Linguistic synesthesia is metaphorical: a lexical-conceptual account

2.1 The metaphorical account

Many previous studies have posited that linguistic synesthesia, also referred to as “synesthetic metaphor,” is a particular type of metaphor (Strik Lievers 2017). For instance, Shen (1997), Yu (2003), and Popova (2005) regard linguistic synesthesia as a type of metaphor within a CMT-based approach. They postulate that concepts in linguistic synesthesia are mapped from more embodied to less embodied domains. Popova (2005: 416), for example, suggested that embodiment was realized “at its strongest, in touch,” when considering the scalarity and subjective evaluations involved in perceptions. Thus, the conceptualization of perceptual experiences in vision and hearing through concepts from touch illustrated the mapping from the more embodied to the less embodied. Strik Lievers (2017) argues that linguistic synesthesia is a kind of metaphor that features the conceptual conflict between separate sensory concepts involved, where our consistent conceptual structures are challenged and a consistent link between the different conceptual areas cannot be identified.

However, there are characteristics of linguistic synesthesia attested by previous research, which might pose a challenge to the metaphorical account of linguistic synesthesia. For instance, Ullmann (1957), Strik Lievers (2015), and Zhao et al. (2019a) found that linguistic synesthesia showed biased directional tendencies based on frequency (i.e., asymmetries in one transfer direction than the reverse direction), rather than an absolute unidirectionality (i.e., without the reverse direction). These biased directional tendencies of linguistic synesthesia are not predicted by theories based on conventional conceptual metaphors mapping from the more embodied to the less embodied, as understood in CMT.^[2] Zhao (2020) took a more expansive corpus-based approach and suggested that there was a relationship between linguistic synesthesia and metaphor; however, except for proposing the ideas of degree of embodiment and embodied types, the study did not provide further details on how a theory of metaphor could account for linguistic synesthesia.

2.2 The non-metaphorical account

The non-metaphorical accounts are derived from two very different positions. The first is that linguistic synesthesia patterns with neurological synesthesia and follows the same neuro-biological constraints. Ramachandran and Hubbard (2001) and Cacciari (2008) propose that both linguistic synesthesia and neurological synesthesia follow directionality tendencies that are the result of biological constraints (e.g., the direction from hearing to vision observed in both types of synesthesia). In addition, Asano and Yokosawa (2012) and Hung et al. (2014) found that neurological synesthesia exhibited similar patterns among people speaking different languages. In terms of linguistic synesthesia, Williams (1976) suggested the proposal of a cross-linguistic universality of the transfer tendencies of linguistic synesthesia. Thus, the lack of variations in different languages and cultures for neurological synesthesia and linguistic synesthesia seems to provide another parallel between the two phenomena at first glance, although the pattern does not contradict the metaphorical account. However, as pointed out by Winter (2019a), the position of the commonalities of linguistic synesthesia with neurological synesthesia is mainly based on the exploration of specific sensory associations or selective observations, rather than on systematic comparisons.

The second non-metaphorical account argues that synesthetic usages of adjectives are simply part of their literal meanings. Rakova (2003) argues for a no-polysemy view for linguistic synesthesia. For example, she proposed that all instances of the adjective hot involved a single “psychologically primitive concept” hot, as the mechanisms of transduction for temperature and spicy taste overlapped in the brain (Rakova 2003: 149). In line with Rakova (2003), Paradis and Eeg-Olofsson (2013: 38) described expressions such as sharp flavor as “synesthetic metonymization,” and postulated that the adjective sharp used for vision, smell, taste, and touch was monosemous. However, a polysemous test can be applied into most synesthetic adjectives.^[3] For instance, Mandarin adjective 鮮 xiān ‘tasty’ can be used in the pattern of “This is X, but not X,” such as 這肉是鮮的，但是不鮮 zhè ròu shì xiān de, dànshì bù xiān ‘The meat is fresh, but not tasty.’ In addition, there is no evidence suggesting overlapping mechanisms, for instance, to represent the concepts of fresh and tasty in the brain, to the best of our knowledge. Winter (2019b: 107) argues that linguistic synesthesia involves either highly integrated sensory modalities or performs evaluative functions, both of which indicate the “highly multisensory or supramodal meanings” of sensory items. Thus, Winter (2019a, 2019b) argues that the cross-modal usages of lexical items should be considered as literal rather than metaphorical. For instance, Winter (2019b) considered the expression sweet fragrance to be the literal usage of sweet, as taste and smell were regarded to be integrated parts of the same sensory modality in his model. In terms of the expressions involving associations between “dissimilar modalities” (e.g., the association between taste and hearing in sweet melody), Winter (2019b: 122) has argued that these usages “simply follow from word-inherent evaluative meaning.”

