Masharipov jahongir axmedovich conceptual analysis of the components of metaphor with the elements of mentality in english and uzbek

successful exchange
 each person is enhanced so that each is more
complete, more autonomous, and more self-aware than before. Rather

---

68 
than becoming 
part of a whole, a couple, whose meaning is complete
only when both are together
, each person becomes stronger; each 
gains 
 
the skills he was without and, thus strengthened, is 
more "whole."
 If we
enter love relationships to complete the missing sides of ourselves, then
in some sense when the 
exchange
 is successful we have learned to get
along without the capacities the other person had 
supplied
. (Bellah et al.
1988, p. 119)
In the passage, as in the two metaphors, love is viewed in two possible ways: 
In one, there are two parts and only the unity of the two makes them a whole. This 
essence of the traditional conception of love, was recognized but not accepted by, 
for instance, Margaret Fuller as early as 1843. The second more recent metaphor 
takes two wholes that are each not as complete as they could be, but in the process 
of the exchange they both become stronger, complete wholes. In Swidler's words: 
"The emerging view of love ... emphasizes exchange. What is valuable about a 
relationship is 'what one gets out of it'" (p. 119). Apparently, the exchange 
metaphor has become a prevalent metaphor in American mentality. This does not 
mean, however, that the unity metaphor is completely forgotten. There are many 
people in the United States who still use the unity metaphor as well. [21; 193] 
Broader Context
But why did all these changes occur in the conceptualization of anger, 
friendship, and love in American mentality? The explanation comes from 
nonlinguistic studies of the broader context.
Anger
As Peter Stearns notes in connection with Victorian emotionology, anger 
was not a permissible emotion in the home, but, for men, it was actually 
encouraged at the workplace and in the world of politics. Women were supposed 
to be "anger-free," and men, while calm at home, were expected to make good use 
of their anger for purposes of competition with others and for the sake of certain 
moral ends. But why did this "channeled anger" give way to the ideal of "anger-
free" people or to the ideal of suppressing anger under all circumstances? Why did 

---

69 
anger become a completely negative emotion? There were a variety of specific 
reasons, as Stearns argues, including the following:
New levels of concern about anger and aggression followed in part from 
perceptions of heightened crime, including juvenile delinquency, and the results of 
untrammeled aggression in Nazism and then renewed world war. It was difficult, 
in this context, to view channeled anger as a safe or even useful emotional 
motivation. (1994, p. 195)
As a result, the attacks on any form of anger, which started around the 
1920s, continued throughout the Depression period and the Second World War, 
leading to a global rejection of the emotion by the 1960s in mainstream culture. 
The new metaphoric image that became prevalent was that of the "pressure cooker 
waiting to explode." This fully mechanical metaphor depicted anger as something 
completely independent of the rational self, the angry person as incapable of any 
rational judgment, and the resulting angry behavior as extremely dangerous. The 
process (that started in the eighteenth century) of the separation of the emotion 
from the self and the body, that is, the "mechanization" of anger, was now 
completed.