PreprintPDF Available

Figurative language in talking about the loss of a father. The example of Americans and Poles

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The subject of this paper is loss and grief described by different people from two language groups: Americans and Poles. The analyzed data comes from the responses to two online questionnaires, and is a part of a larger PhD research project. In looking for examples of conceptual metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, Kövecses 2005) and conceptual blends (Fauconnier and Turner 1996, Dancygier and Sweetser 2014), I present various cases of conceptualization of loss and grief. Given the limited size of this paper, I selected examples referring to loss of a father. The aim is to compare different ways of talking about apparently the same type of loss, highlighting the fact that grief is very subjective and personal. It is also a way to present cultural differences and a variety in viewpoint when talking about this type of loss.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Kamila Midor
Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Figurative language in talking about the loss of a father. The example of
Americans and Poles
Język figuratywny w mówieniu o stracie ojca na przykładzie Amerykanów i Polaków
Tematem artykułu jest strata i żałoba opisane przez osoby z dwóch grup językowych: Amerykanów i Polaków.
Dane poddane analizie pochodzą z odpowiedzi na pytania z ankiet wchodzących w skład projektu doktorskiego.
W poszukiwaniu przykładów metafor pojęciowych (Lakoff i Johnson 1980, Kövecses 2005) oraz amalgamatów
pojęciowych (Fauconnier i Turner 1996, Dancygier i Sweetser 2014), przedstawione różne przykłady
konceptualizacji żałoby i straty. Z uwagi na ograniczone rozmiary pracy wybrane zostały jedynie przykłady
opisujące stratę ojca. Celem artykułu jest porównanie różnych sposobów mówienia o pozornie tym samym
rodzaju straty, podkreślając jednocześnie fakt, że żałoba jest bardzo subiektywna i osobista. Jest to także
prezentacja różnic kulturowych i różnorodności w punkcie widzenia w mówieniu o tym rodzaju straty.
keywords: loss, grief, conceptual integration, conceptual blend, conceptual metaphor, metonymy
słowa kluczowe: strata, żałoba, integracja pojęciowa, amalgamat pojęciowy, metafora pojęciowa, metonimia
Introduction
“I sat on a gray stone bench (…)
and placed my grief
in the mouth of language,
the only thing that would grieve with me.”
(Lisel Mueller)
What is studied in this paper is loss and grief described by different people. In looking for
examples of conceptual metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, vecses 2005) and
conceptual blends (Fauconnier and Turner 1996, Dancygier and Sweetser 2014), I present
various cases of conceptualization of loss and grief by Americans. Given the limited size of
this paper, I selected examples referring to loss of a father. The aim is to compare different
ways of talking about apparently the same type of loss, showing how language enables us to
express our feelings, as well as highlighting the fact that grief is very subjective and personal.
Depending on the viewpoint, we can see that conceptualizing and describing loss differs.
2
Loss and grief
From the psychological perspective, loss occurs anytime a person loses something or
someone they value. The most common understanding of loss is a state after experiencing the
death of another person (the case analyzed in this paper) or a pet. Loss is also experienced
after any major change in life, including ending a relationship, separation, moving, losing a
job, losing health, etc.
Grief is a subjective and personal way of experiencing loss. It affects human life at
many levels: emotional, bodily, cognitive, social, spiritual and religious. It is essential to say
that the grieving process is a mixture of different emotions. Apart from sadness, it is fear,
anger, sense of guilt and/or relief, often mood swings. Our body also participates” in the
process: we cry, feel physical pain, fatigue, heaviness in the chest, we have problems with
breathing and sleeping (Perlman 2002: 1).
Coping with grief may be divided into stages, the number of which varies. The
commonly known Five Stages of Grief model introduced by Kübler-Ross is nowadays
generally recognized. She based it on her work on anticipatory grief, i.e. the process that takes
place before the actual loss. The model assumes there are five stages of grief: denial, anger,
bargaining, depression, acceptance (Kübler-Ross and Kessler 2005: 8–25). What is important
is that the stages do not have to appear in this order, they may overlap, or a person may revisit
some of them.
We can differentiate grief from mourning because, in a way, they are complementing
phenomena. “Grief” is an internal, subjective way of experiencing loss. The word “grief”
means “heavy” (Sabar 2000: 154). Whereas “mourning” is an external expression, a set of
rituals, the way the person behaves, and the way others treat them, etc. The meaning of the
word “mourning” (Old English) is “remembering with care and sorrow” (Sabar 2000: 154).
3
As for “bereavement” (“to be robbed”), it concentrates especially on loss: of a person, thing,
etc. and “the part of oneself that especially related” to the lost person or object (Sabar 2000:
154). Only loss and grief will be analyzed in this paper.