2.3 Research questions

Careful review of the different positions on the nature of linguistic synesthesia reveals that linguistic synesthesia is being viewed from different perspectives by different researchers. The neurological account presupposes the biological reality of the five senses and the neuro-cognitive processes of the sense modalities. Given this presupposition, the neurological account generally focuses on the actual neuro-cognitive relations between sensory modalities. However, the metaphorical account and the literal account take a different perspective, focusing on specific lexical items involved in linguistic synesthesia. Take sweet voice for example. The metaphorical account suggests that the concept of sweet is mapped from the gustatory domain to the auditory domain. However, the literal account hypothesizes that there is no basic meaning of sweet in five sensory modalities, and the auditory usage of sweet conveys a positive evaluation and thus is the literal meaning.^[4]

It is interesting that the starkly different premises between the account focusing on the relations of sensory modalities and the account focusing on the relations of lexical meanings for linguistic synesthesia were not explicitly recognized or reconciled in previous studies. We maintain that the lack of consensus and clear stipulation of the levels involved in linguistic synesthesia has partly contributed to the lack of agreement about the nature of linguistic synesthesia. For example, Strik Lievers (2017) argues for linguistic synesthesia as a type of metaphor that involves the conceptual conflict between sensory concepts denoted by lexical items. In contrast with Strik Lievers (2017) focusing on lexical items and their associated concepts, Ronga et al. (2012) viewed linguistic synesthesia from the perspective of the relations between sensory modalities and found parallels between linguistic synesthesia and neurophysiological interactions among different sensory stimuli. Thus, viewing linguistic synesthesia at different levels has resulted in competing accounts, as argued by Strik Lievers et al. (2021).

Given the different perspectives adopted by the different accounts for linguistic synesthesia, this study examines the relations between lexical meanings of words used in linguistic synesthesia to test the metaphorical account and the literal account, while focusing on the relations between sensory modalities involved in linguistic synesthesia to test the neurological account. Thus, the first research question of this study is whether there is a basic meaning for lexical items used in linguistic synesthesia.^[5] That is, a metaphorical account would be supported if the basic meanings can be identified for lexical items used in linguistic synesthesia; otherwise, a literal account would be corroborated.

A semantic analysis of words and their associated concepts involved is typically employed to examine linguistic realizations of conceptual metaphors (e.g., Bagli 2016, 2017; Lakoff and Johnson 1980). By adopting such a lexical-conceptual perspective, Ahrens (2002, 2010 proposed a model that is compatible with the CMT framework to account for the underlying reasons for the source-target pairings of a conceptual metaphor. Specifically, the underlying reason why a particular target domain has selected a particular source domain (i.e., the Mapping Principle termed by Ahrens 2002, 2010) may be postulated through analyzing the lexical items that are frequently mapped or not mapped from the source domain to the target domain. In addition, for a target domain, it selects lexical items and their associated concepts from different source domains based on different Mapping Principles (MPs) (Ahrens 2002, 2010). For example, when infant is mapped to idea, the notion of creation is at the forefront of the lexical items mapped (e.g., 一個偉大的想法終於誕生了 yīgè wěidà de xiǎngfǎ zhōngyú dànshēng le ‘A great idea is finally being born.’), while when building is mapped to idea, the lexical items related to structure are paramount (e.g., 建構一套理論 jiàngòu yītào lǐlùn ‘to construct a theory’) in Mandarin Chinese (Ahrens 2002).

