Tài liệu Multimodal metaphors in vietnamese and american beverage commercials

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES  ĐẶNG THANH ĐIỀM MULTIMODAL METAPHORS IN VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN BEVERAGE COMMERCIALS (Ẩn dụ đa phương tiện trong các quảng cáo đồ uống của Việt Nam và Hoa Kỳ) M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 8220201.01 Hanoi – 2021 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES  ĐẶNG THANH ĐIỀM MULTIMODAL METAPHORS IN VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN BEVERAGE COMMERCIALS (Ẩn dụ đa phương tiện trong các quảng cáo đồ uống của Việt Nam và Hoa Kỳ) M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 8220201.01 Supervisor: Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm, PhD. Hanoi - 2021 DECLARATION I certify that the minor thesis entitled “Multimodal metaphors in Vietnamese and American beverage commercials” is the result of my own research and has not been submitted partially or wholly to another degree or diploma at any universities or other institutions. Hanoi, 2021 Student Đặng Thanh Điềm i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper would not have been completed without the support of many people, to all of whom I am profoundly indebted. First, I would like to acknowledge my truthful gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm, for her valuable comments, constant support and encouragement. My special words of thanks are sent to all the lecturers of the Department of Post-Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University Hanoi, for their useful lectures and materials which are of great value to my thesis. My sincere thanks also go to my colleagues in the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Informatics, Hoa Lu University for their willingness to support me in my teaching job during the time I conducted the study. Last but not least, I owe my gratitude to my family for their wholehearted care and encouragement during the completion of my thesis. Hanoi, 2021 ii ABSTRACT Multimodal metaphor has become a necessary and indispensable stage of conceptual metaphor research. This new categorized research field of multimodal metaphor is involved in all aspects of life including advertising, political cartoons, comics, spoken language, gesture, music, sound and film (Yang, 2015). The study is an investigation into the use of multimodal metaphors in Vietnamese and American beverage commercials. Twenty-four selected videos from eight beer brands (four for each promotional culture) are analyzed via the processes of realization (based on the analytical tables) to specify the usage of modes and possible metaphorical meaning in each commercial; interpretation to clarify the metaphorical themes, modality usage and message conveyed; and explanation to discuss the similarities and differences of the utilization of metaphors in these advertisements (under four criteria). The results of the data analysis indicate that multimodal metaphor is employed in all Vietnamese and American commercials with six common source domains. All the three modes (visual, verbal and sonic) are in harmonious combinations to cue the domains despite the unequal distribution and the variety of modality patterns. The visual element is the most frequently used mode while sonic mode accounts for the least involvement in the construction of metaphors in the videos. The study also pinpoints the similarities and divergences between the usage of metaphors in the corpus regarding the choices of source domains, the frequency of modality, the focus of conceptualization and the selling point of the product. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION .......................................................................................................i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1 1.1. Rationale of the study.......................................................................................... 1 1.2. Aims and objectives of the study ........................................................................ 2 1.3. Research questions .............................................................................................. 2 1.4. Scope of the study ............................................................................................... 3 1.5. Methods of the study ........................................................................................... 3 1.6. Significance of the study ..................................................................................... 4 1.7. Organization of the study .................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 5 2.1. An introduction to Metaphor ............................................................................... 5 2.1.1. Metaphor in traditional linguistics ................................................................... 5 2.1.2. Metaphor in cognitive linguistics ..................................................................... 6 2.1.3. Features of conceptual metaphor ................................................................... 11 2.2. Multimodal metaphor ........................................................................................ 14 2.2.1. From pictorial to multimodal metaphor ......................................................... 14 2.2.2. Modes in multimodal metaphor ..................................................................... 15 2.2.3. Significance of multimodal metaphor ............................................................ 17 2.2.4. Source domain choices and cultural influences ............................................. 18 2.3. Vietnamese culture and American culture ........................................................ 