As already mentioned, the subject of this analysis are expressions referring to the loss
of a father. Given there are differences in the character of relationships, people grieve
differently depending on the relationship they had with the person who died. In case of losing
a father, there may be some changes in family roles, e.g. a child needs to become a caregiver,
they often feel more responsible for their younger siblings, etc., which affects the way they
grieve. People also tend to have a wish that their father could witness some significant events
in their life, such as a wedding or graduation (Noel and Blair 2008: 130–131, Malone 2016:
47–50).
Metaphors and blends
Given that the title of this paper refers to “figurative language”, it is essential to define
“figurative”. Dancygier and Sweetser (2014) explain that figurative means that a usage is
motivated by a metaphoric or metonymic relationship to some other usage, a usage which
might be labeled literal” (2014: 4, emphasis in the original).
Linguistically prompted conceptualization is, in fact, what cognitive linguistics is all
about. Scholars within this framework claim that language necessarily reflects certain patterns
found in the human mind. Some of the main notions used as tools in the analysis will be
described in the following section.
In 1980, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) presented their book on metaphors, which is now
considered one of the most influential works within cognitive linguistics, and not only. The
main idea was that we think in metaphors, and not only use them as embellishing linguistic
tools. The mechanism of a conceptual metaphor as follows: we think of one domain in terms
4
of another. Moreover, our mind is embodied, which means that we conceptualize phenomena
by experiencing the world with our bodies. As the title suggests (Lakoff and Johnson 1980),
we live by metaphors, oftentimes being unaware of it. Thanks to conceptual metaphors, we
are able to express even complex abstract phenomena, such as emotions, life and death, time,
etc. (Kövecses 2000), which often differs across cultures (Kövecses 2005). An example of a
conceptual metaphor is LIFE IS A JOURNEY, with LIFE as a target domain and JOURNEY as a
source domain.
In metaphor creation, what is also useful are image schemas, introduced by Lakoff and
Johnson (2003). They are very basic and abstract structures based on the bodily experience,
and include the CONTAINER schema or the SOURCE-PATH-GOAL (SPG) schema (Lakoff 1987:
267, 275).
Metonymy can be a subject for a larger work itself (cf. Bierwiaczonek 2013). To
briefly explain this idea it is necessary to say that metonymy used to be perceived as linguistic
only as well. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) emphasize its conceptual nature. Commonly known
metonymies include: STANDING-FOR relation based on the PART-FOR-WHOLE or WHOLE-FOR-
PART relations, PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT, e.g. “They have a Van Gogh on the wall.”, OBJECT
USED FOR USER, e.g. “The guitar took a day off”, CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLED, e.g.
“Napolean lost at Waterloo.”, INSTITUTION FOR PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE, e.g. “The Army wants to
reinstitute the draft.” THE PLACE FOR THE INSTITUTION, e.g. “Hollywood isn’t what it used to
be.”, THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT, e.g. “Let’s not let Thailand become another Vietnam.” etc.
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 35–41).
Finally, the theory of conceptual integration (sometimes called conceptual blending),
which for some is a step forward from the conceptual metaphor theory, and for others it is an
alternative idea. Above all, it is a very powerful and fascinating tool. As Fauconnier and
Turner (1996) assumed in their theory of mental spaces, our mind contains “conceptual
5
packets”, i.e. mental representations of the world, helping us process the reality. If we talk
about merging spaces together, we move onto the conceptual integration theory. It assumes
that there are at least two input spaces that are blended together into a new structure, called a
blend. There is also a generic space, a very abstract space with elements common to all the
other spaces. What is worth highlighting is that not all of the elements of the input spaces
have to be present in the blend. Furthermore, it is not essential for one space to be more
abstract (or less intersubjectively accessible, cf. Dancygier and Sweetser 2014 on the
character of the domains in metaphors) than the other.
Both theories may enrich the analysis if we combine them together (cf. Fauconnier and
Lakoff n.d.). Blends enable us to analyze more complex structures (Grady et al 1999),
including conventionalized and unconventional (ad hoc) expressions. We can also study
structures with more than two input spaces as well as whole blending networks. Blends are
sometimes based on a conceptual metaphor or metonymy, which will be the case in the
analytical part of this paper.
Study details
The following results come from an ongoing research study which involves two anonymous
online surveys targeted at adult Americans and Poles. One of the criteria is that the loss has
occurred within the last five years. The respondents have to be born and raised in the United
States and in Poland, and speak American English and Polish as their mother tongue,
respectively.
From 60 American respondents who have participated so far, 12 described the loss of
a father (10 women, 2 men). Their age ranges from 19 to 50, with mean of 30.5 years old. As
the cause of death they provided: cancer (3), other illnesses (7): including sudden deaths (e.g.
cardiac failure) and dying in sleep (2), sudden: not specified (1), car accident (1).
