LINGUISTIKA, SEPTEMBER 2017

p-ISSN: 0854-9613

Vol. 24. No. 47

The Application of Metaphor Identification Procedure (Mip) And Conceptual Metaphor In Japanese Poetry

I Gede Pariasa1, I Made Rajeg, I Gusti Ayu Gede Sosiowati UPT. Taman Budaya Dinas Kebudayaan Provinsi Bali JL. Nusa Indah no 1 Denpasar

Hp: 081338277269

Email: 1[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The aims of this study are to apply the method of the metaphor identification procedure (Pragglejaz Group, 2007) to find out the linguistic metaphors in Japanese poetry, and apply the theory of conceptual metaphor (CMT) (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003) to find out the conceptual metaphors that motivate the use of linguistic metaphor in the poetry. Descriptive qualitative method was applied in this research. The data of this research were taken from Takuboku Ishikawa dan Segenggam Pasir book, written by Edizal (2000).

The result shows that metaphor identification procedure (MIP) provides a explicit, reliable, and flexible instrument for identifying linguistic metaphors and conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) provides a systematic tool to identify the concepts behind the linguistic metaphors. The linguistic metaphors identified in the poetry are: koi no amasa to nagashisa, kanashimi no tama, and te ga shirokukatsu dainariki. The conceptual metaphors that are found to underlie the linguistic metaphors are: VIRTUE IS WHITE, LOVE IS FOOD OR DRINK, SAD IS INSTABILITY Keywords: Metaphor, Metaphor Identification Procedure, Conceptual Metaphor.

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengaplikasikan metode prosedur identifikasi metafora (Pragglejaz Group, 2007) untuk menemukan sebuah metafora linguistic dalam puisi Jepang, dan untuk mengaplikasikan teori konseptual metafora (CMT) (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003) untuk menemukan konsep metafora yang memotifasi penggunaan metafora linguistik pada puisi. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode deskriftif kualitatif. Data penelitian ini diambil dari buku kumpulan puisi yang berjudul Takuboku Ishikawa dan Segenggam Pasir yang ditulis oleh Edizal (2000).

Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa prosedur identifikasi metafora (MIP) menyediakan instrumen eksplisit, dapat diandalkan, dan fleksibel untuk mengidentifikasi metafora linguistik dan teori konseptual metafora (CMT) menyediakan alat yang sistematis untuk mengidentifikasi konsep di balik metafora linguistik. Metafora linguistik yang diidentifikasi dalam puisi adalah: koi no amasa to nagashisa, kanashimi no tama, and te ga shirokukatsu dainariki. Metafora konseptual yang ditemukan mendasari metafora linguistik adalah: KEBAIKAN ADALAH PUTIH, CINTA ADALAH MAKANAN ATAU MINUMAN, and KESEDIHAN ADALAH KETIDAK STABILAN.

Kata kunci: Metafora, Prosedur Identifikasi Metafora, Konseptual Metafora.

INTRODUCTION

Language is a communication tool to deliver the information from one individual to

another. In these communications, each individual has aparticular creativity in the use of language, such as manipulating, exploring conventional language that has been created socially. Creative individuals often use a figurative language in both oral and written communication. Figurative language is group of words used to give particular emphasis to an idea or sentiment. One of the figurative languages is metaphor.

Kovecses, (2010: ix) metaphor is figure of speech in which one thing is compared with another by saying that one is the other. According to Newmark (1988: 85) metaphor can be defined as an indirect comparison between two or more apparently unrelated things or subjects. The point of similarity ‘may be physical but often it is chosen for its connotations. Foley (1997:182) states that all metaphors are the construal of something as part of the features of something else. Warren (1999:133) the interpretation of metaphors involves retrieving at least one attribute, shared by the conventional and intended referents. In order to identify metaphor some people must have a reason why that words, phrases or sentences is metaphor. As a consequence to judgments of metaphor in data, Pragglejaz Group (2007: 2) developed a rigorous procedure called MIP (metaphoridentification procedure) for identifying linguistic metaphors in textand speech.

