CC BY
8
Браудо А.А. ©
Бакалавр филологических наук, выпускница Московского государственного лингвистического университета им. Мориса Тореза
IMPLEMENTATION OF METAPHORICAL CONCEPTS IN OPPOSITION WE - THEY IN MODERN ENGLISH-SPEAKING FILMS
The conceptual opposition We - They has been proved by many researchers of different fields of study (biology and philosophy, chemistry and history, culture studies and linguistics) to be key to the process of development. The mere existence of such notions as difference, diversity, and variety forces all living things to aspire unconsciously to be better than others in order to survive. Today we are privileged to have at our disposal the researches that seek to explain the linguistic phenomena that implement the dichotomy of We and They in written and spoken discourse.
The material chosen for the current research is the English-speaking films, as films are basically a small-scale model of life. The screenwriters and directors are supposed to fill two-hour films with dialogues exhaustive and expressive enough to make the characters' thoughts and ideas (and eventually - the film) clear to the audience. Thus, the linguistic material extracted from the films is supposed to be evident, explicit and meaningful. The research is based on three films: the Boat That Rocked (hereinafter BR, 2009), the Help (hereinafter, TH 2011), Pride (hereinafter P, 2014). The selection criteria for the material were:
1) the original language of the film should be English;
2) the film should not be more than 30 years old;
3) the film should be devoted to the confrontation of at least two groups of people;
4) this confrontation should be extensively verbally expressed by the characters throughout the film.
In the course of our analysis a great deal of examples of metaphorical concepts was registered in all the three films. However, we will be only interested in those contributing directly to the opposition We - They.
According to the classification proposed by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson in the article The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System (1980), all nonmetaphorical concepts can be divided into spatial orientations (e.g., UP-DOWN, IN-OUT), structured experiences and activities (e.g., EATING, MOVING), and ontological concepts (e.g., ENTITY, CONTAINER) [25,195-197]. All the types of concepts were registered in the material under consideration.
We will start with the ontological concepts. Having studied the language material of our films, we arrived at a conclusion that during the implementation of the opposition We - They in the modern English-speaking films the model of a CONTAINER is often realized.
In 1987, G. Lakoff defined the following structure elements for the CONTAINER schema in his book 'Women, Fire and Dangerous things': INTERIOR, BOUNDARY, and EXTERIOR [5,271]. We propose to always view We domains and sometimes They domains as CONTAINERS. We domains are always distinct, as one always knows when something is His and there are always things that do not possess certain characteristics to be regarded as such, whereas They is not always distinct as a whole, homogenous group with its own set of characteristics. Being the parts of the metaphorical concept CONTAINER, the domains must contain all the above-mentioned elements.
The INTERIOR element comprises all characteristics, properties and everything that brings all the members of We together, it is the mere foundation for We. In each of the analyzed films, groups of people that share common beliefs and stances can easily be singled out. As a rule, two We CONTAINERS are realized in films, each of them being simultaneously a They CONTAINER towards the other We CONTAINER. This pattern makes the plot and the emotive tension more concentrated. Moreover, when there are only two opposing groups, it is easier to decide which group is 'right' and which is 'wrong'. We suggest the following schemas (Schema 1, Schema 2, and
© Браудо А. А., 2016 г.
Schema 3) depicting the relations between the CONTAINERS in each film (the arrow signs denote the possibility of members of each CONTAINER to find themselves OUT of the We CONTAINER and penetrate the They CONTAINER).
Schema 1
We domains in The Boat That Rocked
Schema 2
We domains in The Help
However, one of the films under analysis depicts the relationships among three social groups, and thus comprises three We CONTAINERS, each of them being simultaneously a They CONTAINER towards the other two We CONTAINERS:
Schema 3
We domains in Pride
We domain We domain
Apart from representing the INTERIOR element, each of We CONTAINERS also represents the EXTERIOR element towards the other We CONTAINERS.
The BOUNDARY element consists in the fact that at some point members of each CONTAINER may find themselves OUT of one and IN the other CONTAINER. Thus, the CONTAINERS are usually interpenetrable.
Now we will move on to some language examples that were found in the films to support our inferences:
• We are trapped. Our kids, trapped. (TH)
The word 'trapped' here is not used in its literal lexical meaning, as the characters (African-American women) are not physically trapped anywhere. But they continuously undergo inhumane dominance of the white population and there is no way to put an end to it. The characters are trapped metaphorically in their own We CONTAINER, as there is no way out of the situation.
• We are trying to _ fit in here, Sian. (P)
The lexical meaning of the phrasal verb 'to fit in' presupposes that the characters are trying to find their place IN the They CONTAINER.
• - New van, courtesy of our gay friends down in London.
-I'm not getting in that.
-Then you'll have to stay here. (P)
Here we have two containers, a group of miners and a group of gay people and their supporters. Though the verb 'get' in combination with the preposition 'in' is used literally, it is a marker: one of the miners is not willing to interact with the members of the They CONTAINER.
• Straight people asked if they could _ join. (P)
One can only join a group of people if they are united, not odd and separate. The verb 'to join' suggests that someone is willing to be accepted in the They CONTAINER. This is an example of the situation when members of one CONTAINER can penetrate into another CONTAINER.