6
All Polish respondents (11 out of 55) who lost their father were women aged between
25 and 63, with mean of 36 years old. The cause of death they mentioned was: cancer (2),
other illnesses (6): including cardiac failure, old age (1), motorcycle accident (1), suicide (1).
Both surveys consist of approximately 20 questions: half of which are general
questions about the participant’s background, and the other half are open questions about the
loss they experienced. One of the questions asks them to define loss and explain in what way
theirs is unique. In the Polish part, 10 out of 11 answers included a metaphor (9 were LOSS
metaphors, 1 was LIFE metaphor, 1 answer was merely a description of the person, and not
emotions). In the American part, all 12 answers to that question included a LOSS metaphor.
The examples presented come from the responses to this particular question. Spelling and
grammar used by the respondents have not been changed.
Study results
The following sections contain examples of various ways of conceptualizing loss of a father.
Each of the subsections consists of an example coming from the data collected in the survey,
a comment, and a table with mappings of the blend (in this form for more clarity). First, the
American survey results will be presented, followed by the Polish survey results.
Americans
In the responses to the question on the definition of loss, the following metaphors were
identified. LOSS was conceptualized as ABSENCE, EMPTINESS, ILLNESS/WOUND, LOSS OF A
VALUABLE OBJECT, OBSTACLE, DISSOLVED CONNECTION; GRIEF as VOID, JOURNEY, PERSON,
NATURAL FORCE (WATER). Due to the volume limits of this paper, only some of the examples
will be presented.
LOSS IS EMPTINESS
7
Many respondents describe LOSS as EMPTINESS. Before the LOSS IS EMPTINESS blend is
activated in our brain, we use some other tools. I will call them “pre-blends”, and they will
serve as parts of the final blend which is identified in the example below:
I define it [loss – KM] as a empty place in my heart. Grief is a void that can’t really every go away, but you learn
to accept that it is there and not try and change it.
Pre-blend: HEART AS A CENTER OF EMOTIONS
The emptiness is located in one’s heart. Thus, the pre-blend is metonymical and metaphorical.
Table 1: HEART AS A CENTER OF EMOTIONS - Pre-blend
Input 1 (TARGET) Input 2 (SOURCE) Generic Blend
CENTER OF
EMOTIONS
HEART (CENTER OF
THE BODY)
CENTER HEART AS A CENTER
OF EMOTIONS
ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES:
PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASPECT OF A PERSON
PHYSICAL ASPECT OF
A PERSON
ASPECT OF A PERSON PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASPECT OF A PERSON
IS PHYSICAL ASPECT
OF A PERSON
CENTER OF EMOTIONS CENTER OF THE BODY CENTER HEART IS A CENTER OF
EMOTIONS
CONTAINER OF
EMOTIONS
CONTAINER FOR
BLOOD
CONTAINER HEART AS CONTAINER
FOR EMOTIONS
EMOTIONS/THOUGHTS/
MEMORIES
BLOOD ENTITY INSIDE OF THE
CONTAINER
EMOTIONS ETC. ARE
SUBSTANCE IN THE
CONTAINER
LACK OF EMOTIONS
(EMPTINESS)
EMPTINESS IN THE
HEART
EMPTINESS EMOTIONAL
EMPTINESS IS
PHYSICAL EMPTINESS
IN THE HEART
8
Sometimes HEART is presented AS A CENTER OF EMOTIONS (cf. A PERSON IS A CONTAINER FOR
EMOTIONS). It may also be conceptualized as a CONTAINER FOR MEMORIES or THOUGHTS (cf. “I
will keep you in my heart”). The conceptualization in this example is metaphorical; the
EMPTINESS is not only caused by a physical absence of the person who died, but rather by the
lack of specific feelings or thoughts attributed to that person, which is metonymical. Now that
this pre-blend is activated, we can move on to the actual blend: LOSS IS EMPTINESS.
Because LOSS and GRIEF are very related to each other, and can be considered
overlapping concepts, sometimes the target input will be LOSS, other times it will be GRIEF for
the clarity of the table. The source input relies on the pre-blend, and refers to a specific type
of EMPTINESS.
Table 2: LOSS IS EMPTINESS - blend
Input 1 (TARGET) Input 2 (SOURCE) Generic Blend
LOSS EMPTINESS (PRE-
BLEND: EMPTINESS IN
ONES HEART)
LACK OF SOMETHING
LOSS IS EMPTINESS
LACK OF
EMOTIONS/THOUGHTS/
MEMORIES OF THE
PERSON WHO DIED
EMPTY PLACE IN
ONES HEART
LACK OF SOMETHING LACK OF
EMOTIONS/THOUGHTS/
MEMORIES OF THE
PERSON WHO DIED IS
AN EMPTY PLACE IN
ONES HEART
A PERSON
EXPERIENCING LOSS
A PERSON FEELING
EMPTINESS
A PERSON
EXPERIENCING LACK
OF SOMETHING
A PERSON
EXPERIENCING LOSS
FEELS EMPTINESS IN
THEIR HEART
GRIEF VOID LACK OF SOMETHING GRIEF IS VOID
9
The respondent uses an expression “grief is a void”, which most likely is a continuation of the
first part of this example referring to loss, i.e. “I define it as a empty place in my heart”.
