The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English

ByGeorgeLakoff

and..Zolt´anKovesces

CognitiveScienceProgramInstituteofCognitiveStudiesUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley

May1983

TheproductionoftheBerkeleyCognitiveScienceReportSeriesissupportedbyagrantincognitive

sciencetotheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeleyfromtheAlfredP.SloanFoundation.

-2-

THECOGNITIVEMODELOFANGERINHERENTINAMERICANENGLISH

GeorgeLakoff

and..2Zolt´anKovecses

CognitiveScienceProgramInstituteofHumanLearningUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley

May1983

-3-

Acknowledgements

ThisresearchhasbeenpartlysupportedbyagrantfromtheAmericanCouncilofLearned

..SocietiestoZolt´anKovecsesandbyagrantfromtheSloanFoundationtotheUniversityof

....os..CaliforniaatBerkeley.ProfessorKovecsesisonleavefromtheEnglishDepartment,Eotv

L´or´andUniversity,Budapestforthe1982-83academicyear.ThispaperwaspreparedforpresentationattheConferenceonFolkModelsattheInstituteforAdvancedStudyatPrinceton,May12-15,1983.TheauthorswouldliketothankNaomiQuinn,organizeroftheconference,forprovidinguswith,perhaps,themostappropriateforumintheworldforthiswork.Wewouldliketothanktheparticipantsatthatconferencefortheircomments.SpecialthanksgotoClaudiaBrugmanforextensivecommentaryonanearlierver-sion.

-4-

SomeQuestions

-Areemotionsjustamorphous\"feelings\"ordotheyhaveacognitivecontent?-Iftheyhaveacognitivecontent,howcanwefindoutwhatitis?

-Whenpeoplespeakaboutanger,aretheyinvokingacoherentfolktheory?Thatis,aretheconventionalizedwaysoftalkingaboutangeractuallybasedonsomecognitivemodelofwhatangeris?

-Couldamereanalysisofthelanguageusedtotalkaboutangeractuallyuncoversomethingrealaboutthewayweunderstandanger?

Atfirstglance,theconventionalexpressionsusedtotalkaboutangerseemsodiversethatfindinganycoherentsystemwouldseemimpossible.Forexample,ifwelookupangerin,say,Roget’sUniversityThesaurus,wefindaboutthreehundredentries,mostofwhichhavesomethingorothertodowithanger,butthethesaurusdoesn’ttellusexactlywhat.Manyoftheseareidioms,andtheytooseemtoodiversetoreflectanycoherentcognitivemodel.Herearesomeexamplesentencesusingsuchidioms:

-Helosthiscool.

-Shewaslookingdaggersatme.-Ialmostburstabloodvessel.-Hewasfoamingatthemouth.-You’rebeginningtogettome.-Youmakemybloodboil.-He’swrestlingwithhisanger.-Watchout!He’sonashortfuse.-He’sjustlettingoffsteam.-Don’tgetahernia!

-Trytokeepagriponyourself.-Don’tflyoffthehandle.

-WhenItoldhim,heblewup.

-Hechanneledhisangerintosomethingconstructive.-Hewasredwithanger.-Hewasblueintheface.-Heappeasedhisanger.-Hewasdoingaslowburn.-Hesuppressedhisanger.

-5--Shekeptbuggingme.

-WhenItoldhim,hehadacow.

Whatdotheseexpressionshavetodowithanger,andwhatdotheyhavetodowitheachother?Onethingisclear:theyarenotrandom.Thereseemstobeasystematicrelationshipamongtheseconstructions,butitisnotimmediatelyobviouswhatitis.Howdoweknow,forexample,thatsomeonewhoisfoamingatthemouthhaslosthiscool?Howdoyouknowthatsomeonewhoislookingdaggersatyouislikelytobedoingaslowburnorbeonashortfuse?Howdoweknowthatsomeonewhosebloodisboilinghasnotappeasedhisanger?Howdoweknowthatsomeonewhohaschannelledhisangerintosomethingconstructivehasnothadacow?

Whatwewilltrytoshowisthatthereisacoherentconceptualorganizationunderlyingalltheseexpressions,andthatmuchofitismetaphoricalandmetonymicalinnature.

MetaphorandMetonymy

Letusbeginwiththefolktheoryofthephysiologicaleffectsofanger:

THEPHYSIOLOGICALEFFECTSOFANGERAREINCREASEDBODYHEAT,INCREASEDINTERNALPRESSURE(BLOODPRESSURE,MUSCULARPRESSURE),AGITATION,ANDINTERFERENCEWITHACCURATEPERCEPTION.

ASANGERINCREASES,ITSPHYSIOLOGICALEFFECTSINCREASE.

THEREISALIMITBEYONDWHICHTHEPHYSIOLOGICALEFFECTSOFANGERIMPAIRNORMALFUNCTIONING.

Giventhegeneralmetonymicprinciple,

THEPHYSIOLOGICALEFFECTSOFANEMOTIONSTANDFORTHEEMOTIONthefolktheorygivenaboveyieldsasystemofmetonymiesforanger:BODYHEAT:

-Don’tgethotunderthecollar.-Billy’sahothead.

-Theywerehavingaheatedargument.

-Whenthecopgaveheraticket,shegotallhotandbotheredandstartedcursing.INTERNALPRESSURE:

-Don’tgetahernia!

-WhenIfoundout,Ialmostburstabloodvessel.-Healmosthadahemorrhage.

-6-Increasedbodyheatand/orbloodpressureisassumedtocauserednessinthefaceandneckarea,andsuchrednesscanalsometonymicallyindicateanger.REDNESSINFACEANDNECKAREA:-Shewasscarletwithrage.-Hegotredwithanger.-Hewasflushedwithanger.AGITATION:

-Shewasshakingwithanger.-Iwashoppingmad.

-Hewasquiveringwithrage.-He’sallworkedup.

-There’snoneedtogetsoexcitedaboutit!-She’sallwroughtup.-Youlookupset.

INTERFERENCEWITHACCURATEPERCEPTION:-Shewasblindwithrage.-Iwasbeginningtoseered.

-IwassomadIcouldn’tseestraight.

Eachoftheseexpressionsindicatethepresenceofangerviaitssupposedphysiologicaleffects.Thefolktheoryofphysiologicaleffects,especiallythepartthetemphasizesHEAT,formsthebasisofthemostgeneralmetaphorforanger:ANGERISHEAT.Therearetwoversionsofthismetaphor,onewheretheheatisappliedtofluids,theotherwhereitisappliedtosolids.Whenitisappliedtofluids,weget:ANGERISTHEHEATOFAFLUIDINACONTAINER.ThespecificmotivationforthisconsistsoftheHEAT,INTERNALPRESSURE,andAGITATIONpartsofthefolktheory.WhenANGERISHEATisappliedtosolids,wegettheversionANGERISFIRE,whichismotivatedbytheHEATandREDNESSaspectsofthefolktheoryofphysiologicaleffects.Aswewillseeshortly,thefluidversionismuchmorehighlyelaborated.Thereasonforthis,wesurmise,isthatinouroverallconceptionsystemwehavethegeneralmetaphor:THEBODYISACONTAINERFORTHEEMOTIONS-Hewasfilledwithanger.-Shecouldn’tcontainherjoy.-Shewasbrimmingwithrage.

-Trytogetyourangeroutofyoursystem.

TheANGERISHEATmetaphor,whenappliedtofluids,combineswiththemetaphorTHEBODYISACONTAINERFORTHEEMOTIONStoyieldthecentralmetaphorofthesystem:TheANGERISHEATmetaphorseemstocombinewiththistoyield:

-7-ANGERISTHEHEATOFAFLUIDINACONTAINER-Youmakemybloodboil.-Simmerdown!