In many cases, linguistic metaphor represent subconscious choices on the part of the speaker or writer, whose choice of language is partly constrained by the conceptual structures shared by members of his or her community. Metaphor can also help people to talk about difficult, emotionally intense or uncommon experiences, and thus, according to conceptual metaphor theory, to think about them. Heywood (2002 : 1), linguistic metaphor identification in two extracts from novel and concluded that if a corpus based approach to metaphor is to become a reality and if relations between conceptual and linguistic metaphor are to be fully understood. Zhang (2009 :1), an analysis of conceptual metaphor in

western commercial advertisements and concluded that in advertising communication, the mapping process across conceptual domains within conceptual metaphor is the process of the audience’s searching for optimal relevance in dynamic cognitive context and deriving the advertiser’s communicative intension.

The conceptual metaphor approach is potentially very enlightening as a tool for identifying underlying meaning, but it has pitfalls. Researchers need to be alert to the dangers of over generalizing on limited linguistic evidence, and to the need to establish consistent procedures for identifying metaphors.

THEORETICAL BASES

Metaphor

Lakoff and Johnson (2003: 3) stated that “Metaphor is for most people a device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language. Moreover, metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action”. He also argued that metaphors are pervasive in everyday life, not just in language, but also in thought and action. A common definition of a metaphor can be described as a comparison that shows how two things that are not alike in most ways are similar in another important way, and metaphor is a simply understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.

Conceptual Metaphor

Lakoff (1993: 203) emphasis that the locus of metaphor is not in the language at all, but in the way to conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another. Metaphors link two conceptual domains,

Vol. 24. No. 47 the source domain and the target domain. The source domain provide frameworks for target domains: these determine the ways in which think and talk about the activities and entities to which the target domain refer, and even the ways in which behave of carry out activities, as in the case of argument. For example: the metaphor “this gadget will save you hours” the conceptual metaphor of this example is TIME IS MONEY (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003;7).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted by adopting the theoretical approach to obtain sufficient understanding of the purposes of solving the problems of the study. The relevant theorie such as the method of metaphor identification procedure (MIP) by Pragglejaz Group (2007) was used, in order to find out the metaphor in the data. The theory of conceptual metaphor based on Lakoff and Johnson (2003) was applied in order to find out the conceptual metaphor of the data.

The data source of this research was taken from the book Takuboku Ishikawa dan Segenggam Pasir 石川啄木と『一握の砂』written by Edizal (2000). Sudaryanto (1993), assert that observation is a procedure of collecting data by observing the data closely; in this case, the data red attentively with the main focus on the potential metaphor in Japanese. Identification is important part in order to collect the data which was appropriate for analysis in this study. During the identification process, note taking procedure is also applied. The note taking procedure was also included to record all of the data.

Descriptive qualitative approach (Djajasudarma, 1993:10) was applied by which the data were analyzed by explaining descriptively the metaphor identification procedure, and conceptual metaphor.

DISCUSSION

Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP)

The method of metaphor identification procedure (MIP) by Pragglejaz Group (2007:3) was used for identification of metaphorical expressions in source text. The steps followed were: (1) reading the source text, and the translation text rendering carefully, (2) identifying potentially metaphorical lexical items in the source text and the target texts, (3) determining the contextual meaning for each lexical unit in the source text, (4) searching for a more basic meaning of the each lexical unit in the source text and the target text, (5) comparing the contextual meaning and the basic meaning of the lexical units and determining the extent to which they contrast. MIP procedure is also notconcerned with the processing of metaphors by readers or listeners. MIP, as a reliable procedure for identifying metaphor, prevents the researcher from seeing the concrete manifestations of conceptual metaphors everywhere (Steen; 2007:27). In using MIP to find metaphors indiscourse, metaphorically used words are regarded as a basis from which to construct cross-domain mappings (Crisp; 2002:7).

The Application of MIP

Data 1

Tegashiroku

Katsudainariki

Hibonnaruhito to iwaruruotokoniaishini(p.80)

The lexical units in data 1 are identified below with slashes indicating the boundaries between lexical units:

Te / ga / shiroku

Katsu / dainariki

Hibon / naru / hito / to / iwaruru / otoko / ni / aishi / ni

The next step is to determine the contextual meaning, basic meaning, comparing the contextual meaning with basic meaning, and making a final decision as to whether the unit is used metaphorically in the context of the poetry.

Te

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of teindicates a behavior of someone.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of te is hand.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of te is in contrast to the basic meaning. Therefore te is a metaphor.