In terms of linguistic synesthesia, a number of studies have found that sensory modalities involved are embodied conceptual domains whereby different experiences (e.g., flavor, scent, sight, sound, temperature, etc.) are processed directly from our sensory organs to our brain (Bagli 2021; Kövecses 2019; Popova 2005; Sweetser 1990). For instance, Kövecses (2019) showed elaborate conceptual dimensions for smell, such as existence, intensity, and lack of control. Similarly, Bagli (2021) suggested complex conceptual structures involved in taste, on which versatile conceptual mappings can be based, such as harmony is sweet and discordance is sour. Thus, the second research question that this current study aims to explore is whether linguistic synesthesia shows similarities with conceptual metaphors based on a lexical-conceptual perspective compatible with the CMT framework. Therefore, for instance, in comparison with conceptual metaphors, instances of linguistic synesthesia are compared to individual linguistic metaphors (such as The path of life is never easy in the conceptual metaphor life is a journey), and the sensory modalities to conceptual domains (such as the conceptual domains of life and journey).

The lexical-conceptual approach taken by the current study also allows for the examination of the relations between sensory modalities. That is, the aggregation of all lexical items in one sensory domain can be employed to examine the relation among the five sensory modalities in linguistic synesthesia (such as the general transfer patterns of linguistic synesthesia between sensory modalities in Figures 1 and 2). Thus, a neurological account for linguistic synesthesia can also be tested at the same time.

To summarize, the research questions of this study are: (1) whether the lexical items with linguistic synesthetic usages show basic meanings, in line with the assumption of the metaphorical account; (2) if yes, whether linguistic synesthesia has patterns of mapping between sensory domains on par with those found in source-target pairings in conceptual metaphors, based on a lexical-conceptual perspective compatible with the CMT framework; and (3) whether a lexical-conceptual account captures aspects of linguistic synesthesia that are previously only accounted for by non-metaphorical accounts.

3.1 Sensory distributions of Mandarin synesthetic adjectives

Zhao (2020) previously identified 199 Mandarin adjectives with synesthetic usages in a balanced corpus (i.e., the Sinica corpus, Chen et al. 1996).^[6] The study also summarized specific distributions for each adjective in its non-original sensory modalities. For instance, the gustatory adjective 甜 tián ‘sweet’ is used for vision with 15 tokens, for smell with 13 tokens, for hearing with eight tokens, but with no instance for the tactile modality (Zhao 2020: 135).

This current study took the 199 Mandarin adjectives identified by Zhao (2020) and collected the sensory usages of these adjectives in their original sensory modalities in the same corpus as utilized by Zhao (2020) (i.e., the Sinica corpus). We followed Pragglejaz Group (2007) and Zhao et al. (2019a) to ask no fewer than two annotators to check each of the expressions of the 199 adjectives. In addition, controversial instances were discussed to reach a consensus; if none was reached, they were not included in this study. Through this method, we identified 27,584 token examples for the 199 Mandarin sensory adjectives. For instance, there are 519 tactile token examples found for the adjective 冷 lěng ‘cold,’ whose original meaning conceptualized the tactile perception in ancient Chinese (see Zhao 2020). Sensory distributions of all the 199 Mandarin sensory adjectives in five modalities can be found at https://osf.io/rgv3y/.

Based on the sensory distribution of the 199 adjectives, we find that different sensory meanings of Mandarin synesthetic adjectives show varying frequencies of usages. However, for most of the adjectives, their original sensory meanings are still the most frequently used. As shown in Table 1, these adjectives take up 74.9% (149/199) of all the Mandarin synesthetic adjectives, with 26,434 token examples found in the Sinica corpus (e.g., the etymologically tactile adjective 滑 huá ‘smooth’ with 77 usages for touch, two usages for vision, one usage for smell, but no usage for taste and hearing). In terms of the adjectives whose original sensory meanings are not the most frequently used in Mandarin, they occupy 25.1% (50/199) of all the Mandarin synesthetic adjectives with 1,150 token examples (e.g., the etymologically tactile adjective 粗 cū ‘rough’ with 133 instances for vision, 40 instances for touch, seven instances for hearing, but no instance for taste and smell). Pragglejaz Group (2007) and Hanks (2013) argue that frequent meanings are not necessarily equal to basic meanings for lexical items. However, the significant consistency between the original sensory meaning and the most frequently used sensory meaning, especially when considered as being complementary to additional analyses given in the following sub-sections, appears to support the argument for the basicness of the original meanings for Mandarin sensory adjectives.