20 2.4. Advertising ........................................................................................................ 23 2.4.1. Definition of advertising ................................................................................ 23 2.4.2. Features of advertising from linguistic perspective ....................................... 23 iv 2.4.3. Classification of advertising ........................................................................... 24 2.4.4. Beverage commercials ................................................................................... 25 2.5. Review of previous studies ............................................................................... 26 2.5.1. Previous studies overseas ............................................................................... 26 2.5.2. Previous studies in Vietnam ........................................................................... 28 2.6. Summary ........................................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 30 3.1. The corpus ......................................................................................................... 30 3.2. Methods of the study ......................................................................................... 30 3.3. Analytical framework ........................................................................................ 35 3.4. Data analysis procedure .................................................................................... 37 3.5. Summary ........................................................................................................... 38 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 39 4.1. The use of multimodal metaphors in Vietnamese commercials ....................... 39 4.1.1. The choices of source domains ...................................................................... 39 4.1.2. Multimodal metaphors in Vietnamese commercials ...................................... 40 4.1.3. The frequency of modality in Vietnamese commercials ............................... 46 4.2. The use of multimodal metaphors in American commercials .......................... 50 4.2.1. The choices of source domains ...................................................................... 50 4.2.2. Multimodal metaphors in American commercials ......................................... 50 4.2.3. The frequency of modality in American commercials .................................. 56 4.3. Summary ........................................................................................................... 59 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................ 60 5.1.The use of multimodal metaphors in Vietnamese and American beverage commercials ............................................................................................................. 60 5.2.The similarities and differences in the use of multimodal metaphors in Vietnamese and American beverage commercials .................................................. 65 5.2.1. The choices of source domains ...................................................................... 65 5.2.2. The frequency of modality ............................................................................. 66 v 5.2.3. The focus of conceptualization ...................................................................... 70 5.2.4. The selling points of the products .................................................................. 77 5.3. Summary ........................................................................................................... 78 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 79 6.1. Recapitulation ................................................................................................... 79 6.2. Concluding remarks .......................................................................................... 80 6.3. Implications of the study ................................................................................... 82 6.4. Limitations of the study .................................................................................... 82 6.5. Suggestions for further research ........................................................................ 83 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 84 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... I APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................ I APPENDIX 2 ........................................................................................................... II APPENDIX 3 ....................................................................................................... VIII vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: The mappings of ARGUMENT IS WAR ................................................. 9 Table 2.2: The mappings of LIFE IS A JOURNEY ................................................ 12 Table 3.1: Sample of the analytical table ................................................................. 36 Table 4.1: List of source domains in Vietnamese commercials .............................. 39 Table 4.2: The mappings of A DRINK IS A HUMAN ........................................... 41 Table 4.3: The mappings of A DRINK IS A SOURCE OF FUN AND REFRESHMENT ..................................................................................................... 42 Table 4.4: The mappings of A DRINK IS A SYMBOL OF A NATION/ HOMELAND ........................................................................................................... 43 Table 4.5: The mappings of A DRINK IS A FRIEND ............................................ 43 Table 4.6: The mappings of A DRINK IS A GIFT ................................................. 44 Table 4.7: The mappings of A DRINK IS A CONTAINER OF HAPPINESS ....... 44 Table 4.8: The mappings of A DRINK IS A MATCHMAKER ............................. 