신체관용표현의 개념적 은유 양상 = (A) Study on Conceptual Metaphor of Body Idioms

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this study, I tried to diagrammatize the regularity inherent on the basis of special concept by making conceptual metaphor shown in korean language a subject of this study.
Literary discussion on the metaphor started from Aristoteles, who understood it was that a thing was given another name which belonged to another thing. Richards regarded the metaphor as the principle of thought not as a matter of simple language, while Aristoteles stressed the importance of reciprocal action made between tenor and vehicle, saying that simple comparison was meaningless. Black systematized the theory of metaphor into substitution theory, comparison theory and reciprocal action on the basis of the above.
Chomsky can be considered as a representative who discussed the metaphor from linguistic viewpoint. He said that metaphorical construction could be possible from accurate sentence by analogy, regarding the metaphor as a deviated sentence which flouted selectional restriction.
Linguistic discussion was divided into pragmatic and semantic to be considered. We can name Grice as the representative who discussed pragmatic theory. Considering how the maxim of quality was flouted out of 4 maxims of conservation which show usual cooperative conversation principle, he suggested a way to infer the implication created therefrom. The pragmatic discussion does not explain the metaphor satisfactorily. But Grice's maxim of conversation helps us to construe the metaphor by suggesting a way to recognize the figurative use of language. The semantic discussion on the metaphor explains the metaphor by using quality concept of semantics, considering it as an expression which flouted selectional restriction. Levin said that it was impossible to construe the expression of metaphor as it was and that deletion rule, transfer rule and construction rule should be used. However, the construction rule suggested by Levin also had a problem that construction by meaning quality was unnatural or mapping process of the quality was hard and restricted.
Conceptual metaphor is a domain of experience - that is other domain of experience from 'source domain' - systematical 'cognitive mapping' to 'target domain', which is called as conceptual metaphor. The source domain is concrete, physical, definite and structuralized experience as it came from our usual experience, while the target domain is abstract, non-physical, indefinite and unstructuralized experience as a domain we are going to express.
Conceptual metaphor is largely divided into structural metaphor, ontologicil metaphor and orientational metaphor.
The structural metaphor means that a concept is metaphorically structured by another concept. Here, the mapping shape of a target domain was considered, centering around a tour diagram which are source domains. The structure of a tour diagram is consisted of 'starting point', 'destination' and 'direction'. The basic logic of this diagram is all the area which is on the route should be passed while we are going from starting point to the destination and that time passes in proportion to the distance to be covered. By making this source domain, a target domain which is love is metaphorized- we can say that passengers are mapped onto lovers, vehicles onto relation, obstacle onto difficulties and destination onto two persons' common target.
The ontological metaphor means that abstract experience is understood by concrete existence such as substance or contents. That is, in case we are going to express invisible abstract experience such as 'time', 'mind', 'theory' or 'language' out of our experience, we regard them as concrete existence or things - entity or substance.
The orientational metaphor means that a general conceptual structure is organized under reciprocal relation as one related with special orientation. 'up-down', 'right-left' and 'front-back' are metaphorized on the basis of our usual experience. In the direction up and down, un expresses movement/lots/good/powerful, while down expresses stop/few/wrong/powerless of the basis of our physical experience. In the direction right-left, the right expresses positive/assistance/good as most people uses this more frequently than left, while left expresses negative/opposition/wrong on the basis of our physical experience. The direction front-back is the same. The front expresses positive/honesty/future as our face is placed in this direction, while back expresses negative/dishonest/past.
In this study, because structural metaphor of conceptual metaphor shown, I didn't make structural metaphor apply to the body idioms, Instead of that, I made orientational metaphor and ontological metaphor apply to the body idioms.
I used diagram of dish, food, material object, weapon, tool, fire and weather about orientational metaphor of the body idioms. In this way, as I did a metaphor of a body, I could know to be used objects important and often coming in contact in the our everyday life.
In Korea language of the body idioms, relations of 'up-down', 'front-back', 'right-left', 'contact-separation', etc were brought out in ontological metaphor shown.
In this study, I tried to identify that extensive metaphorical expression can be explained by a few of conceptual metaphor and that target domain is understood and experienced by mapping other conceptual domain, the source domain onto target domain. I think this would be an opportunity to identify how Korean way of thought becomes a language, prove that metaphor is human way of thought to have a basic level of experience and universality holding in common language, and secure a measure propriety about a metaphorical appreciation method.
In this study, I considered a party of Korean way of thought, as to see conceptual metaphor shown to be expressed in the body idioms. The study of metaphor will need to collect much more language data of documentary records, broadcasting, communication, typography-media to clarifying Korean way of thought to be filled in Korea language.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차 = ⅰ
• 그림목차 = ⅱ
• ABSTRACT = ⅲ
• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• Ⅱ. 은유의 이론 = 4
• 1. 전통적 은유 이론 = 4
• 2. 개념적 은유 = 12
• Ⅲ. 신체관용표현의 개념적 은유 = 31
• 1. 구조적 은유 = 32
• 2.존재론적 은유 = 33
• 3. 방향적 은유 = 41
• Ⅳ. 결론 = 50
• 참고문헌 = 53