Ga

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of gaindicates the topic of sentence.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of ga is particle that is indicates the topic of sentence.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of ga is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore ga is not a metaphor.

Shiroku

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of shiroku indicates a good behavior of someone.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of shiroku is white.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of shiroku is in contrast to the basic meaning. Therefore shiroku is a metaphor.

Katsu

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of katsu ‘and’ is used to connect words or parts of sentences.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of katsu is and.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of katsu is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore katsu is not a metaphor.

Dainariki

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of dainariki indicates agreat or famous people.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of dainariki is big.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning dainariki is in contrast to the basic meaning. Therefore dainariki is a metaphor.

Hibon

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of hibon indicates the extraordinary image of someone.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of hibon is extraordinary.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of hibon is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore hibon is not a metaphor.

Naru

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of naru is sign of becoming something.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of naru is become.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of naru is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore naru is not a metaphor.

Hito

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of hito is people.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of hito is people.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of hito is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore hito is not ametaphor.

To

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of to is a particle used for quoting with speech.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of to is a particle used for quoting with speech.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of to is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore to is not a metaphor.

Iwaruru

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of iwaruru is to say.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of iwaruru is to say.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of iwaruru is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore iwaruru is not a metaphor.

Otoko

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of otoko is man.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of otoko is man.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of otoko is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore otoko is not a metaphor.

Ni

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of ni ‘with’ is a particle used to connect a noun and verb.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of ni ‘with’ is particle used to connect noun and verb.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of ni is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore ni is not a metaphor.

Aishi

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of aishi is to meet someone.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of aishi is to meet.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of aishi is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore aishi is not a metaphor.

Based on the analysis of the data 1, te ga shiroku katsu dainariki is metaphor because the contextual meaning of te ga shiroku katsu dainariki is in contrast to the basic meaning. The contextual meaning of te ga shiroku katsu dainariki is the good and great people, and based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of te ga shiroku katsu dainariki is white and big hand.

Data 2

Sakinjite koi no amasa to

nagashisa o shirishi ware nari

sakinjiteoyu(p.152)

The lexical units in data 2 are identified below with slashes indicating the boundaries between lexical units:

Sakinjite/ koi / no / amasa/ to

nagashisa/ o / shirishi/ ware / nari

sakinjite/ oyu

The next step is to determine the contextual meaning, basic meaning, comparing the contextual meaning with basic meaning, and making a final decision as to whether the unit is used metaphorically in the context of the poetry.

Sakinjite

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of sakinjite is before.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of sakinjite is before.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of sakinjite is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore sakinjite is not a metaphor.

Koi

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of koi is love.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of koi is love.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of koi is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore koi is not metaphor.

No

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of no is particle to connect a noun and adjective.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of no is particle to connect a noun and adjective.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of no is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore no is not a metaphor.

Amasa

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of amasa is refers to happiness.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of amasa is sweet.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of amasa is in contrast to the basic meaning. Therefore amasa is a metaphor.

To

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of to is and.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of to is and.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of to is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore to is not a metaphor.

Nagashisa

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of nagashisa is refers to sadness.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of nagashisa is bitter.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of nagashisa isin contrast tothe basic meaning. Therefore nagashisa is a metaphor.

O

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of o is particle that is sign of object.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of o is particle that is sign of object.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of o is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore o is not a metaphor.

Shirishi

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of shirishi is understands and knows something.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of shirishi is understands and knows something.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of shirishi is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore shirishi is not a metaphor.

Ware

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of ware is I or me.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of ware is I or me.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of ware is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore ware is not a metaphor.

Nari

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of nari ‘or’ is used to link alternatives.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of nari ‘or’ is used to link alternatives.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of nari is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore nari is not a metaphor.

Oyu

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of oyu is old age

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of oyu is old age.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of oyu is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore oyu is not a metaphor.

Based on the analysis of the data 2, amasa and nagashisa in the context of koi no amasa to nagashisa is metaphor, because the contextual meaning of koi no amasa to nagashisa is in contrast to the basic meaning. The contextual meaning of koi no amasa to nagashisa refers to the happiness and sadness of love story and based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of amasa to nagashisa is sweet and bitter.