However, it might as well be a “void” in general (outside of a person), rather than a void
experienced “inside”, which make us think of LONELINESS or ABSENCE.
LOSS IS ABSENCE
A very similar, yet not entirely the same, image we can have when we think of LOSS as
ABSENCE. Of course, it is a physical absence that the bereaved person experiences, it is,
however, a sense of psychological absence as well.
1. Loss for me is someone who I love dearly is no longer on earth for me to talk too.
2. Loss is when something or someone you love or need disappears from your life.
3. Loss is the feeling that something important is missing.
This can be presented in the following blend.
Table 3: LOSS IS ABSENCE - blend
Input 1 (TARGET) Input 2 (SOURCE) Generic Blend
LOSS ABSENCE (IN THE
CONTEXT OF DEATH)
LACK OF SOMETHING
LOSS IS ABSENCE
ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES:
GRIEVER GRIEVER GRIEVER GRIEVER
PERSON WHO DIED PERSON WHO DIED PERSON WHO DIED PERSON WHO DIED
PSYCHOLOGICAL
ABSENCE
PHYSICAL ABSENCE ABSENCE LOSS IS
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
PHYSICAL ABSENCE
INABILITY TO TALK INABILITY TO TALK INABILITY TO TALK INABILITY TO TALK
10
Fauconnier and Turner (2006: 366) talk about DEATH as a MAGICIAN who makes
people disappear. In the above listed example 2, we can identify the DEATH IS A MAGICIAN
metaphor. Here it is visible as well:
4. Loss is when something or someone you love or need disappears from your life.
DEATH may not always be a MAGICIAN, but it is definitely conceptualized as a PERSON WHO
TAKES AWAY LIVING PEOPLE:
5. You thought you needed this person in your life and suddenly they’re taken away.
Interestingly, in their definition of loss, the majority of the respondents mention the
inability of communicating to the lost person:
6. Loss for me is someone who I love dearly is no longer on earth for me to talk too.
7. Loss is not being able to communicate with my father anymore
8. It’s losing the wisdom and thoughts of the person who left
In addition, in the example 8 we can identify the WISDOM /THOUGHTS/ IS A VALUABLE OBJECT
metaphor.
LOSS IS ABSENCE is a metonymical blend. Of course, one can say that LOSS IS ABSENCE
is a metonymy; however, it is a very specific type of absence, with no possibility of a return.
It is also not just loss as a psychological state. Thus, in my view, this example can be
considered a blend.
LOSS IS A LOSS OF A VALUABLE (PHYSICAL) OBJECT
It is another example of loss conceptualized as an absence of something. This time, however,
what has been lost is conceptualized as a valuable physical object.
11
loss is not having something in your life that you once treasured.
Table 4: LOSS IS A LOSS OF A VALUABLE (PHYSICAL) OBJECT - blend
Input 1 (TARGET) Input 2 (SOURCE) Generic Blend
LOSS (OF A PERSON) LOSS (OF AN OBJECT) LOSS (NOT IN
PSYCHOLOGICAL
SENSE)
LOSS OF A PERSON IS
A LOSS OF A
VALUABLE PHYSICAL
OBJECT
ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES:
PERSON 1 (THE
BEREAVED)
OWNER / HOLDER PERSON THE BEREAVED AS A
PERSON HOLDING AN
OBJECT
DEATH AN ACT OF LOSING A CHANGE DEATH IS LOSING AN
OBJECT
PERSON 2 (THE ONE
WHO DIES)
A VALUABLE OBJECT ENTITY PERSON 2 IS A
VALUABLE OBJECT
SCENARIOS: SCENARIOS: SCENARIOS: SCENARIOS:
PERSON 2 IS ALIVE THE OBJECT IS
PRESENT, THE OWNER
POSSESSES AN OBJECT
PRESENCE OF
SOMETHING
PERSON 2 IS AN
OBJECT HELD BY
PERSON 1
PERSON 2 IS DEAD VALUABLE OBJECT IS
NOT AVAILABLE
LACK OF
AVAILABILITY OF
SOMETHING
DEATH OF PERSON 2 IS
LOSING THE
VALUABLE OBJECT
LOSS IS AN OBSTACLE
One of the most common and conventionalized metaphors is LIFE IS A JOURNEY (Lakoff 1991;
1993, Lakoff and Johnson 1999, Kövecses 2000; 2005). This journey consists of various
stages, one of which can be grief. Here, also the SOURCE-PATH-GOAL (SPG) schema should be
12
mentioned, along with ACTION IS MOTION and DIFFICULTIES ARE IMPEDIMENTS TO MOTION. In
this example, LOSS IS AN OBSTACLE on the road. In order to continue to move forward, one
needs to get over this obstacle. Therefore, GRIEVING PROCESS is conceptualized as GOING ON A
JOURNEY, as MOVING OVER THE OBSTACLE. It takes time, effort, and might not be easy, but it is
possible. Once this stage of the journey is complete, one can continue one’s regular journey.