-Ihadreachedtheboilingpoint.-Lethimstew.

Ahistoricallyderivedinstanceofthismetaphoris:-Shewasseethingwithrage.

Althoughmostspeakersdonotnowuseseethetoindicatephysicalboiling,theboilingimageisstilltherewhenseetheisusedtoindicateanger.Similarly,pissedoffisusedonlytorefertoanger,nottothehotliquidunderpressureinthebladder.Still,theeffectivenessoftheexpressionseemstodependonsuchanimage.

Whenthereisnoheattheliquidiscoolandcalm.Inthecentralmetaphor,coolandcalmnesscorrespondstolackofanger.-Keepcool.-Staycalm.

Aswewillseeshortly,thecentralmetaphorisanextremelyproductiveone.Therearetwowaysinwhichaconceptualmetaphorcanbeproductive.Thefirstislexical.Thewordsandfixedexpres-sionsofalanguagecancode,thatis,beusedtoexpressaspectsof,agivenconceptualmetaphortoagreaterorlesserextent.Thenumberofconventionallinguisticexpressionsthatcodeagivencon-ceptualmetaphorisonemeasureoftheproductivityofthemetaphor.Inaddition,thewordsandfixedexpressionsofalanguagecanelaboratetheconceptualmetaphor.Forexample,astewisaspecialcaseinwhichthereisahotfluidinacontainer.Itissomethingthatcontinuesatagivenlevelofheatforalongtime.Thisspecialcasecanbeusedtoelaboratethecentralmetaphor.\"Stew-ing\"indicatesthecontinuanceofangeroveralongperiod.Anotherspecialcaseis\"simmer\whichindicatesalowboil.Thiscanbeusedtoindicatealoweringoftheintensityofanger.Althoughbothofthesearecookingterms,cookingplaysnometaphoricalroleinthesecases.Itjusthappenstobeacasewherethereisahotfluidinacontainer.Thisistypicaloflexicalelaborations.

LetusrefertotheHEATOFFLUIDINACONTAINERasthesourcedomainofthecentralmetaphor,andtoANGERasthetargetdomain.Weusuallyhaveextensiveknowledgeaboutsourcedomains.Asecondwayinwhichaconceptualmetaphorcanbeproductiveisthatitcancarryoverdetailsofthatknowledgefromthesourcedomaintothetargetdomain.Wewillrefertosuchcarry-oversasmetaphoricalentailments.Suchentailmentsarepartofourconceptualsystem.Theycon-stituteelaborationsofconceptualmetaphors.Thecentralmetaphorhasarichsystemofmetaphori-calentailments.Forexample,onethingweknowabouthotfluidsisthat,whentheystarttoboil,thefluidgoesupward.Thisgivesrisetotheentailment:

WHENTHEINTENSITYOFANGERINCREASES,THEFLUIDRISES-Hispent-upangerwelledupinsidehim.-Shecouldfeelhergorgerising.-Wegotariseoutofhim.

-8--Myangerkeptbuildingupinsideme.-PrettysoonIwasinatoweringrage.

Wealsoknowthatintenseheatproducessteamandcreatespressureonthecontainer.Thisyieldsthemetaphoricalentailments:

INTENSEANGERPRODUCESSTEAM-Shegotallsteamedup.

-Billy’sjustblowingoffsteam.-Iwasfuming.

INTENSEANGERPRODUCESPRESSUREONTHECONTAINER-Hewasburstingwithanger.-Icouldbarelycontainmyrage.-Icouldbarelykeepitinanymore.

Avariantofthisinvolveskeepingthepressureback:-Isuppressedmyanger.

-Heturnedhisangerinward.

-Hemanagedtokeephisangerbottledupinsidehim.-Hewasblueintheface.

Whenthepressureonthecontainerbecomestoohigh,thecontainerexplodes.Thisyieldstheentail-ment:

WHENANGERBECOMESTOOINTENSE,THEPERSONEXPLODES-WhenItoldhim,hejustexploded.-Sheblewupatme.

-Wewon’ttolerateanymoreofyouroutbursts.Thiscanbeelaborated,usingspecialcases:Pistons:Heblewagasket.Volcanos:Sheerupted.Electricity:Iblewafuse.

Explosives:She’sonashortfuse.Bombs:Thatreallysetmeoff.

Inanexplosion,partsofthecontainergoupintheair.

WHENAPERSONEXPLODES,PARTSOFHIMGOUPINTHEAIR-Iblewmystack.-Iblewmytop.-Sheflippedherlid.-Hehittheceiling.

-9--Iwentthroughtheroof.

Whensomethingexplodes,whatwasinsideitcomesout.

WHENAPERSONEXPLODES,WHATWASINSIDEHIMCOMESOUT-Hisangerfinallycameout.

-Smokewaspouringoutofhisears.

Thiscanbeelaboratedintermsofanimalsgivingbirth,wheresomethingthatwasinsidecausingpressureburstsout:

-Shewashavingkittens.

-MymotherwillhaveacowwhenItellher.

Letusnowturntothequestionofwhatissuesthecentralmetaphoraddressesandwhatkindofontologyofangeritreveals.Thecentralmetaphorfocusesonthefactthatangercanbeintense,thatitcanleadtoalossofcontrol,andthatalossofcontrolcanbedangerous.Letusbeginwithinten-sity.Angerisconceptualizedasamass,andtakesthegrammarofmassnouns,asopposedtocountnouns:

Thus,youcansay:

Howmuchangerhashegotinhim?butnot:

*Howmanyangersdoeshehaveinhim?

Angerthushastheontologyofamassentity,thatis,ithasascaleindicatingitsamount,itexistswhentheamountisgreaterthanzeroandgoesoutofexistencewhentheamountfallstozero.Inthecentralmetaphor,thescaleindicatingtheamountofangeristheheatscale.But,asthecentralmeta-phorindicates,theangerscaleisnotopen-ended;ithasalimit.Justasahotfluidinaclosedcon-tainercanonlytakesomuchheatbeforeitexplodes,soweconceptualizetheangerscaleashavingalimitpoint.Wecanonlybearsomuchanger,beforeweexplode,thatis,losecontrol.Thishasitscorrelatesinourfolktheoryofphysiologicaleffects.Asangergetsmoreintensethephysiologicaleffectsincreaseandthoseincreasesinterferewithournormalfunctioning.Bodyheat,bloodpres-sure,agitationandinterferencewithperceptioncannotincreasewithoutlimitbeforeourabilitytofunctionnormallybecomesseriouslyimpaired,andwelosecontroloverourfunctioning.Inthefolkmodelofanger,lossofcontrolisdangerous,bothtotheangrypersonandtothosearoundhim.Inthecentralmetaphor,thedangeroflossofcontrolisunderstoodasthedangerofexplosion.

Thestructuralaspectofaconceptualmetaphorconsistsofasetofcorrespondencesbetweenasourcedomainandatargetdomain.Thesecorrespondencescanbefactoredintotwotypes:ontologi-calandepistemic.Ontologicalcorrespondencesarecorrespondencesbetweentheentitiesinthesourcedomainandthecorrespondingentitiesinthetargetdomain.Forexample,thecontainerinthesourcedomaincorrespondstothebodyinthetargetdomain.Epistemiccorrespondencesarecorrespondencesbetweenknowledgeaboutthesourcedomainandcorrespondingknowledgeaboutthetargetdomain.WecanschematizethesecorrespondencesbetweentheFLUIDdomainandtheANGERdomainasfollows:

-10-Source:HEATOFFLUIDINCONTAINEROntologicalCorrespondences:

-Thecontaineristhebody.-Theheatoffluidistheanger.