3.2 Perceptual strength of Mandarin sensory adjectives

Empirical studies have been conducted on the modality exclusivity norms of sensory words in different languages, such as English (Lynott and Connell 2009, 2013; Lynott et al. 2020), Dutch (Speed and Brysbaert 2021; Speed and Majid 2017), and Mandarin Chinese (Chen et al. 2019; Zhong et al. 2022). In these studies, participants were asked to rate the perceptual strength of a word without context. For instance, using a rating range from 0 to 5, Chen et al. (2019) showed that the Mandarin adjective 甜 tián ‘sweet’ received around 0.12 in touch, 5.0 in taste, 2.35 in smell, 1.03 in vison, and 0.57 in hearing.

Following Zhao et al. (2019a) and Zhao (2020), this study identified the original sensory meanings of the 171 Mandarin adjectives included in Chen et al. (2019)’s modality exclusivity norm. Specifically, we relied on the etymological paraphrasing in dictionaries, radicals of Chinese characters, and specific uses in classic Chinese to determine the original meanings of lexical items. For instance, the adjective 吵 chǎo ‘loud’ was paraphrased as ‘loud and disturbing’ in 說文解字 Shuōwén Jiězì ‘Explaining graphs and analyzing characters’ (Xu 1963 [121]), with the radical 口 (originally 言) meaning words produced by the mouth. One of its usages in classic Chinese is 鬧吵吵, 甜言美語枉徒勞 nào chǎochǎo, tiányán měiyǔ wǎng túláo ‘If the sound is too noisy, the sweet words conveyed by the sound is useless.’ in 海浮山堂詞稿 Hǎifúshāntángcígǎo ‘Manuscripts written in Haifushantang.’ Thus, we consider the auditory meaning as the original sensory meaning for the adjective 吵 chǎo ‘loud.’

Table 2 shows that 80.7% of the 171 Mandarin adjectives received the highest perceptual rating scores in the sensory modalities to which their original meanings belong. For instance, the adjective 吵 chǎo ‘loud’ whose original meaning is related to hearing, received the highest rating score of 4.97 in the auditory modality in Chen et al.’s (2019) task. In addition, adjectives whose original meanings are related to gustation and hearing were all given the highest perceptual strength in taste and hearing respectively by native Mandarin participants.^[7] We argue that this significant consistency pattern also implies the basicness of original sensory meanings for Mandarin sensory adjectives, similar to the frequency of usages elaborated above.^[8]

3.3 Collocational patterns of Mandarin synesthetic adjectives

In addition to the sensory distribution and the perceptual strength, the collocational pattern in the context can also suggest the basicness of original meanings for Mandarin synesthetic adjectives. Patterson (2017) has shown that an investigation into the context in which a lexical item is situated or the language with which the item is associated can decide the metaphoricity for uncertain cases. For instance, the expression grew noisy is more metaphoric than the expression grew big, as the former meaning of grew refers less to the organic growth in the context (Patterson 2017: 113–114). A careful examination of Mandarin synesthetic uses in context reveals that adjectives used in their etymologically original meanings show different collocational patterns than those in their non-original sensory meanings. That is, adjectives in their original meanings can generally collocate with diverse sensory objects, while adjectives in their non-original sensory meanings (i.e., synesthetic meanings) collocate with a limited number of sensory objects.^[9]

As shown in examples (1) to (5), Mandarin adjectives are restricted to modify special kinds of sensory objects when they are used in their non-original sensory meanings (i.e., synesthetic meanings). Specifically, 暖 nuǎn ‘warm,’ 鮮 xiān ‘tasty,’ and 喧鬧 xuānnào ‘noisy’ only modify the color in the visual sensation, while 臭 chòu ‘smelly’ only characterizes the facial expression of vision and 隱隱 yǐnyǐn ‘faint’ is only used to describe the pain of touch. However, it should be noted that tactile and visual modalities are multi-dimensional, where the tactile modality includes haptic sensation, somatic sensation, pain, and so forth, and the visual modality includes light, color, size, and so on (see Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976; Purves et al. 2001 [2000]; Williams 1976). Thus, it can be concluded that Mandarin adjectives show more versatile collocational patterns when used in their original sensory meanings than in their non-original sensory meanings (i.e., synesthetic meanings).