Following is an illustration coming from the responses:
Loss is an obstacle. (…) You still have to be here. You still have to live, and you have to figure out how to do
that without them there. (…) how to get through it, how to live past it.
Get through implies a different kind of motion: one does not move upwards, but straight on.
Moreover, one seems not to stop before the obstacle, but to continue moving forwards with a
direct contact, more involvement. Afterward, a person may continue their journey.
The respondent talks about being “here” which refers to the metaphor LIFE IS HERE,
DEATH IS THERE or DEATH IS DEPARTURE. Since the person died, the respondent no longer has
a companion, they need to adjust to a new situation in which they are left without their loved
one. Another example (1) of DEATH IS DEPARTURE comes from a response of a participant who
experienced anticipatory grief:
1. My grief was unique because it started before my dad even passed away.
2. [Loss] it’s losing the wisdom and thoughts of the person who left.
The example below shows more focus on LIFE IS HERE, DEATH IS THERE:
3. I kind of sense he is still here as long as I think of him, I’m not sure how to word that, it isn’t necessarily part
of my religious beliefs or anything, just something that helps me cope.
13
The following table presents LOSS IS AN OBSTACLE ON A JOURNEY called life. I decided to
put LIFE as a target domain, whereas LOSS and GRIEF as elements of this domain since they are
inevitable in a person’s life. The generic space is a PROCESS; however, we can also say that
both LIFE and JOURNEY are based on the SPG schema.
Table 5: LOSS IS AN OBSTACLE ON A JOURNEY - blend
Input 1 (TARGET) Input 2 (SOURCE) Generic Blend
LIFE JOURNEY PROCESS, SPG
SCHEMA
LIFE IS A JOURNEY
ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES:
PERSON (GRIEVER) TRAVELER PERSON PERSON (GRIEVER) IS
A TRAVELER
LIVING LIFE GOING ON A JOURNEY PROCESS LIVING LIFE IS GOING
ON A JOURNEY
LOSS OBSTACLE DIFFICULTY LOSS IS AN OBSTACLE
GRIEVING MOVING THROUGH
OBSTACLES
REACTING TO A
DIFFICULT SITUATION
GRIEVING IS MOVING
THROUGH AN
OBSTACLE
EFFORT EFFORT EFFORT EFFORT
GRIEVING IS TIME
CONSUMING
JOURNEY IS TIME
CONSUMING
A TIME CONSUMING
ACTIVITY
GRIEVING IS A TIME
CONSUMING JOURNEY
LIFE COMPANIONS TRAVEL COMPANIONS COMPANIONS LIFE COMPANIONS ARE
TRAVEL COMPANIONS
LOSING A LIFE
COMPANION
LOSING A TRAVEL
COMPANION
LOSING A COMPANION LOSING A LIFE
COMPANION IS LOSING
A TRAVEL COMPANION
GRIEF IS A NATURAL FORCE (WATER)
14
As for conceptualization of GRIEF, it is sometimes conceptualized as A NATURAL FORCE over
which we have no control. In this case, it is WATER:
It comes in waves where I’ll feel it wash over me but then it’ll pass. There isn’t much I can do other than wait for
it to stop.
This is a good way to show the nature of grief: not a static condition, but a dynamic process.
Emotions may come and go, which lets the person work through the grieving process.
Table 6: GRIEF IS A NATURAL FORCE (WATER) - blend
Input 1 (TARGET) Input 2 (SOURCE) Generic Blend
GRIEF NATURAL FORCE
(WATER)
INTENSE ENTITY /
PHENOMENON
GRIEF IS NATURAL
FORCE (WATER)
ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES: ENTITIES:
GRIEVER PERSON AFFECTED PERSON GRIEVER IS A PERSON
AFFECTED
GRIEF WATER INTENSE ENTITY GRIEF IS WATER
NO CONTROL OVER
GRIEF
NO CONTROL OVER
WATER
NO CONTROL NO CONTROL OVER
GRIEF IS NO CONTROL
OVER WATER
POSSIBLE
PSYCHOLOGICAL
DAMAGE
POSSIBLE PHYSICAL
DAMAGE
POSSIBLE DAMAGE POSSIBLE DAMAGE OF
GRIEF IS A POSSIBLE
PHYSICAL DAMAGE
NOT BAD WHEN
CONTROLLED
NOT BAD WHEN
CONTROLLED
NOT BAD WHEN
CONTROLLED
GRIEF IS NOT AS BAD
WHEN IT IS
CONTROLLED (LIKE
WATER)
Poles
15
Polish responses included the following conceptualizations of LOSS: CAUSE OF DESTRUCTION,
HEARTBREAK, ABSENCE, EMPTINESS, MONSTER/TOXIC SUBSTANCE, whereas of GRIEF: BURDEN,
(BEING) DOWN, ILLNESS/JOURNEY. As in the case of the American results, only selected
examples will be provided.