-Theheatscaleistheangerscale,withendpointszeroandlimit.-Containerheatisbodyheat.

-Pressureincontainerisinternalpressureinthebody.-Agitationoffluidandcontainerisphysicalagitation.

-Thelimitofthecontainer’scapacitytowithstandpressurecausedbyheatisthelimitontheangerscale.

-Explosionislossofcontrol.

-Dangerofexplosionisdangeroflossofcontrol.-Coolnessinthefluidislackofanger.-Calmnessofthefluidislackofagitation.Epistemiccorrespondences:

Source:Theeffectofintensefluidheatiscontainerheat,internalpressure,andagitation.Target:Theeffectofintenseangerisbodyheat,internalpressure,andagitation.

Source:Whenthefluidisheatedpastacertainlimit,pressureincreasestothepointatwhichthecon-tainerexplodes.

Target:Whenangerincreasespastacertainlimit,pressureincreasestothepointatwhichthepersonlosescontrol.

Source:Anexplosionisdamagingtothecontaineranddangeroustobystanders.Target:Alossofcontrolisdamagingtoanangrypersonanddangeroustootherpeople.

Source:Anexplosionmaybepreventedbytheapplicationofsufficientforceandenergytokeepthefluidin.

Target:Alossofcontrolmaybepreventedbytheapplicationofsufficientforceandenergytokeeptheangerin.

Source:Itissometimespossibletocontrolthereleaseofheatedfluidforeitherdestructiveorcon-structivepurposes;thishastheeffectofloweringthelevelofheatandpressure.

Target:Itissometimespossibletocontrolthereleaseofangerforeitherdestructiveorconstructivepurposes;thishastheeffectofloweringthelevelofangerandinternalpressure.

Target:ANGER

-11-ThelattercasedefinesanelaborationoftheentailmentWHENAPERSONEXPLODES,WHATWASINSIDEHIMCOMESOUT:

ANGERCANBELETOUTUNDERCONTROL-Heletouthisanger.-Igaveventtomyanger.

-Channelyourangerintosomethingconstructive.-Hetookouthisangeronme.

Sofar,wehaveseenthatthefolktheoryofphysiologicalreactionsprovidesthebasisforthecentralmetaphor,andthatthecentralmetaphorcharacterizesdetailedcorrespondencesbetweenthesourcedomainandthetargetdomain--correspondencesconcerningbothontologyandknowledge.Atthispoint,ouranalysisenablesustoseewhyvariousrelationshipsamongidiomshold.Wecanseewhysomeonewhoisinatoweringragehasnotkeptcool,whysomeonewhoisstewingmayhavecontainedhisangerbuthasnotgotitoutofhissystem,whysomeonewhohassuppressedhisangerhasnotyeterupted,andwhysomeonewhohaschanneledhisangerintosomethingconstruc-tivehasnothadacow.

LetusnowturntothecasewherethegeneralANGERISHEATmetaphorisappliedtosolids:ANGERISFIRE

-Thoseareinflammatoryremarks.-Shewasdoingaslowburn.-Whatyousaidinflamedhim.-Hewasbreathingfire.

-Yourinsincereapologyjustaddedfueltothefire.-Aftertheargument,Davewassmolderingfordays.-Thatkindledmyire.-Boy,amIburnedup!

-Hewasconsumedbyhisanger.

Thismetaphorhighlightsthecauseofanger(kindle,inflame),theintensityandduration(smoldering,slowburn,burnedup),thedangertoothers(breathingfire),andthedamagetotheangryperson(consumed).Thecorrespondencesinontologyareasfollows:Source:FIRE

Target:ANGER

-Thefireisanger.

-Thethingburningistheangryperson.

-Thecauseofthefireisthecauseoftheanger.

-Theintensityofthefireistheintensityoftheanger.

-Thephysicaldamagetothethingburningismentaldamagetotheangryperson.

-Thecapacityofthethingburningtoserveitsnormalfunctionisthecapacityoftheangrypersontofunctionnormally.

-Anobjectatthepointofbeingconsumedbyfirecorrespondstoapersonwhoseangerisatthelimit.-Thedangerofthefiretothingsnearbyisdangeroftheangertootherpeople.

-12-Thecorrespondencesinknowledgeare:

Source:Thingscanburnatlowintensityforalongtimeandthenburstintoflame.

Target:Peoplecanbeangryatalowintensityforalongtimeandthensuddenlybecomeextremelyangry.

Source:Firesaredangeroustothingsnearby.Target:Angrypeoplearedangeroustootherpeople.

Source:Thingsconsumedbyfirecannotservetheirnormalfunction.Target:Atthelimitoftheangerscale,peoplecannotfunctionnormally.

Puttingtogetherwhatwe’vedonesofar,wecanseewhysomeonewhoisdoingaslowburnhasn’thittheceilingyet,whysomeonewhoseangerisbottledupisnotbreathingfire,whysomeonewhoisconsumedbyangerprobablycan’tseestraight,andwhyaddingfueltothefiremightjustcausethepersonyou’retalkingtotohavekittens.

TheOtherPrincipalMetaphors

Aswehaveseen,theANGERISHEATmetaphorisbasedonthefolktheoryofthephysiolog-icaleffectsofanger,accordingtowhichincreasedbodyheatisamajoreffectofanger.Thatfolktheoryalsomaintainsthatagitationisanimportanteffect.Agitationisalsoanimportantpartofourfolkmodelofinsanity.Accordingtothisview,peoplewhoareinsaneareundulyagitated--theygowild,startraving,flailtheirarms,foamatthemouth,etc.Correspondingly,thesephysiologicaleffectscanstand,metonymically,forinsanity.Onecanindicatethatsomeoneisinsanebydescribinghimasfoamingatthemouth,raving,goingwild,etc.

Theoverlapbetweenthefolktheoriesoftheeffectsofangerandtheeffectsofinsanitypro-videsabasisforthemetaphor:ANGERISINSANITY

-Ijusttouchedhim,andhewentcrazy.-You’redrivingmenuts!

-Whentheumpirecalledhimoutonstrikes,hewentbananas.-OnemorecomplaintandI’llgoberserk.-Hegotsoangry,hewentoutofhismind.-Whenhegetsangry,hegoesbonkers.-Shewentintoaninsanerage.

-Ifanythingelsegoeswrong,I’llgethysterical.

PerhapsthemostcommonconventionalexpressionforangercameintoEnglishhistoricallyasaresultofthismetaphor:

-13--I’mmad!

Becauseofthismetaphoricallinkbetweeninsanityandanger,expressionsthatindicateinsanebehaviorcanalsoindicateangrybehavior.GiventhemetonymyINSANEBEHAVIORSTANDSFORINSANITYandthemetaphorANGERISINSANITY,wegetthemetaphoricalmetonymy:INSANEBEHAVIORSTANDSFORANGER

-Whenmymotherfindsout,she’llhaveafit.

-Whentheumpthrewhimoutofthegame,Billystartedfoamingatthemouth.-He’sfittobetied.

-He’sabouttothrowatantrum.

Violentbehaviorindicativeoffrustrationisviewedasaformofinsanebehavior.Accordingtoourfolkmodelofanger,peoplewhocanneithercontrolnorrelievethepressureofangerengageinviolentfrustratedbehavior.Thisfolkmodelisthebasisforthemetonymy:VIOLENTFRUSTRATEDBEHAVIORSTANDSFORANGER-He’stearinghishairout!