Turning to the group of structured experiences and activities, the most distinct metaphorical concept observed in the films under analysis is most certainly RELATIONSHIP IS WAR. To account for this concept, it could be said that the relationships among the opposing social groups are
very much reminiscent of those among the countries involved in a war. In both cases, the opposing parties share not only common beliefs and stances, but also certitude that the other party is wrong and must be defeated. The following language examples of the realization of this metaphor were found:
• We thought we'd never die. But, well, we can't fight city hall. (BR)
• We may lose the _public relations battle, but we will win the war. (BR)
• I want Rock off the air in 12 months, and l want you to be my private assassin. (BR)
• If you can love your enemy, you already have the victory. (TH)
• The union responded with a renewed attack on the government's cuts to benefits for the families of those on strike. (P)
• Haven't you heard about the miners, dearie? They lost. (P)
• I'm _ fighting _ for their jobs, not me own. (P)
• When you're in a battle against an enemy so much bigger, so much stronger than you, well, to find out you had a friend you never knew existed, well, that's the best feeling in the world. (P)
• We battle too for men
For they are women's children
And we mother them again (P)
• The prime minister today defended her position. (P)
• No, mate, we-re LGSM. We fought alongside the miners. (P)
As it is seen, all the above-mentioned expressions contain verbs and nouns that belong to a semantic field of WAR, thus providing the metaphorical concept with its nonmetaphorical component.
Finally, the analysis revealed that two metaphorical concepts that belong to the group of orientational metaphors contribute significantly to the opposition We - They.
The opposition itself always presupposes that one side craves to take control over the other. Otherwise, the opposition would not even exist as there would be no point in argument, no aim to aspire to. Thus, the concept CONTROL IS UP/LACK OF CONTROL IS DOWN stands out clearly and occurs often in the characters' speech:
• Miss Hilly threw her in that nursing home... just for laughing. (TH)
The lexical meaning of the verb 'to throw' presupposes movement of the CONTROLLED object in the DOWNWARD direction.
• -If you do this they will hate us, and by hook or by crook, they'll find a way to close us
down.
-They can't close us down. (BR)
The adverb 'down' itself suggests in this context that someone with CONTROL is ABOVE those without it.
• You just bulldoze the whole village into thinking the same thing as
you. (P)
The word 'to bulldoze' creates an image of something being rolled up in the asphalt, which presupposes movement of the CONTROLLED object DOWNWARDS.
• Terrific. Let's bring down the government. (P)
The phrasal verb 'to bring down' here is already a metaphorical concept that means that a CONTROLLED, destroyed object is DOWN.
• And it will be so incredible, so effective, that the National Coal Board... I promise you this... will come crawling on their hands and knees, in full drag, to beg you for forgiveness. (P)
The lexical meaning of the verb 'to crawl' denotes that someone (CONTROLLED in this case) is moving DOWN in relation to the others (who possess the CONTROL).
Hereby, the analysis revealed that in most cases the linguistic expression of the metaphorical concept CONTROL IS UP/LACK OF CONTROL IS DOWN is based on verbs. Such verbs denote the movements' directions of members of different groups.
For two sides to be opposed to one another, there should be something diametrically opposite about them. In other words, there should be something for them to disagree over, the
ground for their discrepancy. Two of our films, the Boat That Rocked and Pride, have the core of their conflicts in the concept of morality. In case with the former, the public officials regard rock music as vicious, which is expressed extensively in their rhetoric. As we have already mentioned, the latter film depicts actually several conflicts, one of them being that between 'the normal population' (it is a quotation form the film Pride) and the gay community. It is known that there are people who believe that sexual orientation concerns with morals, and thus asserting that gay people commit a sin against them. Hence, the second metaphorical concept from the group of orientational metaphors that we consider of big prominence is VIRTUE IS UP/LACK OF VIRTUE IS DOWN. Here are some examples that were registered:
• They are a sewer of dirty and irresponsible commercialism and low morals. (BR)
The rock musicians and their fans are compared with sewers that are always built UNDER the streets and buildings. The adjective 'low' is synonymous to the word 'down'.
• The homosexuals have been told that it is us, the normal population, and not them, that is out of step. Any society that accepts that sick deception is swirling headlong into a cesspool of its own making. (P)
The metaphor here (a stylistic device) creates a bright image of a group of people (gay community and its supporters) moving DOWN impetuously. The word 'cesspool' also has in its semantics the meaning of something that is deep UNDER the ground.
• You should burn in hell. (P)
It is a biblical allusion to a place that is believed to be UNDER the world we live in, where according to the speaker's words all gay people belong.
In the course of the analysis we found enough examples to prove that the conceptual opposition We - They is no different from any other form of expression and thus follows the conventions discovered and described by G. Lakoff. Metaphorical concepts are indeed the way we think, and hence underlie the way we speak.
Литература
1. Кубрякова Е.С. Язык и знание. На пути получения знаний о языке: части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. Роль языка в познании мира. - М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2004. — 560 c.
2. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Conceptual metaphor in everyday language [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/575/F01/lakoff.johnson80.pdf
3. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: https://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwia5qqim0zM AhXF_iwKHUF_A2MQFggpMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fceulearning.ceu.edu%2Fpluginfile.php%2F 100337%2Fmod_forum%2Fattachment%2F9319%2FMetaphors%2520We%2520Live%2520By.pdf&u sg=AFQjCNFNBe79UsFdhNbMZD_bCJsogA6HtA&sig2=LBuHi_SJeIv1NxyKXyckyA&bvm=bv.122 448493,d.bGg
4. Lakoff G., Johnson M. The Metaphorical Structure of the Human Conceptual System [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http://www.fflch.usp.br/df/opessoa/Lakoff-Johnson-Metaphorical-Structure.pdf
5. Lakoff G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http:// polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/gleazer/296_readings/Lakoff.pdf