45 Table 4.9: The mappings of A DRINK IS A JOURNEY ........................................ 46 Table 4.10: The mappings of A DRINK IS A SOURCE OF ENERGY ................. 46 Table 4.11: Modes representing TARGET DOMAIN in Vietnamese commercials .... 47 Table 4.12: Modes representing SOURCE DOMAIN in Vietnamese commercials ...... 49 Table 4.13: List of source domains in American commercials 50 Table 4.14: The mappings of A DRINK IS A SOURCE OF FUN AND REFRESHMENT ..................................................................................................... 51 Table 4.15: The mappings of A DRINK IS A FRIEND .......................................... 52 Table 4.16: The mappings of A DRINK IS A CONTAINER OF HAPPINESS ..... 53 Table 4.17: The mappings of A DRINK IS A SOURCE OF ENERGY ................. 54 Table 4.18: The mappings of A DRINK IS A HUMAN ......................................... 55 Table 4.19: The mappings of A DRINK IS A SYMBOL OF A NATION ............. 56 Table 4.20: The mappings of A DRINK IS A REWARD ....................................... 56 Table 4.21: Modes representing TARGET DOMAIN in American commercials .. 57 Table 4.22: Modes representing SOURCE DOMAIN in American commercials .. 58 Table 5.1: The frequency of modality (domain-based) ............................................ 63 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Subdivision of modes (Forceville, 2007: 20) ........................................ 16 Figure 2.2: Cultural dimensions of Vietnam, compared to Japan and the US ......... 21 Figure 3.1: The study’s analytical framework ......................................................... 37 Figure 3.2: Data analysis procedure ......................................................................... 38 Figure 4.1: Modality representing TARGET DOMAIN in Vietnamese ads ........... 48 Figure 4.2: Modality representing SOURCE DOMAIN in Vietnamese ads ........... 49 Figure 4.3: Modality representing TARGET DOMAIN in American ads .............. 58 Figure 4.4: Modality representing SOURCE DOMAIN in American ads .............. 59 Figure 5.1: Metaphors and times of appearance in both sets of commercials ......... 60 Figure 5.2: The frequency of modality (origin-based) ............................................. 64 Figure 5.3: The choices of source domains in both sets of commercials ................ 65 Figure 5.4: The frequency of modality in Vietnamese ads ...................................... 68 Figure 5.5: The frequency of modality in American ads ......................................... 68 Figure 5.6: Screenshot from V7 Figure 5.7: Screenshot from V12 ........................ 75 Figure 5.8: Screenshot from A11 Figure 5.9: Screenshot from A8 ........................ 75 viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Rationale of the study Understandings of metaphor have been greatly changed over time, especially with the very first introduction of Conceptual Metaphor Theory in “Metaphor We Live By” by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). Metaphor used to be perceived as a rhetorical device or a kind of decorative addition to the ordinary plain language in traditional linguistics, (Saeed, 2003). However, in the light of cognitive linguistics approach in the 19th century, metaphor is conceptualized ubiquitous in everyday language as a way to understand or experience things through other things. In this way, metaphor is therefore “a means of structuring our conceptual system”. Advocates of Conceptual Metaphor Theory assert that metaphor is an invaluable approach to conceive the world from the specific to the abstract, the known to the unknown and the outside to the inside. From the same perspectives, numerous studies have been conducted to prove the values of metaphor in “mind developing, conceptual widening and even society progressing” (Yang, 2015). Starting from Conceptual Metaphor Theory, discussions on whether the occurrence of metaphor is restricted to language have been provoked. In fact, the essence of language for the construal and interpretation of metaphor is not obligatory (Forceville, C. in Gibbs, 2003). Therefore, apart from verbal metaphors, non-verbal ones have gradually gained greater attention from researchers. Human communication is by and large multi-modal rather than mono-modal in nature (Lantolf and Bobrova, 2012). Multimodal metaphor, as a form of nonverbal type, first presented by Forceville (2008) belongs to almost all social life of human beings such as advertising, political cartoons, comics, animation, spoken language, co-speech gesture, music, sound and film (Yang, 2015). Research of multimodal metaphor has been done to cover these various categories and multimodes of expressing (Forceville, 1996; Gibson, 1979; Cienki, 2011; Koller, 2009; Yang and Qiu, 2014; Yu, 2013; Urios-Aparisi, 2009). 1 There have been a number of studies on the extent to which a metaphor is not only embodied but also governed by the cultural or professional community in which it functions (Yang, 2015). Regarding Vietnamese versus American cultures, several research has been carried out to investigate metaphors in Vietnamese and American advertisements. However, the advertisements are analyzed verbally and it seems that so far, little attention has been paid to the use of multimodal metaphor in advertisements – in particular in beverage commercials. All of aforementioned aspects and discussions are the inspiration for the paper entitled “Multimodal metaphors in Vietnamese and American beverage commercials”, which attempts to present an analysis of multimodal metaphors used in Vietnamese and American beverage commercials and make some comparisons between the two groups of data. 1.2. Aims and objectives of the study The bilingual comparative study aims at providing a better understanding of the use of multimodal metaphors in Vietnamese and American beverage commercials, based on metaphor theories and analyses developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Forceville (1996, 2008, 2009). The overall aim is specified into the following objectives: (1) To investigate multimodal metaphors embedded in the chosen adverts and the relationships between their target and source domains in regards of their structural mappings, messages and entailments. (2) To make a comparison on the representation and interpretation of metaphors between the two groups of commercials. 