-Ifonemorethinggoeswrong,I’llstartbangingmyheadagainstthewall.-Theloudmusicnextdoorhasgothimclimbingthewalls!-She’sbeenslammingdoorsallmorning.

TheANGERISINSANITYmetaphorhasthefollowingcorrespondences:Source:INSANITY

Target:ANGER

-Thecauseofinsanityisthecauseofanger.

-Becominginsaneispassingthelimitpointontheangerscale.-Insanebehaviorisangrybehavior.

Source:Aninsanepersoncannotfunctionnormally.

Target:Apersonwhoisangrybeyondthelimitpointcannotfunctionnormally.Source:Aninsanepersonisdangeroustoothers.

Target:Apersonwhoisangrybeyondthelimitpointisdangeroustoothers.

Atthispoint,wecanseeageneralization.Emotionaleffectsareunderstoodasphysicaleffects.Angerisunderstoodasaformofenergy.Accordingtoourfolkunderstandingofphysics,whenenoughinputenergyisappliedtoabody,thebodybeginstoproduceoutputenergy.Thus,thecauseofangerisviewedasinputenergythatproducesinternalheat(outputenergy).Moreover,theinter-nalheatcanfunctionasinputenergy,producingvariousformsofoutputenergy:steam,pressure,externallyradiatingheat,andagitation.Suchoutputenergy(theangrybehavior)isviewedasdangeroustoothers.Intheinsanitymetaphor,insanityifunderstoodasahighlyenergizedstate,with

-14-insanebehaviorasaformofenergyoutput.

Allinall,angerisunderstoodinourfolkmodelasanegativeemotion.Itproducesundesire-ablephysiologicalreactions,leadstoaninabilitytofunctionnormally,andisdangeroustoothers.Theangryperson,recognizingthisdanger,viewshisangerasanopponent.ANGERISANOPPONENT(INASTRUGGLE)-I’mstrugglingwithmyanger.-Hewasbattlinghisanger.-Shefoughtbackheranger.

-Youneedtosubdueyouranger.

-I’vebeenwrestlingwithmyangerallday.-Iwasseizedbyanger.

-I’mfinallycomingtogripswithmyanger.-Helostcontroloverhisanger.-Angertookcontrolofhim.-Hesurrenderedtohisanger.-Heyieldedtohisanger.-Iwasovercomebyanger.-Herangerhasbeenappeased.

TheANGERISANOPPONENTmetaphorisconstitutedbythefollowingcorrespondences:Source:STRUGGLE

Target:ANGER

-Theopponentisanger.

-Winningiscontrollinganger.

-Losingishavingangercontrolyou.

-Surrenderisallowingangertotakecontrolofyou.

-Thepoolofresourcesneededforwinningistheenergyneededtocontrolanger.

Onethingthatisleftoutofthisaccountsofariswhatconstitutes\"appeasement\".Toappeaseanopponentistogiveintohisdemands.Thissuggeststhatangerhasdemands.Wewilladdressthequestionofwhatthesedemandsarebelow.

TheOPPONENTmetaphorfocusesontheissueofcontrolandthedangeroflossofcontroltotheangrypersonhimself.Thereisanothermetaphorthatfocusesontheissueofcontrol,butwhosemainfocusisthedangertoothers.ItisaverywidespreadmetaphorinWesternculture,namely,PASSIONSAREBEASTSINSIDEAPERSON.Accordingtothismetaphor,thereisapartofeachpersonthatisawildanimal.Civilizedpeoplearesupposedtokeepthatpartofthemprivate,thatis,theyaresupposedtokeeptheanimalinsidethem.Inthemetaphor,lossofcontrolisequivalenttotheanimalgettingloose.Andthebehaviorofapersonwhohaslostcontrolisthebehaviorofawildanimal.Thereareversionsofthismetaphorforthevariouspassions--desire,anger,etc.Inthecaseofanger,thebeastpresentsadangertootherpeople.ANGERISADANGEROUSANIMAL

-15--Hehasaferocioustemper.-Hehasafiercetemper.

-It’sdangeroustoarousehisanger.-Thatawakenedmyire.-Hisangergrew.

-Hehasamonstroustemper.-Heunleashedhisanger.

-Don’tletyourangergetoutofhand.-Helosthisgriponhisanger.-Hisangerisinsatiable.

AnexamplethatdrawsonboththeFIREandDANGEROUSANIMALmetaphorsis:-Hewasbreathingfire.

Theimagehereisofadragon,adangerousanimalthatcandevouryouwithfire.

TheDANGEROUSANIMALmetaphorportraysangerasasleepinganimalthatitisdangeroustoawaken;assomethingthatcangrowandtherebybecomedangerous;assomethingthathastobeheldback;andassomethingwithadangerousappetite.Herearethecorrespondencesthatconstitutethemetaphor.

Source:DANGEROUSANIMALTarget:ANGER-Thedangerousanimalistheanger.

-Theanimal’sgettinglooseislossofcontrolofanger.-Theownerofthedangerousanimalistheangryperson.-Sleepingfortheanimalisangernearthezerolevel.-Beingawakefortheanimalisangernearthelimit.Source:Itisdangerousforadangerousanimaltobeloose.Target:Itisdangerousforaperson’sangertobeoutofcontrol.

Source:Adangerousanimalissafewhenitissleepinganddangerouswhenitisawake.Target:Angerissafenearthezerolevelanddangerousnearthelimit.

Source:Adangerousanimalissafewhenitisverysmallanddangerouswhenitisgrown.Target:Angerissafenearthezerolevelanddangerousnearthelimit.

Source:Itistheresponsibilityofadangerousanimal’sownertokeepitundercontrol.Target:Itistheresponsibilityofanangrypersontokeephisangerundercontrol.

-16-Source:Itrequiresalotofenergytocontroladangerousanimal.Target:Itrequiresalotofenergytocontrolone’sanger.

Thereisanotherclassofexpressionsthat,asfaraswecantell,areinstancesofthesamemeta-phor.Thesearecasesinwhichangrybehaviorisdescribedintermsofaggressiveanimalbehavior.ANGRYBEHAVIORISAGGRESSIVEANIMALBEHAVIOR-Hewasbristlingwithanger.-Thatgotmyhacklesup.-Hebegantobarehisteeth.-Thatruffledherfeathers.-Shewasbridlingwithanger.-Don’tsnapatme!

-Iwasgrowlingwithrage.-Hestartedsnarling.-Don’tbitemyheadoff!

-Why’dyoujumpdownmythroat?

PerhapsthebestwaytoaccountforthesecaseswouldbetoextendtheontologicalcorrespondencesoftheANGERISADANGEROUSANIMALmetaphortoinclude:-Theaggressivebehaviorofthedangerousanimalisangrybehavior.

Ifwedothis,wecanaccountnaturallyforthefactthattheseexpressionsindicateanger.Theywoulddosoviaacombinationofmetaphorandmetonymy,inwhichtheaggressivebehaviormetaphopri-callycorrespondstoangrybehavior,whichinturnmetonymicallystandsforanger.Forexample,thesnarlingoftheanimalcorrespondstotheangryverbalbehavioroftheperson,whichinturnindicatesthepresenceofanger.

Aggressiveverbalbehaviorisacommonformofangrybehavior,assnap,growl,snarl,etc.indicate.Wecanseethisinanumberofcasesoutsideoftheanimaldomain:AGGRESSIVEVERBALBEHAVIORSTANDSFORANGER-Shegavehimatongue-lashing.-Ireallychewedhimoutgood!

