Article Sidebar
Published:
Jul 20, 2023Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All issues of Conspectus are open access, implying that they are available for download at no cost from https://sats.ac.za/conspectus/. Subscription fees and embargo periods do not apply, and readers and authors are allowed to freely share the links and content. Readers can read, print, share, link, or use articles without the permission of the Editorial Team or authors.
Once an article is published in the journal, copyright is transferred to SATS. Conspectus is protected by Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), as stipulated here.
After publication, authors are entitled to:
- share their work on any chosen platform (including conferences and educational purposes),
- expand and edit the article for a thesis or dissertation, and
- republish the article elsewhere, provided the new publisher is made aware of the former publication. In addition, the republished article must include a citation of the original article in Conspectus.
Main Article Content
Metaphoric and Metonymic Conceptualization of the Nose in Hebrew and Twi
Abstract
This paper examines the metaphorical and metonymic structure of the “nose” in Biblical Hebrew and Twi, a Kwa language spoken in Ghana, West Africa. The study is done within the framework of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory propounded by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). The aim is to analyze the ways in which the body part ף ַא) nose) is used in the Hebrew Bible to express human experiences, and to compare them with their translations in the Akuapem Twi Bible (ATB 1964). The data reveal that there are some striking crossconceptual and cross-linguistic similarities and differences between Hebrew and the Twi language with respect to the metaphorical and metonymic conceptualization of anger in relation to the locus of emotion. While Biblical Hebrew locates anger in the nose, Twi locates it in the chest. The Biblical Hebrew term for “nose,” ף ַא also refers to the “face,” the “eyebrow,” and the “whole person” in various contexts. The difference in the language-specific conceptualization may be attributed to the cultural model embedded in the two languages.
