Metaphorical Representations of Goodness in Thai: A Corpus-Based Study
Main Article Content
Abstract
In cognitive linguistics, Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) offers an essential framework for understanding how abstract concepts are made accessible through metaphorical mappings from concrete, experiential domains. This study investigates the metaphorical expressions and conceptual metaphors associated with the Thai noun “Kwamdee,” or “goodness.” Employing a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative analyses, the research utilizes corpus analysis in combination with salience-based metaphor analysis. Data were selected from the Thai National Corpus, provided by the Department of Linguistics at Chulalongkorn University. Out of 2,042 occurrences, a sample of one hundred metaphorical expressions was analyzed to examine the conceptualization of “goodness” in Thai. The findings reveal that “goodness” is predominantly and most extensively represented through five central metaphors: GOODNESS IS PROPERTY, followed by GOODNESS IS OBJECT, GOODNESS IS PLANT/WAR, GOODNESS IS ACT, and GOODNESS IS BUILDING. These metaphors are ranked by metaphorical salience, measured by the frequency of conceptual mappings within the corpus, revealing both culturally specific and universal patterns in the linguistic representation of moral ideas. The findings offer valuable insights into language education, translation, and cross-cultural communication by illustrating how moral reasoning is embedded in Thai linguistic and cultural frameworks.
Article Details
References
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671-690. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml032
Cameron, L., & Low, G. (2010). Researching and applying metaphors in the real world. John Benjamins.
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J., & Semino, E. (2018). Figurative language, genre, and register. Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2019). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202-251). Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books.
Núñez, R. E., & Sweetser, E. (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construal’s of time. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 401-450. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_62
Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Partovi, M., Ghasemi, M., & Bagherzadeh Kasmani, S. (2021). Cross-cultural conceptualization of goodness: Evidence from metaphorical expressions in English and Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 171, 188-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.010
Semino, E., & Demjén, Z. (2022). The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language. Routledge.
Steen, G., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Mouton de Gruyter.
Zhang, Y., & Ma, X. (2019). Metaphorical expressions of moral concepts in Chinese and English: A corpus-based comparative study. Journal of Language and Politics, 18(6), 813-831. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18047.zha