Ontological Metaphors for Moral Concepts in the Bible: Introduction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4312/an.55.1-2.177-191Keywords:
elaboration of metaphor, extension of metaphor, mapping, source domain, target domainAbstract
The article reveals the peculiarities of ontological mappings involving ethical concepts in the text of the Bible. The paper hypothesizes that ethical concepts as abstract phenomena are understood as physical entities and living beings, therefore there must be corresponding metaphorical projections, which underlie their conceptualization. The metaphor is viewed from two perspectives: within the classical and conceptual metaphor theories. From the perspective of the classical theory, metaphor is a literary expressive means, part of figurative language, which consists in using one word instead of the other for the sake of drawing attention or attaining poetic or elevated style. From the conceptual perspective, metaphor is a way humans perceive and conceptualize the objective reality by means of understanding complex abstract ideas or phenomena on the basis of some simple concrete things from the central life experience. This is carried out by means of projection of the source domain features onto the target domain, the latter being more complex than the former. Ontological metaphoric transferences with the target ethical concepts, which are found in the Bible involve two superordinate source domains: PERSON and THING. The extension of these two primary metaphors, which make up the central mapping is represented by a number of hyponymic domains, each of which is discussed separately. Besides the extension, the article pays special attention to the elaboration of metaphors, which involves the extension of the conceptual zone and projection of other source domain features, different from the central ones. The research infers the conclusion that the use of cross-domain mappings plays an important role in conveying ontological and deontological messages since such type of narrative helps to deliver the essential message to the broader audience most efficiently as the more complex moral implications expressed in this way are conceived through simpler ideas and notions.
Downloads
References
Aristotle (1995). Poetics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Barstad, H. & Nielsen, K. (1989). There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh.
Biblical Metaphor Annotated Bibliography. Access mode: http://biblicalmetaphor.com/, retrieved April 15, 2022.
Booth, W. C. (1978). Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation. In Sacks (Eds.), (pp. 49-72). Canada. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/447972
Bourguet, D. (1987). Des métaphores de Jérémie. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
Brueggemann, W. (2008). The Recovering God of Hosea. Horizons in biblical theology, 30(1), 43-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/187122008X294349
Cazeaux, C. (2007). Kant, Cognitive Metaphor and Continental Philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203326831
Cicero (1942). On the Orator: Book 3. On Fate. Stoic Paradoxes. Divisions of Oratory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cruz, J. (2016). Who Is Like Yahweh?: A Study of Divine Metaphors in the Book of Micah. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666540479
Dille, S. J. (2004). Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah. London: Continuum.
Doyle, B. (2000). The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: A Study of the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24–27. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
Eidevall, G. (1996). Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models, and Themes in Hosea 4–14. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & Lima, P. L. C. & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, 36, 1189-1210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009
Haddox, S. E. (2016). Masculinity Studies of the Hebrew Bible: The First Two Decades. CBR, 14, 176-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X15575496
Kövecses, Z. (2017a). Conceptual metaphor theory. In the Routledge handbook of metaphor. In E. Semino, & Z. Demjén (Eds.), (pp. 13-27). Abingdon: Routledge.
Kövecses, Z. (2017b). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. doi: 10.1515/cog-2016-0052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052
Kövecses, Z. (2002) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Eds.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lam, J. (2016). Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199394647.001.0001
Lancaster, M. D. (2021). Meraphor research and the Hebrew Bible. Currents in Biblical Research, 19(3), 235-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X20987952
Nwaoru, E. O. (1999). Imagery in the Prophecy of Hosea. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sherwood, Y. (2018). The Bible and Feminism: Remapping the Field. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198722618.001.0001
Smit, P. B. (2017). Masculinity and the Bible: Survey, Models, and Perspectives. Brill Research Perspectives in Biblical Interpretation, 2, 1-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/24057657-12340007
Spencer, F. S. (2017). Mixed Feelings and Vexed Passions: Exploring Emotions in Biblical Literature. Atlanta: SBL. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1w1vm30
Zimran, Y. (2018). The Notion of God Reflected in the Lion Imagery of the Book of Hosea. Vetus Testamentum, 68, 149-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685330-12341311
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Eldar Veremchuk
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitting article, which will be published (print and online) in journal Acta Neophilologica by Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). Author’s name will be evident in the article in journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in hands of the publisher.
- Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit their self to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
