Conceptualization of Metaphors: Economic Condition, Corruption Cases, and the Corruption Eradication Commission

Retno Ika Lestari Widianti(1), Undang Sudana(2),


(1) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(2) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Corresponding Author

Abstract


Metaphors are noted always clearly understood by everyone, but metaphors have the power to influence people’s thinking and views of the world. Therefore, this research was conducted as an effort to educate the public about the metaphors used in the narrative. Data in the form of words or phrases that contain conceptual metaphors that are identified from certain characteristics. Furthermore, the data were analyzed using the extra lingual equivalent method. The data analysis step refers to linguistic theory: categorizing, mapping two conceptual domains, and making adjustments. This qualitative research produces a conceptual metaphor. The results were: (1) similarities between the circumcision procession and the corruption trial; (2) the relationship between corruption watch weaknesses as weak tigers; and (3) inconsistent use of the target domain. It seems to be an indirect lesson for media activists to create a narrative that does not have the potential to confuse readers. This study focuses on disclosing the meaning of the conceptualization of the metaphors used in the narrative video of corruption cases as a topic of discussion. This research is engaged in semantics and aims to identify the use of metaphorical words/phrases and describe the concepts presented. This research is expected to help media users to educate about the language of the media used, to provide information that is fully understood.

Keywords


Concept; Corruption cases; Corruption eradication commission; Domain; Metaphor

References


Cameron, L. (2007). Confrontation or complementarity? Metaphor in language use and cognitive metaphor theory. Annual Review of cognitive linguistics, 5(1), 107-135.

Group, P. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and symbol, 22(1), 1-39.

Haula, B., and Nur, T. (2018). Konseptualisasi metafora dalam rubrik opini kompas tahun 2018: kajian semantik kognitif. Mozaik Humaniora, 18(2), 149-156.

Hinman, L. M. (1982). Nietzsche, metaphor, and truth. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 43(2), 179-199.

Makaroğlu, B., Akkök, E. A., and Aksan, Y. (2018). Verbs in Turkish Sign Language: A cognitive linguistic approach. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29(1), 119-137.

Ortony, A., Reynolds, R. E., and Arter, J. A. (1978). Metaphor: Theoretical and empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 919.

Paton, R. C. (1992). Towards a metaphorical biology. Biology and Philosophy, 7(3), 279-294.

Stern, J. (2008). Metaphor, semantics and context. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 564, 564.

Winter, B. (2019). Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. Perception metaphors, 19, 105-126.

Wiradharma, G., and WS, A. T. (2016). Metafora dalam lirik lagu dangdut: kajian semantik kognitif. Arkhais-Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, 7(1), 5-14.


Full Text: PDF

Article Metrics

Abstract View : 995 times
PDF Download : 671 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Yayasan Bumi Publikasi Nusantara

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.