1.3. Research questions The study raises the following research questions: (1) How are multimodal metaphors used in Vietnamese and English beverage commercials? (2) What are the similarities and differences in the use of multimodal metaphors in Vietnamese and American beverage commercials? 2 The first question deals with the process of metaphorical realization in Vietnamese and English commercials for nationally distributed beverages, addressing the process of interpretation via the mappings or internal structures. Whereas, the second question focuses on a comparative analysis between metaphors in the two corpora mainly in terms of source domain choices, mode frequencies, the focus of conceptualization and the selling points of the products. 1.4. Scope of the study The research focuses on analyzing multimodal metaphors in which the target and source domains are rendered exclusively in different systems (visual, verbal and sonic modes). Therefore, other types of conceptual metaphors such as verbal or pictorial metaphors are not under the research’s investigation. In order to solve the research questions, data are collected from 24 advertising videos (released in the years between 2016 and 2018) of 8 beer brands from Vietnam (Huda, Tiger, Saigon and 333) and America (Budweiser, Bud Light, Coors Light and Miller Lite), so commercials of other products or from different countries would be beyond the scope. Besides, the study only exploits beverage commercials in Vietnamese for Vietnamese people and those in English for American consumers. Hence, commercials with features different from what are described above are not the data for analysis in the study. 1.5. Methods of the study The study firstly exploits the combination of description and explanation to analyze metaphors in the commercials. Each commercial analysis leads to a concluding description and an interpretation of the metaphor embedded. Secondly, all the commercials are then compared and contrasted in a comparative approach to justify their similarities and differences in using multimodal metaphor as a way to promote the brands and products. Thus, three major steps include (1) Realization to identify the modality usage in each video; (2) Interpretation to explain metaphorical themes, meanings and messages; and (3) Explanation to clarify the similarities and differences of the use of metaphors from the data. 3 1.6. Significance of the study Theoretically, the study is expected to testify and supplement the relative points of Conceptual Metaphor Theory with multimodal data. Also, the adaptation and exploitation of a theoretical framework to describe distinctive features involving visual and sonic features besides verbal languages hopefully contributes to the improvement of theoretical system in multimodal metaphor research. In terms of practice, the findings of this study can be used as a reference for linguists and those who are interested in conceptual metaphor and multimodal metaphor. The study suggests an extension into future analyses of multimodal metaphor in other areas (products) and genres (cartoon, film, sculpture, gestures, etc.). Moreover, teachers and experts also gain benefits in designing learning materials in the contemporary trends of multimodal literacy with the diverse and interconnected modes and media (Heydon and O’Neill, 2016). 1.7. Organization of the study The study consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 (Introduction) presents the rationale, aims and objectives, research questions, scope, significance and design of the study. Chapter 2 (Literature Review) reviews theoretical issues related to metaphor, multimodal metaphor, Vietnamese versus American cultures, advertising as well as the research gaps from the analysis of previous studies. Chapter 3 (Methodology) presents the methodology of the study, including the study’s source of data, the methods applied, the analytical framework and the whole data analysis procedure. The fourth chapter, Data Analysis, describes the analysis of data in details, including the choices of source domains and multimodal metaphors in two series of commercials (Vietnamese and American). Findings and Discussions gives the findings and provides a thorough discussion of these findings. Answers for the research questions are also presented in this chapter. The last chapter (Conclusion) summarizes the main issues and gives concluding remarks of the study. The limitations as well as some suggestions for further research are also discussed in this part. 