Apart from the collocational patterns, Mandarin adjectives used in their synesthetic meanings are much closer to metaphorical usages of these adjectives. For example, 暖 nuǎn ‘warm’ used for color in example (1) describes a distinct perceptual property compared to when it used for temperature, as colors do not make people feel warm physically. However, 暖 nuǎn ‘warm’ used for color is similar to it used in the metaphorical expression characterizing personality (e.g., 暖男 nuǎnnán ‘warm person’), both of which focus on the pleasantness the modified objects bring. Similarly, we cannot identify a real physical relationship between 隱隱 yǐnyǐn ‘faint’ used for pain and when it is used for light as in example (4), as pain is normally invisible. Nevertheless, 隱隱 yǐnyǐn ‘faint’ used for pain is analogous to the adjective used in the metaphorical expression 隱隱知道 yǐnyǐn zhīdào ‘faintly know (know a little),’ which conceptualizes the undefined feeling the modified objects bring.

3.4 Summary

A lexical-conceptual analysis of linguistic synesthesia focusing on the lexical items and their associated concepts in Mandarin reveals that the etymologically original meanings of Mandarin adjectives are generally the most frequently used, have received the highest perceptual scores, and show more versatile collocational patterns. These tendencies could indeed suggest the basicness of original sensory meanings for most of the Mandarin adjectives, and hence the usages of these adjectives in their non-original sensory meanings (i.e., synesthetic usages) are metaphorical.

It should be noted that we do not claim that the basic meaning of lexical items can be decided by relying on the etymology of the items exclusively. A lexical semantic analysis of different sensory meanings in this current study for Mandarin synesthetic adjectives does reveal that the etymological meanings of the adjectives show more basicness than other lexical sensory meanings of the adjectives in Mandarin. Thus, a literal account assuming no basic meanings for sensory items in linguistic synesthesia is not supported. Instead, our data is consistent with a metaphorical account for linguistic synesthesia.^[10]

4.1 Directionality constraint

One focal issue comparing linguistic synesthesia with conceptual metaphors has been the mapping directionality constraint. That is, conceptual metaphoric mapping is typically considered to be unidirectional, but linguistic synesthesia bi-directional (e.g., Zhao 2020; Zhao et al. 2018). However, this mismatch is the artificial result of erroneously comparing concept-to-concept with domain-to-domain mappings. Thus, this study compares linguistic synesthesia with conceptual metaphors concerning the directionality from both the lexical-conceptual and domain-based levels.

4.2 Mechanisms underlying mappings

Conceptual metaphors have been widely regarded as grounded in the embodied and sensorimotor experiences (e.g., Gibbs 2005, 2011; Lakoff 1993; Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Recent studies of metaphor put more emphasis on the neural basis for metaphorical mappings. For instance, Gallese and Lakoff (2005), Teng (2006), Cacciari (2008), and Lakoff (2008) assumed that metaphor is grounded in neural computation, though varying in how it is grounded. Winter (2016) and Reilly et al. (2020) have further attested that metaphorical usages of English sensory words mirror neural activations in the brain. Thus, although the “full simulation” theory of metaphor has been challenged as demonstrated by Meteyard et al. (2012: 793), it has reached the consensus that conceptual metaphors are rooted in both the recurring sensorimotor patterns and neural substrates.

In terms of linguistic synesthesia, Winter (2019a: 105) distinguished “global” and “local” accounts for underlying mechanisms of linguistic synesthesia, and argued against the viability of a global embodiment account proposed by Shen and colleagues as shown in Shen (1997), Shen and Cohen (1998), and Shen and Eisenman (2008). The lexical-conceptual model for linguistic synesthesia is consistent with Winter’s (2019a) “local” model. For instance, the analysis of examples (10) through (13) above focusing on specific lexical concepts, demonstrates that linguistic synesthesia is motivated by recurring sensorimotor patterns. That is, for example, the expression 甜美的笑容 tiánměi de xiàoróng ‘sweet smile’ mapping from taste to vision is grounded in the recurring perceived similarity of pleasantness between a sweet thing and a smiling face; and the expression 厚味 hòu wèi ‘Lit. thick taste; strong taste’ mapping from vision to taste is grounded in the recurring perceived similarity of strength between thick things with more layers or mass and strong tastes.