LOSS IS EMPTINESS
Exactly as its American counterpart, this example also refers to the emptiness in one's heart.
The loss of a parent is a huge emptiness in one's heart, sorrow, and longing for what is now gone1.
Again, first we think of the HEART AS CENTER FOR EMOTIONS AND THOUGHTS (pre-blend), and
then an EMPTINESS in the heart caused by LOSS. When it comes to the visual representation of
the blend, we can use the same table with mappings as in the American example of LOSS IS
EMPTINESS described in this paper.
LOSS IS A TOXIC SUBSTANCE / A MONSTER
This is an excellent example which may be used to discuss some important questions. First, it
proves that in many cases, interpreting a linguistic expression and identifying a domain is
challenging and heavily dependent on the viewpoint. Because of the ambiguity, this may be
seen as a flaw of the cognitive linguistic method used in the present analysis. By many,
however, it is perceived as a value since it shows how flexible, spontaneous, and subjective
language is, and how it is impossible to apply strict rules to it. Second, it shows that an
anonymous survey, although a very useful technique, has drawbacks as a research method
since it is impossible to ask a follow-up question where a person could explain which
1 All examples from the Polish survey translated by KM, originally in Polish: “strata rodzica to wielka
pustka w sercu, żal i tęsknota za tym co było”
16
conceptualization they had on mind. Nevertheless, with all the tools available and constraints
present, we are still able to analyze the example found in one of the responses.
The loss of Dad, like I already said, was the worst thing that could happen to me. It corroded/ devoured a hole in
my stomach, it made me want to cry with my whole body, and at the funeral I wanted to jump into the grave. It
was bad, but it is better now.2
The Polish verb wyżreć can be interpreted in at least two ways: “to corrode” and “to devour”.
Since it is not clear which interpretation was used by the speaker, we should analyze both
possibilities. To be more precise, wyżreć consists of the prefix wy- suggesting a movement
from the inside towards the outside, and -żreć which is a verb itself, meaning “to devour”.
Therefore, depending on which interpretation we choose, the conceptualization of LOSS will
differ.
Beginning with the TOXIC SUBSTANCE conceptualization, the visual representation of
the blend is as follows.
Table 7: LOSS IS A TOXIC SUBSTANCE - blend
Input 1 (TARGET) Input 2 (SOURCE) Generic Blend
LOSS TOXIC SUBSTANCE ENTITY LOSS IS A TOXIC
SUBSTANCE
GRIEVER MATERIAL ENTITY 1 GRIEVER IS MATERIAL
LOSS TOXIC SUBSTANCE ENTITY 2 LOSS IS A TOXIC
SUBSTANCE
LOSS AFFECTING THE
GRIEVER
SUBSTANCE
CORRODING THE
MATERIAL
ENTITY 2 AFFECTING
ENTITY 1 IN A
NEGATIVE WAY
LOSS CORRODES A
HOLE IN THE GRIEVER
(STOMACH)
PSYCHOLOGICAL
DAMAGE
PHYSICAL DAMAGE DAMAGE PSYCHOLOGICAL
DAMAGE IS PHYSICAL
DAMAGE
2 “A strata Taty - jak już wspomniałam - była czymś najgorszym co mogło mnie spotkać. Wyżarła mi
dziurę w brzuchu, sprawiła, że chciało mi się płakać całym ciałem, a na pogrzebie chciałam wskoczyć do grobu.
Było źle, ale już jest dobrze.”
17
Here we can see how loss corroded a hole in the person's stomach, and caused her to suffer a
great pain. A reference to a more general metaphor is observed: PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE IS
PHYSICAL DAMAGE.
If we select the other interpretation, we think of LOSS as a MONSTER or A FIERCE
ANIMAL that was either inside of the person's stomach and ate its way out, or (more likely) it
was outside and devoured a hole in the stomach. Again, the PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE
metaphor is present.