Otherformsofagressivebehaviorcanalsostandmetonymicallyforanger,especiallyaggressivevisualbehavior:

AGGRESSIVEVISUALBEHAVIORSTANDSFORANGER-Shewaslookingdaggersatme.-Hegavemeadirtylook.-Iflookscouldkill,.....-Hewasgloweringatme.

-17-Allthesemetonymicexpressionscanbeusedtoindicateanger.

AsinthecaseoftheOPPONENTmetaphor,ouranalysisoftheDANGEROUSANIMALmetaphorleavesanexpressionunaccountedfor--\"insatiable\".Thisexpressionindicatesthattheanimalhasanappetite.This\"appetite\"seemstocorrespondtothe\"demands\"intheOPPONENTmetaphor,ascanbeseenfromthefactthatthefollowingsentencesentaileachother:-Harry’sangerisinsatiable.

-Harry’sangercannotbeappeased.

Toseewhatitisthatangerdemandsandhasanappetitefor,letusturntoexpressionsthatindi-catecausesofanger.Perhapsthemostcommongroupofexpressionsthatindicateangerconsistsofconventionalizedformsofannoyance:insects,minorpains,burdensplacedondomesticanimals,etc.Thuswehavethemetaphor:

THECAUSEOFANGERISAPHYSICALANNNOYANCE-Stopbuggingme!

-Don’tbeapainintheass.-Getoffmyback!

-Youdon’thavetoridemesohard.-You’regettingundermyskin.-He’sapainintheneck.-Don’tbeapest!

Theseformsofannoyanceinvolveanoffenderandavictim.Theoffenderisatfault.Thevictim,whoisinnocent,istheonewhogetsangry.

Thereisanothersetofconventionalizedexpressionsusedtospeakof,orto,peoplewhoareintheprocessofmakingsomeoneangry.Theseareexpressionsofterritoriality,inwhichthecauseofangerisviewedasatrespasser.CAUSINGANGERISTRESPASSING-You’rebeginningtogettome.-Getoutofhere!-Getoutofmysight!-Leavemealone!

-ThisiswhereIdrawtheline!-Don’tsteponmytoes!

Again,thereisanoffender(thecauseofanger)andavictim(thepersonwhoisgettingangry).Ingeneral,thecauseofangerseemstobeanoffense,inwhichthereisanoffenderwhoisatfaultandaninnocentvictim,whoisthepersonwhogetsangry.Theoffenseseemstoconstitutesomesortofinjustice.Thisisreflectedintheconventionalwisdom:-Don’tgetmad,geteven!

Inorderforthissayingtomakesense,therehastobesomeconnectionbetweenangerandretribu-tion.Gettingevenisaformofbalancingthescalesofjustice.Thesayingassumesamodelinwhich

-18-injusticeleadstoangerandretributioncanalleviateorpreventanger.Inshort,whatanger\"demands\"andhasan\"appetite\"forisrevenge.Thisiswhywarningsandthreatscancountasangrybehavior:

-IfIgetmad,watchout!

-Don’tgetmeangry,oryou’llbesorry.

Theangrybehavioris,initself,viewedasaformofretribution.

Wearenowinapositiontomakesenseofanothermetaphorforanger:ANGERISABURDEN

-Unburdeninghimselfofhisangergavehimasenseofrelief.-AfterIletoutmyanger,Ifeltasenseofrelease.-AfterIlostmytemper,Ifeltlighter.-Hecarrieshisangeraroundwithhim.-Hehasachiponhisshoulder.

-You’llfeelbetterifyougetitoffyourchest.

InEnglish,itiscommonforresponsibilitiestobemetaphorizedasburdens.Therearetwokindsofresponsibilitiesinvolvedinthefolkmodelofangerthathasemergedsofar.Thefirstisaresponsibil-itytocontrolone’sanger.Incasesofextremeanger,thismayplaceaconsiderableburdenonone’s\"innerresources\".Thesecondcomesfromthemodelofretributivejusticethatisbuiltintoourcon-ceptofanger;itistheresponsibilitytoseekvengeance.Whatisparticularlyinterestingisthatthesetworesponsibilitiesareinconflictinthecaseofangryretribution:Ifyoutakeoutyourangeronsomeone,youarenotmeetingyourresponsibilitytocontrolyouranger,andifyoudon’ttakeoutyourangeronsomeone,youarenotmeetingyourresponsibilitytoprovideretribution.Theslogan\"Don’tgetmad,geteven!\"offersonewayout:retributionwithoutanger.Thehumanpotentialmovementprovidesanotherwayoutbysuggestingthatlettingyourangeroutisokay.Butthefactisthatneitherofthesesolutionsistheculturalnorm.Itshouldalsobementionedinpassingthatthehumanpotentialmovement’swayofdealingwithangerbysanctioningitsreleaseisnotallthatrevo-lutionary.Itassumesalmostallofourstandardfolkmodelandmetaphoricalunderstanding,andmakesonechange:sanctioningthe\"release\".

SomeMinorMetaphors

Thereareafewverygeneralmetaphorsthatapplytoangeraswellastomanyotherthings,andarecommonlyusedincomprehendingandspeakingaboutanger.Thefirstwewilldiscusshastodowithexistence.Existenceiscommonlyunderstoodintermsofphysicalpresence.Youaretypicallyawareofsomething’spresenceifitisnearbyandyoucanseeit.Thisisthebasisforthemetaphor:EXISTENCEISPRESENCE-Hisangerwentaway.

-Hisangereventuallycameback.-Myangerlingeredonfordays.-Shecouldn’tgetridofheranger.

-Afterawhile,herangerjustvanished.

-19--Myangerslowlybegantodissipate.

-Whenhesawhersmile,hisangerdisappeared.

Inthecaseofemotions,existenceisoftenconceivedofaslocationinaboundedspace.Heretheemotionistheboundedspaceanditexistswhenthepersonisinthatspace:EMOTIONSAREBOUNDEDSPACES-Sheflewintoarage.

-Shewasinanangrymood.-Hewasinastateofanger.

-Iamnoteasilyrousedtoanger.

Thesecasesarerelativelyindependentoftherestoftheangersystem,andareincludedheremoreforcompletenessthanforprofundity.

ThePrototypeScenario

Themetaphorsandmetonymiesthatwehaveinvestigatedsofarconvergeonacertainproto-typicalcognitivemodelofanger.Itisnottheonlymodelofangerwehave;infact,therearequiteafew.Butasweshallsee,alloftheotherscanbecharacterizedasminimalvariantsofthemodelthatthemetaphorsconvergeon.Themodelhasatemporaldimension,andcanbeconceivedofasascenariowithanumberofstages.Wewillcallthisthe\"prototypescenario\";itissimilartowhatdeSousa(1980)callsthe\"paradigmscenario\".WewillbereferringtothepersonwhogetsangryasS,shortfortheSelf.Stage1:OffendingEvent

ThereisanoffendingeventthatdispleasesS.Thereisawrongdoerwhointentionallydoessome-thingdirectlytoS.ThewrongdoerisatfaultandSisinnocent.TheoffendingeventconstitutesaninjusticeandproducesangerinS.Thescalesofjusticecanonlybebalancedbysomeactofretribu-tion.Thatis,theintensityofretributionmustberoughlyequaltotheintensityofoffense.Shastheresponsibilitytoperformsuchanactofretribution.Stage2:Anger

Associatedwiththeentityangerisascalethatmeasuresitsintensity.Astheintensityofangerincreases,Sexperiencesphysiologicaleffects:increaseinbodyheat,internalpressure,andphysicalagitation.Astheangergetsveryintense,itexertsaforceuponStoperformanactofretribution.Becauseactsofretributionaredangerousand/orsociallyunacceptable,Shasaresponsibilitytocon-trolhisanger.Moreover,lossofcontrolisdamagingtoS’sownwell-being,whichisanothermotivationforcontrollinganger.Stage3:AttemptatControlSattemptstocontrolhisanger.Stage4:Lossofcontrol.

