METAPHORIZATION OF THE CONCEPT OF THOUGHT IN OKSANA ZABUZHKO’S LITERARY TEXTS: A CORPUS-BASED APPROACH
Abstract
The article presents a cognitive analysis of the metaphorization of the concept of THOUGHT in the prose of Oksana Zabuzhko in comparison with the texts of her female contemporaries and male contemporaries. The theoretical framework is grounded in cognitive metaphor theory, which conceptualizes metaphor as a fundamental mechanism of experience conceptualization and categorization, structuring thought and reflecting mental representations. The methodological design integrates qualitative analysis of metaphorical contexts with corpus-based procedures, including the examination of the frequency and distribution of collocations involving verbalizers of the concept. The findings demonstrate that across all subcorpora the most productive model is the ontological metaphor THOUGHT IS AN OBJECT, which construes thinking as a material entity subject to physical and mental operations (collecting, rejecting, cherishing, devaluing, controlling). In Zabuzhko’s prose, this model is characterized by an intensified degree of figurative concretization: thought is represented as an object of laboratory analysis, as something that can be chewed or eaten, and as a phenomenon capable of eliciting bodily reactions. The second most frequent model, THOUGHT IS A BEING, foregrounds the autonomy and quasi-agential status of thinking. In Zabuzhko’s texts, thought is often depicted as a hidden, dormant, or concealed entity, whereas in the prose of her contemporaries it more frequently acquires features of activity, dynamism, or aggressiveness (thought beats, visits, scratches, cherishes). Less productive but semantically significant models have also been identified, including THOUGHT IS LIGHT, A CONTAINER, A LIQUID/SUBSTANCE, A TEXT, A PLANT, and AN INSTRUMENT. Their realization indicates the sensory, embodied, and intersubjective dimensions of thinking as represented in literary discourse. The comparative analysis reveals both the shared cognitive trajectories of metaphorization across authors and the distinctive specificity of Zabuzhko’s idiolect, manifested in the contamination and interaction of metaphorical models, a high degree of figurative elaboration, and individual authorial transformations.
References
2. Deignan A. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005. 245 p.
3. Holyoak K. J., Stamenković D. Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence // Psychological Bulletin. 2018. Vol. 144, No. 6. P. 641–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000145
4. Кінащук А. Метафоричне моделювання семантики ірраціональної лексики ( на матеріалі української, англійської та німецької мов). Науковий журнал Львівського державного університету безпеки життєдіяльності «Львівський філологічний часопис». № 9, 2021. C. 101–110. https://doi.org/10.32447/2663-340X-2021-9.15
5. Kövecses Z. Metaphor: A practical introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2010. 375 p.
6. Lakoff G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor // Ortony A. (Ed.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. P. 202–251.
7. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1980. 243 p.
8. Langacker R. W. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 562 p.
9. Lototska N. Metaphorical models of the concept of anger in R. Ivanychuk’s idiolect // Лінгвістичні студії. 2022. P. 87–100. https://doi.org/10.31558/1815-3070.2022.44.6
10. Turner M. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 183p.
11. Weng L. Analysis on metaphor of sky based on corpus // Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences. 2024. Vol. 4, No. 2. P. 107–112. https://doi.org/10.54691/7hmzxt14
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
ISSN 
.png)