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. An introduction to Metaphor 2.1.1. Metaphor in traditional linguistics Although metaphor in traditional view has been strongly challenged by a large number of researchers, especially cognitive linguists, it is still a good start to mention this so-called traditional notion of metaphor in order to understand the longevity of metaphor research and interests over centuries. According to Saeed (2003), metaphor in traditional approaches is the most important form of figurative or non-literal language use in comparison with literal language. Also, it is the most sophisticated form in literary or poetic language as defined by the classic and the romantic views. According to the classic view mainly by Aristotle (1954, 1982, 2001), metaphor is considered as (1) a kind of decorative addition to ordinary plain languages, (2) a rhetorical device to be used at certain times to gain certain effects, (3) requires special forms of interpretation from listeners or readers and (4) a departure from literal language, detected as anomalous by the hearer, who then has to employ some strategies to construct the speaker’s intended meaning. In this classic view, “where the utterance is defective if taken literally, look for an utterance meaning that differs from sentence meaning” (Searle, 1979). The romantic view is associated with the 18th and 19th century romantic views of imagination (cognitive semantics). In this approach, metaphor is an integral to language and thought as a way of experiencing the world, and an evidence of the role of imagination in conceptualizing and reasoning. From this perspective, all language is metaphorical and there should be no distinction between literal and figurative language. For example, the metaphor ACHILLES IS A LION (cited in Evans and Green, 2006: 293) is different from simile (“Achilles is as brave as a lion” or “Achilles is brave, as a lion”) in the way that the two domains’ resemblance has no clear representation in literal language use (without “like” or “as”). 5 To sum up, metaphor in traditional view involves the identification of resemblances and causes a transference, where properties are transferred from one concept to another. The understandings of metaphor were also changed from the classic to the romantic views, from being a decorative addition to an integral part of language and thought. 2.1.2. Metaphor in cognitive linguistics 2.1.2.1. Cognitive Linguistics Cognitive linguistics has certain distinctive features and differentiations from other approaches to linguistic studies. Rooted in the emergence of modern cognitive science, it began in the early 1970s out of opposition to the prevailing formal linguistic approaches (Evans and Green, 2006). The establishment of the International Cognitive Linguistics and the journal Cognitive Linguistics in 1989/90 “marked the birth of cognitive linguistics as a broadly grounded, self-conscious intellectual movement” (Langacker, 2002: xv). Since then, a great deal of research and development has gone under the name of cognitive linguistics. According to Bielak (2011), a large proportion of the research has been devoted to the application of cognitive linguistics to foreign language pedagogy. Cognitive linguistics has not only focused on semantics but also syntax, morphology and other areas of linguistics such as language acquisition, phonology and historical linguistics (Croft and Cruse, 2004). This gives an idea of what cognitive linguistics might contribute to language learning and teaching. In addition, there are numerous claims that cognitive linguistics is able to offer solutions to certain problems and dilemmas encountered in Applied Linguistics and Foreign Language Teaching (Beilak, 2011). Cognitive linguistics is defined as an approach to the study of language, based on how human beings perceive, categorize and conceptualize the world as well as how they express their perception, categorization and conceptualization through language (Croft and Cruse, 2004). It is a school of thought and practice, concerned with investigating the relationship between human language, human mind and socio-physical experiences (Lee, 2001). 6 According to Evan and Green (2006), cognitive linguistics is a powerful approach to the study of not only language but also conceptual systems, human cognition and general meaning construction. Cognitive linguists argue that language is governed by general cognitive principles, rather than by special-purpose language module (Talmy, 2000). The most important way in which cognitive linguistics differs from other approaches to the study of language (structuralism, functionalism, systemic linguistic, to name but a few) is that language is assumed to reflect certain fundamental properties and design features of human mind. Evans (2007) argues that linguistic knowledge, then, involves not just knowledge of language but knowledge of our experience of the world as mediated by the language. From the definition of cognitive linguistics, it can be understood that cognitive linguistics has two focuses. The first focus is on the way in which knowledge representation is organized in the mind. Cognitive linguists hold that language reflects cognitive organization; consequently, cognitive linguistics deploys language in order to investigate conceptual structure (Croft and Cruse, 2004). A clear example of this is the conceptual metaphor theory. Conceptual metaphors are claimed to be units of knowledge representation in the mind rather than being linguistic in nature (Kövecses, 2017). Yet as language reflects conceptual organization, their existence is revealed by patterns in language. Patterns in language reveal patterns in the mind (Taylor, 2002). The second focus is on language. After all, cognitive linguists, like other linguists, study language for its own sake. However, language is held to reflect general aspects of cognition. Therefore, language cannot be artificially separated from the conceptual phenomena that it, in large parts, reflects and is shaped by (Talmy, 2000). 2.1.2.2. Conceptual Metaphor The introduction and development of cognitive linguistics have created certain changes in the conceptualization of metaphor in comparison with what was perceived about metaphor in traditional approaches. 