-20-Eachpersonhasacertaintoleranceforcontrollinganger.Thattolerancecanbeviewedasthelimitpointontheangerscale.Whentheintensityofangergoesbeyondthatlimit,Scannolongercontrolhisanger.Sexhibitsangrybehaviorandhisangerforceshimtoattemptanactofretribution.SinceSisoutofcontrolandactingundercoercion,heisnotresponsibleforhisactions.Stage5:ActofRetribution

Sperformstheactofretribution.Thewrongdoeristhetargetoftheact.Theintensityofretributionroughlyequalstheintensityoftheoffenseandthescalesarebalancedagain.Theintensityofangerdropstozero.

Atthispoint,wecanseehowthevariousconceptualmetaphorswehavediscussedallmapontoapartoftheprototypicalscenario,andhowtheyjointlyconvergeonthatscenario.Thisenablesustoshowexactlyhowthevariousmetaphorsarerelatedtooneanother,andhowtheyfunctiontogethertohelpcharacterizeasingleconcept.ThisissomethingthatLakoffandJohnson(1980)wereunabletodo.

Thecourseofangerdepictedintheprototypescenarioisbynomeanstheonlycourseangercantake.Inclaimingthatthescenarioisprototypicalweareclaimingthataccordingtoourculturalfolktheoryofanger,thisisanormalcourseforangertotake.Deviationsofmanykindsarebothrecognizedasexistingandrecognizedasbeingnoteworthyandnotthenorm.Letustakesomeexamples:

-Someonewho\"turnstheothercheekhatis,whodoesnotgetangryorseekretribution.Inthisculture,suchapersonisconsideredvirtuallysaintly.

-Someonewhohasnodifficultycontrollinghisangerisespeciallypraiseworthy.

-A\"hothead\"issomeonewhoconsidersmoreeventsoffensivethanmostpeople,whohasalowerthreshholdforangerthanthenorm,whocannotcontrolhisanger,andwhoseactsofretributionareconsideredoutofproportiontotheoffense.Someonewhoisextremelyhotheadedisconsideredemotionally\"unbalanced\".

Ontheotherhand,someonewhoactsinthemannerdescribedintheprototypicalscenariowouldnotbeconsideredabnormalatall.

Beforeturningtothenonprototypicalcases,itwillbeusefulforustomakearoughsketchoftheontologyofanger:theentities,predicatesandeventsrequired.Thiswillservetwopurposes.Firstitwillallowustoshowindetailhowthenonprototypicalcasesarerelatedtotheprototypicalmodel.Second,itwillallowustoinvestigatethenatureofthisontology.Wewillincludeonlythedetailrequiredforourpurposes.

Itispartofourfolkconceptofapersonthathecantemporarilylosecontrolofhisbodyorhisemotions.ImplicitinthisconceptisaseparationofthebodyandtheemotionsfromtheSelf.Thisseparationisespeciallyimportantintheontologyofanger.Anger,asaseparableentity,canover-comesomeone,takecontrol,andcausehimtoactinwayshewouldnotnormallyact.Insuchcases,theSelfisnolongerincontrolofthebody.Thus,theontologyofangermustincludeaSelf(S),anger(A),andthebody(B).Afullertreatmentwouldprobablyalsorequireviewingthemindasa

-21-separateentity,butthatisbeyondourpresentpurposes.

Sinceangerhasaquantitativeaspect,theontologymustincludeascaleofanger,includinganintensity(I(A)),azeropoint(Z)andalimitpoint(L).Thebasicangerscenarioalsoincludesanoffendingevent(O)andaretributiveact(R).Eachofthesehasaquantitativeaspect,andmustalsoincludeanintensity,azeropointandalimit.Intheprototypicalcase,theoffendingeventisanactiononthepartofawrongdoer(W)againstavictim(V).Theretributiontakestheformofanactbyanagent(A)againstsometarget(T).

Theontologyofangeralsoincludesanumberofpredicates:displeasing(D),atfault(AF),exertforceon(F),cause(C),exist(E),control(CL),dangerous(DR),damaging(DG),balance(B),andoutweigh(OW).Therearealsosomeotherkindsofevents:thephysiologicaleffects(PE);theangrybehaviors(AB);andtheimmediatecauseofanger(IC),incaseitisnotthesameastheoffendingevent.

SUMMARYOFTHEONTOLOGYOFANGERAspectsoftheperson:Self:SBody:BAnger:A

Offenseandretribution:Offendingevent:ORetributiveact:RScalesofintensity:

IntensityofAnger:I(A)IntensityofOffense:I(O)IntensityofRetribution:I(R)Endpoints:Zero:ZLimit:LPredicates:Displease:DAtFault:AFCause:CExist:E

Exertforceon:FControl:CLDangerous:DRDamaging:DG

-22-Balance:BOutweigh:OWOtherevents:

PhysiologicalReactions:PEAngryBehaviors:ABImmediatecause:IC

RestatementofthePrototypicalScenario

Giventheaboveontologyandprinciplesofthefolkmodel,wecanrestatetheprototypicalangerscenariointermsthatwillfacilitateshowingtherelationshipsamongthewidevarietyofangerscenarios.Wewillfirstrestatetheprototypicalscenarioandthengoontothenonprototypicalscenarios.

PROTOTYPICALANGERSCENARIOConstraints:

V=S:Victim=Self

A=S:AgentofRetribution=SelfT=W:TargetofAnger=Wrongdoer

IC=O:ImmediatecauseofAnger=OffendingeventAB=R:Angrybehavior=RetributionStage1:OffendingEvent

O(W,S):WrongdoeroffendsSelfAF(W):Wrongdoerisatfault

D(O,S):TheoffendingeventdispleasesSelf

OW(I(O),I(R)):Theintensityoftheoffenseoutweighstheintensityoftheretribution(whichequalszeroatthispoint),thuscreatinganimbalance.

C(O,E(A)):Theoffensecausesangertocomeintoexistence.Stage2:Anger

E(A):Angerexists.

PE(S):Sexperiencesphysiologicaleffects(heat,pressure,agitation).

F(A,S)SOTHATATTEMPT(S,R):AngerexertsforceontheSelftoattemptanactofretribution.Stage3:Attempttocontrolanger

F(S,A):Sexertsacounterforceinanattempttocontrolanger.Stage4:Lossofcontrol

I(A)>L:Theintensityofangergoesabovethelimit.CL(A,S):AngertakescontrolofS.

-23-AB(S):Sexhibitsangrybehavior(lossofjudgment,aggressiveactions).DG(S):ThereisdamagetoS.

DR(W):Thereisadangertothetargetofanger,inthiscase,thewrongdoer.Stage5:Retribution

R(S,W):SperformsretributiveactagainstW(thisisusuallyangrybehaviordirectedatW).B(I(R),I(O)):Theintensityofretributionbalancestheintensityofoffense.I(A)=Z:Theintensityofangerdropstozero.NOT(E(A)):Angerceasestoexist.THENONPROTOTYPICALCASES

Wearenowinapositiontoshowhowalargerangeofinstancesofangerclusterabouttheaboveprototype.Theexamplesareinthefollowingform:anonprototypicalangerscenariowithitsnameinboldface,followedbyaninformaldescription;anaccountoftheminimaldifferencebetweenthegivenscenarioandtheprototypescenario,firstinEnglish,theninapproximateformalnotation;finally,anexamplesentence.