Data 3

Aonisuku

Kanashimi no tama nimakura shite

Matsu no hibiki o yomosugarakiku (p.186)

The lexical units in data 3 are identified below with slashes indicating the boundaries between lexical units:

Ao/ ni/ suku

Kanashimi/ no / tama / ni /makura/ shite

Matsu / no / hibiki/ o / yo/ mo/ sugara/ kiku (p.186)

The next step is to determine the contextual meaning, basic meaning, comparing the contextual meaning with basic meaning, and making a final decision as to whether the unit is used metaphorically in the context of the poetry.

Ao

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of ao is blue.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of ao is blue.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of ao is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore ao is not a metaphor.

Ni

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of ni is particle that is indicates preposition ‘with’.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of ni is particle that is indicates preposition ‘with’.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of niis as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore ni is not a metaphor.

Suku

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of suku is transparent.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of suku is transparent.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of suku is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore suku is not a metaphor.

Kanashimi

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of kanashimi is sad.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of kanashimi is sad.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of kanashimi is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore kanashimi is not a metaphor.

No

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of no is particle use to connect adjective and noun.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of no is particle use to connect adjective and noun.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of no is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore no is not a metaphor.

Tama

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of tama is refers tosadness.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of tama is ball.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of tama is in contrast to the basic meaning. Therefore tama is a metaphor.

Makurashite

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of makurashite is using a pillow.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of makurashite is using a pillow.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of makurashite is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore makurashite is not a metaphor.

Matsu

  • (a) Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of matsu is pine tree.

    • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of matsu is pine tree.

    • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of matsu is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore matsu is not a metaphor.


    Hibiki


    • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of hibiki is echo.

    • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of hibiki is echo.

    • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of hibiki is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore hibiki is not a metaphor.


    O


    • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of o is particle, sign of object.

    • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of o is particle, sign of object.

    • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of o is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore o is not a metaphor.


    Yo


    • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of yo is night.

    • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of yo is night.

    • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of yo is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore yo is not a metaphor.


    Mo


    • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of mo ‘also’ is particle,

    • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of mo ‘also’ is particle.


  • (c) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of mo is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore mo is not a metaphor.

Sugara

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of sugara is uncanny.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of sugara is uncanny.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of sugara is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore sugara is not a metaphor.

Kiku

  • (a)    Contextual meaning: the contextual meaning of kiku is to hear.

  • (b)    Basic meaning: based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of kiku is to hear.

  • (c)    Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of kiku is as the same as the basic meaning. Therefore kiku is not a metaphor.

Based on the analysis of the data 13, tama in the context kanashimi no tama is metaphor, because the contextual meaning of tama is in contrast to the basic meaning. Thecontextual meaning of tama refers to sadness, and based on gozoku digital dictionary, the basic meaning of tama is ball.

Conceptual Metaphor

Lakoff (1993: 203) assert that the locus of metaphor is not in the language at all, but in the way of conceptualizing one mental domain in terms of another. Lakoff and Johnson (2003) identify three overlapping categories of conceptual metaphor, namely; orientational metaphor, structure metaphor and ontological metaphor. Lakoff and Johnson (2003:14) state that orientational metaphor is a figure that organizes a whole system of concepts with respect to one another. This is a metaphor that involves spatial orientation (e.g., UP-DOWN, IN-OUT, ON-OFF, FRONT-BACK). For examples; HAPPY IS UP. The

concept HAPPY is oriented UP leads to English expressions like “I’m feeling up today.”

Structural metaphors Lakoff and Johnson (2003:  14) are cases where one concept is

metaphorically structured in terms of another. Metaphors link two conceptual domains, the source domain and the target domain. The source domains provide frameworks for target domains. For example in the conceptual metaphor ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IS WAR, the concepts of the source domain WARFARE are transferred into the target domain, because physical conflict is ubiquitous in human life and therefore quite well-structured and more readily understandable. It coherently structures the relations between the various factors in economic activity: business is war; the economic is a battlefield; competitors are warriors or even armies fighting each other, and economic activities are conceptualized in terms of attack and defense as a result of the crisis, the Asians will strike back; they will launch an export offensive.

The ontological metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson,2003:25) is “a figure that provides ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc, as entities and substances”. These involve the projection of entity or substance status on something that does not have that status inherently. For examples: conceptual metaphor THE MIND IS A MACHINE “ My mind just isn’t operating today”.

