LINGUO-CULTURAL FEATURES OF METAPHORICAL REPRESENTATION IN THE WORLDVIEW
Keywords:
metaphor, worldview, linguo-culture, cognitive linguistics, cultural representation, conceptual metaphor, language and culture.Abstract
This thesis examines the linguo-cultural features of metaphorical representation in the formation and expression of a worldview. Metaphor is not merely a stylistic device used in literature and everyday speech; it is a fundamental cognitive mechanism through which individuals and societies conceptualize reality. The study explores how metaphors reflect cultural values, historical experiences, social norms, and collective consciousness. Drawing upon cognitive linguistics, cultural linguistics, and discourse analysis, the research investigates the relationship between language, culture, and metaphorical thinking. Consequently, the study highlights the significance of metaphor as a bridge between language and culture and as a key element in understanding national and cultural identities.
Downloads
References
1. Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. – 256 p.
2. Sharifian, Farzad. Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2017. – 188 p.
3. Wierzbicka, Anna. Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. – 328 p.
4. Dirven, René; Pörings, Ralf (Eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. – 641 p.
5. Ungerer, Friedrich; Schmid, Hans-Jörg. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman, 2006. – 389 p.
6. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. – 632 p.
7. Gibbs, Raymond W. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. – 527 p.
8. Yu, Ning. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. – 247 p.
