluation may be related to
an observation that was brought to my attention by Josephine Tudor, a native
speaker of British English (personal communication, November, 2002). Tudor
observed that British speakers of English would primarily use the metaphorical
expressions belonging to the LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor of other people,
rather than of themselves. Furthermore, on occasions when they do use the expressions of themselves, they tend to qualify them with all kinds of hedges, such
as rather, a bit, dont you think, and so on. Thus, the American explicitness con-

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON

319

cerning ones success or difficulties in love relationships reflects a degree of extroversion that is not found in many other cultures, including Hungarian and
British cultures.
As these differences in the subtler details of linguistic expression show, two languages or varieties may have the same conceptual metaphor but the linguistic expression of the conceptual metaphor may be influenced or shaped by differences in
cultural-ideological traits and assumptions characterizing different cultures. Subtle linguistic differences point to certain cultural-ideological traits that appear to be
deeply entrenched and widespread in American and Hungarian culture. The
LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor is a conceptual metaphor that is highly motivated cognitively. It consists of primary metaphors that are based on universal
human experiences (e.g., Grady, 1997), such as PURPOSES ARE
DESTINATIONS. But the metaphor is not only cognitively but also culturally motivated. As the cultural factors change from culture to culture, so does the metaphor
and its linguistic expression. In it, the cognitive and the cultural are fused into a single conceptual complex. In this sense, what we call conceptual metaphors are just
as much cultural entities as they are cognitive ones.

REFERENCES
Boers, F. (2003). Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor.
Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 231238.
Charteris-Black, J. (2002). Second language figurative proficiency: A comparative study of Malay and
English. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 104133.
Charteris-Black, J. (2003). Speaking with forked tongue: A comparative study of metaphor and
metonymy in English and Malay phraseology. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 289310.
Deignan, A. (2003). Metaphoric expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol, 18,
255271.
Deignan, A., Gabrys, D. & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic
awareness raising activities. ELT Journal, 51(4), 353360.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge, England: CUP.
Grady, J. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267290.
Kvecses , Z. (2001). A cognitive linguistic view of learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Ptz (Ed.),
Applied cognitive linguistics (pp. 87115). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kvecses, Z. (2003). Metaphor in culture. Unpublished manuscript, Etvs Lornd University.
Kvecses, Z., & Szabo, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive linguistics. Applied Linguistics,
17(3), 326355.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Littlemore, J. (2003). The effect of cultural background on metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and
Symbol, 18, 273288.
Low, G. (2003). Validating metaphoric models in applied linguistics. Metaphor and Symbol, 18,
239254.
Pontoretto, D. (1994). Metaphors we can learn by [Electronic version]. Forum, 32(3), Retrived from
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vol5/vol132/no3/p2.htm

320

KVECSES

Ptz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2001). Applied cognitive linguistics. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Sgi, O. (2002). Translating metaphors in literature from English to Hungarian: The case of Nabokovs
Lolita. Unpublished term paper, Etvs Lornd University, Budapest, Hungary.