Table 8: LOSS IS A FIERCE ANIMAL / MONSTER - blend
Input 1 (TARGET) Input 2 (SOURCE) Generic Blend
LOSS FIERCE
ANIMAL/MONSTER
ENTITY LOSS IS A FIERCE
ANIMAL/MONSTER
GRIEVER VICTIM ENTITY 1 GRIEVER IS A VICTIM
LOSS MONSTER ENTITY 2 LOSS IS A MONSTER
LOSS AFFECTING THE
GRIEVER
MONSTER DEVOURING
A HOLE IN A VICTIM
ENTITY 2 AFFECTING
ENTITY 1 IN A
NEGATIVE WAY
LOSS DEVOURS A HOLE
IN THE GRIEVER
(STOMACH)
PSYCHOLOGICAL
DAMAGE
PHYSICAL DAMAGE DAMAGE PSYCHOLOGICAL
DAMAGE IS PHYSICAL
DAMAGE
GRIEF IS BURDEN
The SADNESS IS BURDEN metaphor is commonly known (Kövecses 2000) , and since sadness
is one of the emotions present in the grieving process, it should not surprise that GRIEF is also
conceptualized as BURDEN.
Every day I feel heavy with all that happened, but I'm coping because there is no other way3.
3 “Każdego dnia jest mi ciężko z tym co sie stało, ale radze sobie bo nie mam wyjscia.”
18
The emotions experienced by the respondent in her grieving process feel like a burden to her
(The literal translation would be “it is heavy to me ”). Following are the mappings present in
the blend.
Table 9: GRIEF IS BURDEN - blend
Input 1 (TARGET) Input 2 (SOURCE) Generic Blend
GRIEF BURDEN INTENSE ENTITY GRIEF IS BURDEN
GRIEVER PERSON CARRYING A
BURDEN
PERSON GRIEVER IS A PERSON
CARRYING A BURDEN
GRIEF HEAVY OBJECT INTENSITY GRIEF IS BURDEN
PSYCHOLOGICAL
HEAVINESS
PHYSICAL HEAVINESS HEAVINESS PSYCHOLOGICAL
HEAVINESS IS
PHYSICAL HEAVINESS
When we think of some implications of this metaphorical blend, we can say that the griever
carries the burden by herself, but it is possible for others to help her carry it. It is, however,
almost impossible for others to carry the burden completely for her. This shows that a
grieving person may receive support from others, but eventually it is the griever who has to
go through the grieving process. It is also an example of how not all of the elements of input
spaces have to be present in the blend.
Conclusion
It might seem that a particular type of loss would be experienced in the same or a very similar
way, thus conceptualized in a similar manner. Nevertheless, given that grief is a very complex
reaction, and that people differ in experience, we have seen various ways of referring to the
LOSS OF A FATHER by Americans: EMPTINESS, ABSENCE, LOSS OF A VALUABLE (PHYSICAL)
OBJECT, ILLNESS / WOUND / KNIFE, A FEELING IN STOMACH, AN OBSTACLE, and by Poles: CAUSE
OF DESTRUCTION, HEARTBREAK, ABSENCE, EMPTINESS, MONSTER/TOXIC SUBSTANCE. When
describing GRIEF, Americans see it as A NATURAL FORCE (WATER), whereas Poles as: BURDEN,
19
(BEING) DOWN, ILLNESS/JOURNEY. This shows a variety in viewpoint when talking about the
same type of loss.
The amount of data and examples does not allow the author to draw any far-reaching
conclusions at this point. The analysis was supposed to be an overview of possible
conceptualizations of LOSS OF A FATHER in the American and Polish cultures. It will be
interesting to compare different types of loss within one culture as well as across cultures.
References
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2013. Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
Dancygier, B., Sweetser, E. 2014. Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fauconnier, G., Lakoff, G. On metaphor and blending.
http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/spaces/GG-final-1.pdf. {retrieved: 25 November
2014}.
Fauconnier, G.,Turner, M. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In: Goldberg, A.
(ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113–129). Stanford: Center for the
Study of Language and Information (CSLI) [distributed by Cambridge University Press].
Fauconnier, G., Turner, M. 2006. Mental Spaces: Conceptual integration networks. In:
Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter .
Grady, J. E., Oakley, T., Coulson, S. 1999. Blending and metaphor. In: Steen, G., Gibbs, R.
(eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and emotion: language, culture, and body in human feeling.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kübler-Ross, E., Kessler, D. 2005. On grief and grieving: Finding the meaning of grief
through the five stages of loss. New York: Scribner.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and
thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251 ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..
Lakoff, G. 1991. Cognitive versus generative linguistics: How commitments influence results.
Language & Communication. Vol. II. No. I/t, 53–62.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge
to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1980[2003]. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Malone, P. A. 2016. Counseling adolescents through loss, grief, and trauma. New York:
Routledge.
