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

2.3.
 
Alternative Conceptual Metaphors 
Friendship
The conceptual metaphors for a given emotion can change through time with 
particular mentality. For example, in Victorian times what we would identify today 

---

67 
as romantic love was part of the concept of friendship between males. This came 
through clearly in the contemporary letters and journals that Peter Stearns studied: 
"In letters and journals they described themselves as 'fervent lovers' and wrote of 
their 'deep and burning affection'" (p. 81-82). In general, the fire metaphor 
characterizes passions, like romantic love, while affection today is more commonly 
thought of in terms of warmth than (the heat of) fire. Indeed, in some interviews 
my students conducted in the United States, where people talked about love in 
relation to friendship, it was always a more subdued, less intense form of love 
(affection) conceptualized as warmth that occurred. This change shows that a 
metaphor that was conventionally associated with male friendship as fire (through 
love) for the Victorians was dropped and replaced by a metaphorical source 
domain (warmth) indicating less intensity. [21;193] 
Love
Alternative conceptual metaphors may also be available for a given emotion 
simultaneously in a certain mentality. This seems to be the case with two very 
prevalent metaphors of love today: love is a unity and love is an economic 
exchange. Importantly, these are the two metaphors that play a central role in the 
constitution of two major mentality models of love: "ideal love" and "typical love." 
The ideal version of love is mainly characterized by the unity metaphor, whereas 
the typical version mainly by economic exchange. The ideal version reflects more 
traditional ideas about love, while the typical model more recent ones. Stearns 
notes in this connection that after the Victorian period "[t]he sexual emphasis also 
tended, if only implicitly, to highlight the rewards an individual should get from a 
relationship rather than the higher unity of the relationship itself" (p. 173). 
Obviously, talk about "higher unity" and "the rewards an individual should get 
from a relationship" correspond to the unity and exchange metaphors, respectively. 
In her study of American love in the 1970s, Ann Swidler reaches a similar 
conclusion:
In a