InsatiableAnger:Youperformtheactofretributionandtheangerjustdoesn’tgoaway.Instage5,theintensityofangerstaysabovezeroandtheangercontinuestoexist.Stage5:I(A)>ZandE(A).Example:Hisangerlingeredon.

FrustratedAnger:Youjustcan’tgetbackatthewrongdoerandyougetfrustrated.

Itisnotpossibletogainretributionfortheoffensiveact.Sengagesinfrustratedbehavior.Option:Sdirectshisangerathimself.

Stage5:NOTPOSSIBLE(R(S,W)).AB(S):ACTSOFFRUSTRATION.Option:T=S,R(S,S).Examples:Hewasclimbingthewalls.Shewastearingherhairout.Hewasbanginghisheadagainstthewall.He’stakingitoutonhimself.

RedirectedAnger:Insteadofdirectingyourangeratthepersonwhomadeyouangry,youdirectitatsomeoneorsomethingelse.

Thetargetofangerisnotthewrongdoer.Stage5:NOT(T=W).

Examples:WhenIlosemytemper,Ikickthecat.Whenyougetangry,punchapillowuntilyourangergoesaway.Whensomethingbadhappenedattheoffice,hewouldtakeitoutonhiswife.

-24-ExaggeratedResponse:Yourreactioniswayoutofproportiontotheoffense.Theintensityofretributionoutweighstheintensityofoffense.Stage5:OW(I(R),I(O)).

Examples:Whyjumpdownmythroat?Youhavearighttogetangry,butnottogothatfar.ControlledResponse:Yougetangry,butretaincontrolandconsciouslydirectyourangeratthewrongdoer.

Sremainsincontrol.Everythingelseremainsthesame.Stage4:CL(S,A).

Example:Heventedhisangeronher.

Constructiveuse:Insteadofattemptinganactofretribution,youputyourangertoaconstructiveuse.

Sremainsincontrolandperformsaconstructiveactinsteadofaretributiveact.Thescalesremainunbalanced,buttheangerdisappears.

Stage4:CL(S,A).Stage5:CONSTRUCTIVEACTinplaceofR(S,T).OW(I(O),I(R)).Example:Trytochannelyourangerintosomethingconstructive.

Terminatingevent:Beforeyouhaveachancetolosecontrol,someunrelatedeventhappenstomakeyourangerdisappear.

Angerdoesn’ttakecontrolofS.Someeventcausestheangertogooutofexistence.Stage4:NOT(CL(A,S)).ThereisaneventesuchthatNOT(e=R)andCL(e,(NOT(E(A))).Example:Whenhisdaughtersmiledathim,hisangerdisappeared.Spontaneouscessation:Beforeyoulosecontrol,yourangerjustgoesaway.Angerdoesn’ttakecontrolofSandtheintensityofangergoestozero.Stage4:NOT(CL(A,S)andI(A)=Z.Example:Hisangerjustwentawaybyitself.

Successfulsuppression:Yousuccessfullysuppressyouranger.

-25-Skeepscontrolandtheintensityofangerisnotnearthelimit.Stage4:CL(S,A)andI(A)ISNOTNEARL.Example:Hesuppressedhisanger.

Controlledreduction:Beforeyoulosecontrol,youengageinangrybehaviorandtheintensityofangergoesdown.

Sdoesnotlosecontrol,Sengagesinangrybehaviorandtheintensityofangergoesdown.Stage4:NOT(CL(A,S))andAB(S)andI(A)GOESDOWN.Example:He’sjustlettingoffsteam.

Immediateexplosion:Yougetangryandlosecontrolallatonce.NoStage3.Stages2and4combineintoasingleevent.Example:Isaid\"HiRoundeyes!\"andheblewup.SlowBurn:Angercontinuesforalongtime.Stage2lastsalongtime.

Example:Hewasdoingaslowburn.

Nursingagrudge:Smaintainshisangerforalongperiodwaitingforachanceataretributiveact.Maintainingthatlevelofangertakesspecialeffort.

Stage2lastsalongtimeandrequireseffort.Theretributiveactdoesnotequalangrybehavior.Don’tgetmad,geteven:Thisisadvice(rarelyfollowed)aboutthepointlessnessofgettingangry.Itsuggestsavoidingstages2,3,and4,andinsteadgoingdirectlytostage5.Thisadviceisdefinedasanalternativetotheprototypicalscenario.

IndirectCause:Itissomeresultofthewrongdoer’saction,nottheactionitself,thatcausesanger.Theoffenseisnottheimmediatecauseofanger,butratherthecauseoftheimmediatecause.Stage1:NOT(O=IC)andCAUSE(O,IC).

Example:Yoursecretraryforgetstofilloutaformthatresultsinyournotgettingadeservedpromo-tion.O=secretaryforgetstofilloutform.IC=youdon’tgetpromotion.Youareangryaboutnot

-26-gettingthepromotion.Youareangryatthesecretaryfornotfillingouttheform.Ingeneral,aboutmarkstheimmediatecause,atmarksthetarget,andformarkstheoffense.Coolanger:TherearenophysiologicaleffectsandSremainsincontrol.

Angerwith:Tobeangrywithsomeone,ShastohaveapositiverelationshipwiththewrongdoerW,WmustbeanswerabletoS,theintensityisabovethethreshholdbutnotnearthelimit.Perhapsthebestexampleisaparent-childrelationship,wheretheparentisangrywiththechild.

Righteousindignation:OisamoraloffenseandthevictimisnotS.Theintensityofangerisnotnearthelimit.

Wrath:Theintensityoftheoffenseisverygreatandmanyactsofretributionarerequiredinordertocreateabalance.Theintensityoftheangeriswellabovethelimitandtheangerlastsalongtime.Thereappearstobearecognizeableformofangerforwhichtherearenoconventionallinguisticexpressions,sofaraswecantell.Wewillcallthisamanipulativeuseofanger.Itisacasewhereapersoncultivateshisangeranddoesnotattempttocontrolit,withtheeffectthatheintimidatesthosearoundhimintofollowinghiswishesinordertokeephimfromgettingangry.Thiscanworkeitherbyfearorbyguilt.Thepeoplemanipulatedcaneitherbeafraidofhisangerormayfeelguiltyaboutwhatangerdoestohim.Thisformofangerisfairlydistantfromtheprototypeanditisnosurprisethatwehavenonameforit.

Interestinglyenough,thereisalinguistictestthatcanbeusedtoverifythatwhatwehavecalledtheprototypicalscenarioisindeedprototypical.Itinvolvestheuseofthewordbut.Considerthefollowingexamples(wheretheasteriskindicatesasemanticaberration):-Maxgotangry,buthedidn’tblowhistop.-*Maxgotangry,butheblewhistop.

-Maxblewupathisboss,buttheangerdidn’tgoaway.-*Maxblewupathisboss,buttheangerwentaway.

-Samgotmeangry,butitwasn’thimthatItookmyangerouton.-*Samgotmeangry,butitwashimthatItookmyangerouton.

Thewordbutmarksasituationcountertoexpectation.Intheseexamples,theprototypicalscenariodefineswhatistobeexpected.Theacceptablesentenceswithbutruncountertotheprototypicalscenario,andthusfittheconditionsfortheuseofbut.Theunacceptablesentencesfittheprototypi-calscenario,anddefineexpectedsituations.Thisisincompatiblewiththeuseofbut.Thuswehavealinguistictestthataccordswithourintuitionsaboutwhatisorisn’tprototypical.