In addition, Zhao et al. (2019a) and Zhao (2020) have also demonstrated that there are some Mandarin adjectives indicating a neural mechanism underlying linguistic synesthesia. For example, the Mandarin adjective 麻 má ‘numbing’ is used most frequently for touch with 47 occurrences in the Sinica corpus (e.g., 腿麻了 tuǐ má le ‘The leg is numbing.’), and it also received the highest perceptual rating in touch with the score of 4.77 in Chen et al.’s (2019) study. Thus, the adjective 麻 má ‘numbing’ used for the gustatory perception as in 麻辣 málà ‘Lit. numbing-spicy; spicy’ illustrates linguistic synesthesia. In terms of the mechanism underlying the usage, it is in line with neuro-biological connectedness between the gustatory sensation induced by Szechuan pepper and a mechanical vibration discussed in Hagura et al. (2013). Similarly, Zhao et al.’s (2018) study has found that the gustatory adjective 辣 là ‘spicy’ used for a tactile sense describing a mixed feeling of pain and hotness is also consistent with a neural mechanism, i.e., the shared neural pathway for pain and spicy taste in the human brain. Thus, the lexical-conceptual model focusing on sensory concepts, suggests that linguistic synesthesia is motivated by both the recurring sensorimotor patterns and neural mechanisms.

It is intriguing to note that Spence (2011) summarized the consistent cross-modal correspondences between stimuli from different sensory modalities. This current study finds that all the cross-modal correspondences demonstrated by Spence (2011) can be found with linguistic counterparts in Mandarin synesthesia, as shown in Table 3.

As cross-modal correspondences result from both environmental couplings and neural mechanisms as argued by Spence (2011), it is reasonable to presume that the linguistic counterparts of the correspondences (i.e., linguistic synesthesia) are also rooted in both mechanisms. Therefore, we conclude that conceptual metaphors and linguistic synesthesia are also similar on the underlying mechanisms of mappings, as they are motivated by both the recurring sensorimotor patterns and neural mechanisms.

4.3 Other similarities between linguistic synesthesia and conceptual metaphor

In addition to directionality constraints and underlying mechanisms, this study finds that linguistic synesthesia shows alignment with properties of conceptual metaphors. Firstly, linguistic synesthesia and conceptual metaphors both show language-specific variations. For example, as discussed in Zhao et al. (2019a), linguistic synesthesia exhibits cross-linguistic differences in the transfer tendencies. Similarly, a variety of studies have also found that conceptual metaphors are coherent with culture by showing culturally-grounded variations across different languages (see Kövecses 2000, 2005; Lakoff and Johnson 1980; among others). For instance, Ahrens and Huang (2002) demonstrated that the orientation of the ego in the conceptual metaphor time is a moving entity is language-specific. For example, in the English temporal expression coming years/months/days, the orientation of ego is towards future, while in the Mandarin temporal expression 前qián ‘front,’ such as in 前年 qiánnián ‘Lit. front-year; the year before last,’ the orientation of ego is towards the past (Ahrens and Huang 2002: 515).

Secondly, analogous to conceptual metaphors obeying “the invariance principle” (Lakoff 1993: 215), we find that linguistic synesthesia preserves the image schemas of scale from the source modalities to the target modalities. For example, the Mandarin adjective 強 qiáng ‘strong’ retains its high position, while 弱 ruò ‘weak’ its low position on the intensity scale in synesthetic mappings, and 美 měi ‘tasty’ preserves a positive polarity, while 膩 nì ‘cloying’ a negative polarity on the evaluation scale for synesthetic usages in Mandarin.

Linguistic synesthetic expressions can also fulfill a wide range of communicative and conceptual functions, similar to conceptual metaphorical expressions as argued by El Refaie (2015). For instance, the English expression in (14) can provoke people to understand the auditory experience of the voice through the experience of the tactile sharpness of knives. Therefore, the expression may imply that the voice has a strong stimulation to human’s auditory faculty and is unpleasant. Similarly, the Mandarin expression in (15) conceptualizes light in terms of the tactile sensation obtained from thorns. Hence, the expression has the implication that the light is strong and unfriendly to the eyes, akin to thorns to human skin.

4.4 Summary

When we incorporate a lexical-conceptual view with CMT and focus on the mappings in both the lexical-conceptual and domain-based levels for linguistic synesthesia, we find that linguistic synesthesia behaves similarly to conceptual metaphors concerning directionality constraints and underlying mechanisms. In addition, linguistic synesthesia and conventional conceptual metaphors share other crucial similar properties. Thus, linguistic synesthesia is not only metaphorical, but also shows similar patterns with conceptual metaphors.^[13]