Mueller, L. When I am asked.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/detail/36931 {retrieved 14
February 2017}
20
Noel, B., Blair, P. D. 2008. I Wasn’t Ready to Say Goodbye. Surviving, Coping & Healing
After the Sudden Death of a Loved One. (updated ed.). Naperville: Sourcebooks, Inc.
Perlman, A. 2002. Grief. Center City: Hazelden Publishing.
Sabar, S. 2000. Bereavement, grief, and mourning: A Gestalt perspective. Gestalt Review.
4(2)/2000, 152–168.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
An investigation of the way in which the basic mental operation of conceptual integration ("blending") is central to grammar.This is an expanded web version of Fauconnier and Turner, 1996 ("Blending as a Central Process of Grammar." in Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Edited by Adele Goldberg. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information [CSLI] [distributed by Cambridge University Press]. Pages 113-129.)This expanded version consists of the original article, additional diagrams for the caused motion construction that were edited from the original article to save space, and an additional section on the ditransitive construction, which is excerpted from Turner and Fauconnier, 1999, "A Mechanism of Creativity," Poetics Today.
Article
Loss and bereavement are inevitable parts of life. Grief and mourning are the ways we have of expressing and assimilating these experiences. Many aspects of Gestalt therapy are well suited to working through the mourning process. In this paper the tasks of mourning are defined, and the Gestalt approach is compared with traditional bereavement counseling to see where and how they can be integrated and in what ways they may be different. Illustrative examples are drawn from current and past historical periods, cross-cultural customs and rituals, and the author's experience as a social worker working with people with HIV/AIDS, the elderly, hospice patients, and their families.
Book
Loss, grief, and trauma come into the lives of adolescents in many forms and with more frequency than the adults in their lives may realize. Assessing the depth and nature of their emotions can be difficult; adolescents are typically reluctant to show strong emotions and can be difficult to reach, particularly when they experience the untimely death of a loved one. How best to work with a young person who may have trouble communicating their emotions even under the best of circumstances? And what if he or she has learned about the death of a loved one or classmate from another peer rather than a family member? What about gender differences and the influence of culture and family? What role do cell phones, text messaging, and technologies such as Facebook play in the adolescent grief experience? Adolescents' use of technology creates unlimited access to friends, support systems, and information, but news that spreads quickly without buffering effects can intensify the strength of the adolescent grief responses. Counseling Adolescents Through Loss, Grief, and Trauma not only examines these issues; it also provides clinicians with a wealth of resources and time-tested therapeutic activities that are sure to become an indispensable part of any clinician's practice.
Book
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson take on the daunting task of rebuilding Western philosophy in alignment with three fundamental lessons from cognitive science: The mind is inherently embodied, thought is mostly unconscious, and abstract concepts are largely metaphorical. Why so daunting? "Cognitive science--the empirical study of the mind--calls upon us to create a new, empirically responsible philosophy, a philosophy consistent with empirical discoveries about the nature of mind," they write. "A serious appreciation of cognitive science requires us to rethink philosophy from the beginning, in a way that would put it more in touch with the reality of how we think." In other words, no Platonic forms, no Cartesian mind-body duality, no Kantian pure logic. Even Noam Chomsky's generative linguistics is revealed under scrutiny to have substantial problems. Parts of Philosophy in the Flesh retrace the ground covered in the authors' earlier Metaphors We Live By , which revealed how we deal with abstract concepts through metaphor. (The previous sentence, for example, relies on the metaphors "Knowledge is a place" and "Knowing is seeing" to make its point.) Here they reveal the metaphorical underpinnings of basic philosophical concepts like time, causality--even morality--demonstrating how these metaphors are rooted in our embodied experiences. They repropose philosophy as an attempt to perfect such conceptual metaphors so that we can understand how our thought processes shape our experience; they even make a tentative effort toward rescuing spirituality from the heavy blows dealt by the disproving of the disembodied mind or "soul" by reimagining "transcendence" as "imaginative empathetic projection." Their source list is helpfully arranged by subject matter, making it easier to follow up on their citations. If you enjoyed the mental workout from Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works , Lakoff and Johnson will, to pursue the "Learning is exercise" metaphor, take you to the next level of training. --Ron Hogan Two leading thinkers offer a blueprint for a new philosophy. "Their ambition is massive, their argument important.…The authors engage in a sort of metaphorical genome project, attempting to delineate the genetic code of human thought." -The New York Times Book Review "This book will be an instant academic best-seller." -Mark Turner, University of Maryland This is philosophy as it has never been seen before. Lakoff and Johnson show that a philosophy responsible to the science of the mind offers a radically new and detailed understandings of what a person is. After first describing the philosophical stance that must follow from taking cognitive science seriously, they re-examine the basic concepts of the mind, time, causation, morality, and the self; then they rethink a host of philosophical traditions, from the classical Greeks through Kantian morality through modern analytical philosophy.