Eachofthenonprototypicalcasescitedaboveisacaseinvolvinganger.Thereappeartobenonecessaryandsufficientconditionsthatwillfitallthesecases.However,theycanallbeseenasvari-antsoftheprototypicalangerscenario.Prototypesofteninvolveclustersofconditionsandtheproto-typicalangerscenarioisnoexception.Theclusteringcanbeseenexplicitlyinidentityconditionssuchas:V=S,T=W,O=IC,etc.Whentheseidentitiesdonothold,wegetnonprototypicalcases.Forexample,withrighteousindignation,VdoeshavetoequalS.Inthecaseofanindirectcause,O

-27-doesnotequalIC.Inthecaseofredirectedanger,TdoesnotequalW.Usuallytheactofretributionandthedisappearanceofangergotogether,butinthecaseofspontaneouscessationandinsatiableanger,thatisnotthecase.AndintheDon’t-get-mad-get-evencase,angrybehaviorisavoided,andisthereforenotidenticaltotheactofretribution.Partofwhatmakestheprototypicalscenarioproto-typicalisthatitissufficientlyrichsothatvariationsonitcanaccountfornonprototypicalcases,anditalsohasaconflationofconditionswhicharenotconflatedinnonprototypicalcases.

Thepointisthatthereisnosingleunifiedcognitivemodelofanger.Insteadthereisacategoryofcognitivemodelswithaprototypicalmodelinthecenter.Thissuggeststhatitisamistaketotrytofindasinglecognitivemodelforallinstancesofaconcept.Kindsofangerarenotallinstancesofthesamemodel;insteadtheyarevariantsonaprototypicalmodel.Thereisnocommoncorethatallkindsofangerhaveincommon.Instead,thekindsofangerbearfamilyresemblancestooneanother.

MetaphoricalAspectsofthePrototypeScenario

Theanalysiswehavedonesofarisconsistentwithacertaintraditionalviewofmetaphor,namely:

-Theconceptofangerexistsandisunderstoodindependentlyofanymetaphors.

-Theangerontologyandthecategoryofscenariosrepresenttheliteralmeaningoftheconceptofanger.

-Metaphorsdonomorethanprovidewaysoftalkingabouttheontologyofanger.Thisviewentailsthefollowing:

-Theelementsoftheangerontologyreally,literallyexist,independentofanymetaphors.

Abriefexaminationoftheangerontologyrevealsthatthisissimplynotthecase.Intheontol-ogy,angerexistsasanindependententity,capableofexertingforceandcontrollingaperson.ThisiswhatLakoffandJohnson(1980)refertoasan\"ontologicalmetaphor\".Inthiscase,itwouldbetheANGERISANENTITYmetaphor.Aperson’sangerdoesnotreally,literallyexistasanindepen-dententity,thoughwedocomprehenditmetaphoricallyassuch.Intheontology,thereisaninten-sityscaleforanger,whichisunderstoodasbeingorientedUP,byvirtueoftheMOREISUPmeta-phor.Theintensityscalehasalimitassociatedwithit--anotherontologicalmetaphor.Angerisunderstoodasbeingcapableofexertingforceandtakingcontrolofaperson.TheFORCEandCONTROLherearealsometaphorical,basedonphysicalforceandphysicalcontrol.Theangerontologyalsoborrowscertainelementsfromtheontologyofretributivejustice:offenseandretribu-tion,withtheirscalesofintensityandtheconceptofbalance.Thesearealsometaphorical,withmetaphoricalBALANCEbasedonphysicalbalance.Inshort,theangerontologyislargelyconsti-tutedbymetaphor.

Letusnowexaminetheseconstitutivemetaphors.Theirsourcedomains--ENTITY,INTEN-SITY,LIMIT,FORCE,andCONTROL--allseemtobesuperordinateconcepts,thatisconceptsthatarearefairlyabstract.Bycontrast,theprincipalmetaphorsthatmapontotheangerontology--HOTFLUID,INSANITY,FIRE,BURDEN,STRUGGLE--appeartobebasic-levelconcepts,thatis,conceptsthatarelinkedmoredirectlytoexperience,conceptsthatareinformation-richandrichin

-28-conventionalmentalimagery.Letuscallthemetaphorsbasedonsuchconcepts\"basic-levelmeta-phors\".Wewouldliketosuggestthatmostofourunderstandingofangercomesviathesebasic-levelmetaphors.TheHOTFLUIDandFIREmetaphorsgiveusanunderstandingofwhatkindofentityangeris.AndtheSTRUGGLEmetaphorgivesusasenseofwhatisinvolvedincontrollingit.Withoutthesemetaphors,ourunderstandingofangerwouldbeextremelyimpoverished,tosaytheleast.Oneistemptedtoaskwhichismoreprimary:theconstitutivemetaphorsorthebasic-levelones.Wedon’tknowifthatisameaningfulquestion.Allweknowisthatbothexist,andhavetheirseparatefunctions:Thebasic-levelmetaphorsallowustocomprehendanddrawinferencesaboutanger,usingourknowledgeoffamiliar,well-structureddomains.Theconstitutivemetaphorspro-videthebulkoftheangerontology.

Conclusion

WehaveshownthattheexpressionsthatindicateangerinAmericanEnglisharenotarandomcollectionbutratherarestructuredintermsofanelaboratecognitivemodelthatisimplicitinthesemanticsofthelanguage.Thisindicatesthatangerisnotjustanamorphousfeeling,butratherthatithasanelaboratecognitivestructure.Moreover,ifRosaldo’s(1980)accountofangeramongtheIlongotiscorrect,itwouldfollowthatthecognitivemodelofangerimplicitinEnglishisanythingbutuniversal.

However,verysignificantproblemsandquestionsremain.

-First,thereareaspectsofourunderstandingofangerthatourmethodologycannotshedanylighton.Take,forexample,therangeofoffensesthatcauseangerandthecorrespondingrangeofappropriateresponses.Ourmethodologyrevealsnothinginthisarea.

-Second,studyofthelanguageasawholegivesusnoguidetoindividualvariation.Wehavenoideahowcloseanyindividualcomestothemodelwehaveuncovered,andwehavenoideahowpeopledifferfromoneanother.

-Third,ourmethodologydoesnotenableustosaymuchabouttheexactpsychologicalstatusofthemodelwehaveuncovered.Howmuchofitdopeoplereallyuseincomprehendinganger?Dopeo-plebasetheiractionsonthismodel?Arepeopleawareofthemodel?Howmuchofit,ifany,dopeopleconsciouslybelieve?Andmostintriguingly,doesthemodelhaveanyeffectonwhatpeoplefeel?

Certainthings,however,doseemtobeclear.MostspeakersofAmericanEnglishseemtousetheexpressionswehavedescribedconsistentlyandmakeinferencesthatappear,sofaraswecantell,tobeconsistentwithourmodel.Wemakethisclaimonthebasisofourownintuitiveobservations,thoughtoreallyestablishit,onewouldhavetodothoroughempiricalstudies.Ifweareright,ourmodelhasconsiderablepsychologicalreality,buthowmuchandwhatkindremainstobedetermined.

-29-REFERENCES

DeSousa,Ronald.1980.TheRationalityofEmotions.InRorty,A.O.(ed.)ExplainingEmotions,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Lakoff,GeorgeandMarkJohnson.1980.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.UniversityofChicagoPress.Lakoff,George.1982.CategoriesandCognitiveModels.ReportNo.2,CognitiveScienceProgram,UniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley.

Rosaldo,Michelle.1980.KnowledgeandPassion.CambridgeUniversityPress.