The Application of Conceptual Metaphor Japanese Poetry

Data 1

Tegashiroku

katsudainariki

Hibonnaruhito to iwaruruotokoniaishini (p.80)

Te ga shiroku is representative of good and wise behavior. The conceptual metaphor that underlines or motivates the application of the linguistic exspression or metaphor te ga shiroku is VIRTUE IS WHITE, because virtue is mental domain in the terms of shiroku ‘white’. Other expressions

with the same concept in Japanese, are: shiroi koibito ‘white love’, ichigan to shiroi chinmoku o kōchikushi ‘united and to build a white silence.

Data 2

Sakinjitekoi no amasa to

nagashisa o shirishi ware nari sakinjiteoyu (p.152)

Koi no amasa to nagashisa ‘sweetness and bitterness of love’ is indicates that the love is like food or drink because food and drink have a taste (sweet ‘amasa’ and bitter ‘nagashisa’). The conceptual metaphor that underlines the application of the linguistic exspression or metaphor is LOVE IS FOOD OR DRINK. The love is mental domain in terms of sweet ‘amasa’ and bitter ‘nagashisa’ as representative of food or drink. Other expression in Japanese are; ai wa oishii ‘love is delicious’, Supaishīna ai ‘love is spicy’, ai no inryō ‘beverage of love’.

Data 3

Aonisuku

Kanashimi no tamanimakura shite

Matsu no hibiki o yomosugarakiku (p.186)

Kanashimi is sadness, and tama ‘ball’ is representative of instability. The conceptual metaphor that motivates the application of the linguistic exspression or metaphor kanashimi no tama is SAD IS INSTABILITY, because sad is the mental domain in the terms of tama ‘ball’ as representative of instability. This conceptual metaphor are supported by other linguistic expressions in Japanese, they are kanashii wa tamago no gotoku ‘sadness as a egg’, kokoro ga fuantei desu ‘unpredicteble feeling’.

CONCLUTION

Based on the discussion in the previous section it can be concluded that the method of metaphor identification procedure (MIP) should be applied because MIP is provides a explicit, reliable, and flexible instrument for identifying linguistic metaphor. The linguistic metaphors identified in the data are: koi no amasa to nagashisa, kanashimi no tama, and te ga shirokukatsu dainariki.

The conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) should be applied because provides a systematic tool to identify the concepts behind the linguistic metaphors. The conceptual metaphors that are found to underlie the linguistic metaphors are: VIRTUE IS WHITE, LOVE IS FOOD OR DRINK, and SAD IS INSTABILITY

REFERENCE

Crisp, P. 2002. ‘Metaphorical propositions: A rationale’ in Language and Literature.11(7): 7–16. (cited

2015 October 25). Available from: URL: http://lal.sagepub.com

Djajasudarma. 1993. Metode Linguistik-Rancangan Metode Penelitian dan Kajian. Bandung: Eresco.

Edizal. 2000. Takuboku Ishikawa dan Segenggam Pasir石川啄木と『一握の砂』Padang: Penerbit Kayu Pasak.

Foley, William, A. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics.An Introduction. UK Blackwell Publisher Inc.

Heywood, John and friends. 2002. Linguistic Metaphor Identification in Two Extracts from Novel. Vol.

11 No. 1 35-54 (cited 2015 November 20). Available from: URL: http://lal.sagepub.com.

Kovecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought.

2nd.ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Nelson, Cory. 2006. Gazoku Dictionary. Australia: Monash University.

Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice-Hall International.

Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol. Vol. 22(1), 1-39. (cited 2015 January 2). Available from: URL: https://www.academia.edu.

Steen, G.J. 2007.Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sudaryanto. 1993. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Jakarta: Duta Wacana University Press.

Warren, Beatrice, 1999. Aspects of referential metonymy. In Panther, K.-U., Radden, G. (Eds.), Metonymy inLanguage and Thought. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 121–138.

Zhang Xianrong and Xingliang Gao. 2009. An Analysis of Conceptual Metaphor in Western Commercial Advertisements: Vol 5, No. 12. (cited 2015 November 10). Available from: URL: www.ccsenet.org/journal.html.

157