7 As an extension of the romantic view, metaphor in cognitive perspective is considered ubiquitous in ordinary language. However, there are also nonmetaphorical concepts (NOT all language is metaphorical as in romantic views) (Saeed, 2003). Cognitive metaphor or conceptual metaphor allows us to understand one domain of experience in terms of another. To serve this function, there must be some grounding, some concepts that are not completely understood via metaphor to serve as source domains (Lakoff and Turner, 1989). For example, the metaphors HAPPY IS UP and SAD IS DOWN seem to be based on our bodily experiences of lying down and getting up and their associations with consciousness, heath or power. Using language like this, speakers are not adding rhetorical or poetic flourishes to their language, but this displays how we conceive of happiness, health and other abstract notions (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Ungerer and Schmid (1996: 120) reinforce that the structural mapping process from a source domain to a target domain in metaphor allows the conceptualization of abstract phenomena by replying on human’s experience and stored knowledge of the concrete world. One typical example to illustrate this theory is ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 4), which is reflected through such metaphorical expressions as: - “He attacked every weak point in my argument”; - “His criticism was right on target”; - “If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out” or - “He shot down all of my arguments”. (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:4) It is absolutely not the physical battle that people are involved in; however, there exists a verbal battle and what people do while arguing is determined by the conceptualization of war. Although metaphorical expressions can be diverse, they are only mapped from one target domain onto one source domain. In this way, it can be seen that the two concepts ARGUMENT and WAR are metaphorically structured in a systematic way. 8 Table 2.1: The mappings of ARGUMENT IS WAR Source domain: WAR Opponents/ enemies Military conflict Actions: attack, defend, win, lose Tools: weapons Target domain: ARGUMENT  People of the opposite standpoint  Verbal conflict  Actions: exchange viewpoints/claims  Tools: verbal expressions, utterances… (Adapted from Lakoff and Johnson, 1980) Phan Thị Hương (2011) presents a detailed discussion on the metaphorical expressions of the metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY. - “Look how far we’ve come; - “We are at a crossroad; - “We can’t turn back now”. (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 6) First, passengers in a journey keep going in order to reach a targeted destination. Metaphorically, lovers need to make progress to achieve their shared purpose of getting along with each other. Second, at a crossroad, passengers may be confused of which way to take. Lovers may encounter a similar situation when they are bewildered at the decision of being together or separating. Lastly, in a love relationship, sometimes the commitment of being together leads to their not turning back despite their dissatisfaction. This resembles the situation of a vehicle which cannot turn back on a one-way road. These explanations prove that the metaphor is not poetic or rhetorical but “literal”; it is instead a fundamental and ubiquitous way of structuring the awareness of our social, emotional and intellectual experience. They are the metaphor we live by; they construct reality, change our views of life and govern how we act in the world (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). In short, cognitive metaphor or conceptual metaphor is considered not merely a means of communication but also a means of cognition, reflecting the mechanism by which people understand and explain about the real world. 2.1.2.3. Internal structure of metaphor Metaphor involves the identification of resemblances and causes transference, where properties are transferred from one concept to another. Two 9 main concepts include “target domain” which is the starting point or described concept and “source domain” which is the comparison concept or analogy. Langacker (2002) defines “domain” as a coherent area of conceptualization relative to which semantic units may be characterized. Then, the general formula for the construction of the conceptual metaphor is as follows: TARGET DOMAIN IS SOURCE DOMAIN There exist underlying conceptual mappings in which people metaphorically conceptualize TARGET DOMAIN in terms of SOURCE DOMAIN. Regarding these two domains of metaphor, the target domain is abstract, less directly experienced, and less known (for example, time, causation, spatial orientation, ideas, emotions, concepts of understanding) while the source one is concrete, physical, more directly experienced and better known (for example embodied experiences). Lakoff and Turner (1989) assumes that the metaphorical mapping of the source and target domain structures is composed of several components, including the slots, the relationship, the attributes and the knowledge of the source domain, which are mapped onto the target one. Kövecses (2002: 18-28) makes a list of the most common source domains in conceptual metaphor, including HUMAN BODY, HEALTH AND ILLNESS, ANIMALS, PLANTS, BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION, MACHINES, MONEY AND BUSINESS, COOKING AND FOOD, FORCES, etc. Whereas, the most popular target domains consist of EMOTION, DESIRE, MORALITY, THOUGHT, POLITICS, ECONOMY, HUMAN RELATIONSHIP, LIFE AND DEATH, TIME, RELIGION, etc. These concepts are the basis for the investigation of the conceptual domains of the advertised products in this study. These suggested source and target domains help with the construction of the metaphors’ internal structures as well as their mappings. 2.1.2.4. Conceptual metaphor groundings One of the key differences between traditional and cognitive approaches to metaphor is the essence of similarity between the two domains. Metaphor in 10