AAN DIE EINDE VAN HIERDIE ARTIKEL VERSKYN SKAKELS NA ANDER ARTIKELS DEUR DIESELFDE OUTEUR
This article appeared in:
Botha, Willem J. 1998. The love frame in the Bible. A cognitive linguistic analysis. In Biebuyck, Benjamin, René Dirven & John Ries (editors), Faith and Fiction. Interdisciplinary Studies on the Interplay Between Metaphor and Religion. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 55 – 82.
The love frame in the Bible1
Willem J. Botha
Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit
Johannesburg
Abstract
Although love is one of the most fundamental human emotions, its linguistic portrayal in different languages differs. This phenomenon relates to the fact that the conceptualization of love is very language/culture-specific. This article investigates the emotional nature of the concept of love by way of its linguistic portrayal in the 1983 Afrikaans translation of the Bible. In this regard we examine the instigation of love, the center of experience of love, its force, and the way in which it is metaphorically conceptualized. The investigation also takes into account that in Afrikaans the concept of love developed from a more objective construal liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) to a subjectivised construal lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love). Two successive Bible translations are compared to illustrate this phenomenon. Recent neurological findings in connection with the rational and emotional minds are also taken into consideration in order to answer questions relating to the basic level of experience of love, the emotional status of “Biblical love”, and the linguistic ways in which the Biblical portrayal of love links to our real world experience of this emotion.
1. Introduction
The British writer Samuel Butler once related God, love and the devil metaphorically, when he said:
(1) “God is Love – I dare say. But what a mischievous devil Love is!”
Although this quote suggests a degree of light-heartedness, it also indicates the complexities of the concept of love in the Bible. We find this phrase (“God is Love”) twice in the First Epistle of John:
(2) Wie nie liefhet nie, het geen kennis van God nie, want God is liefde (1 Johannes 4:8).
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love (1 John 4:8).
(3) En ons ken die liefde wat God vir ons het, en ons glo daarin. God is liefde; wie in die liefde bly, bly in God en God bly in hom (1 Johannes 4:16).
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him (1 John 4:16).
And nowhere in the (Afrikaans version of the) Bible we will find the phrase “Love is God”. An explanation for this fact is to be found in the conceptual blend within the metaphor.
1.1. Conceptual blending
Fauconnier (1997) considers conceptual change, grammatical constructions, construal and rhetoric, metaphor and counterfactuals all to be linguistic manifestations of conceptual blending as a general cognitive operation. In addition, he mentions some of many functions of conceptual blending. For the purpose of this article we will refer to two: transfer of emotions, and conceptualization. In essence conceptual blending can be considered “a powerful on-line meaning construction process”, according to Fauconnier.
The meaning construction process within the metaphor “God is Love” is based on two abstract domains that are interrelated: one domain of experience, God (Input2), is to be understood in terms of a different domain of experience, love (Input1). In this regard the source domain, love, serves as an explanatory domain for the abstract concept of God.2 Like God, love also indicates an abstract domain of experience. But our experience of love through all the love as metaphors gives us a clearer understanding of love than of God. Compare for instance the love as journey metaphor (Lakoff, 1990: 47-51), love is a collaborative work of art metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 139-146); etc.; also compare the following definitions of the word love, listed in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which suggest a variety of experiences encapsulated in the word love:
(4) 1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness. 2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance. 3. a. Sexual passion. b. Sexual intercourse. c. A love affair. 4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object. 5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment. 6. An expression of one’s affection: Send him my love. 7. a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language. b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love. 8. Love. Mythology. Eros or Cupid. 9. Often Love. Theology. Charity. 10. Love. Christian Science. God.
The love metaphors, love definitions, and other cognitive (and emotional) experiences of love we have access to, richly contribute to the emergent structure (the blend) from Input1. And on account of the fact that the Bible elucidates God, a more limited experience of God is presupposed. Consequently, the conceptual integration of God and love results in a clearer understanding of God, and not the other way round: we actually have more “cognitive knowledge” about love than about God.
The definitions in (4) also illustrate that, on a descriptive level, the conceptual content of love is associated with (blends with) the conceptual content of words like affection, attachment, attraction, desire, endearment, enthusiasm, feeling, predilection and solicitude. This phenomenon relates to what Goleman (1996: 289) calls members of the family, in which case he postulates the following candidates: acceptance, adoration, affinity, agape, devotion, friendliness, infatuation, kindness, trust. Consequently, the hyponyms (the members of the family) include the concept of love within their meanings. On a synonym level, it also illustrates that love acts as a blending feature for its hyponyms. But, in relation to other “positive” emotions, like enjoyment, the hyponyms can establish blends between superordinate categories of “basic”3 emotions.
Furthermore, the complex nature of the meaning of the word love also evolves from its intricate cognitive relationship to the concept emotion.
1.2. Love as an emotion
We have to distinguish between a conceptual and a behavioral experience of the emotion of love. This distinction relates to a differentiation that is being made between the rational and the emotional mind.4 The rational mind consists of the “higher, uniquely human brain areas, associated with the cerebral cortex, which permits advanced reasoning and planning” (Reader’s Digest, 1990: 84), while the emotional mind is situated in the limbic system, “the ‘lower’ or ‘animal’ parts of the brain (mainly involved with instincts, drives, and automatic processes)” (Reader’s Digest, 1990: 84). Although the neurologist Paul MacLean introduced the idea of the limbic system as the brain’s emotional center (compare Goleman, 1996: 312), recent discoveries made by people like LeDoux,5 revealed that circuits linking parts of the brain, like the prefrontal lobes, to the amygdala – an almond-shaped bulge above the hippocampus, “the part of the brain that processes fear and other emotion” (Time, 1997: 52) – are more directly involved in emotions (Goleman, 1996: 312).
On account of recent findings, Goleman (1996: 291-296) contrasts the emotional with the rational mind. Without going into detail, we will mention a few distinctive features:
§ While the emotional mind reacts far quicker than the rational mind, some emotions follow from thoughts/cognition. In this regard it is postulated in ABC’s of the Human Mind that “the limbic area” (more specifically: the amygdala) “seems to act as a switchboard where emotional power is imparted to ideas, and reason tempers drives and emotions. In this complex interaction, the energizing force can be either an idea, a memory, a sensation, or any kind of stimulus, external or internal” (1990: 84).
§ The emotional mind fixes its logic firmly on association, “(t)hat is why similes, metaphors, and images speak directly to the emotional mind” (Goleman, 1996: 294).
§ “The emotional mind … takes its beliefs to be absolutely true, and so discounts any evidence to the contrary” (Goleman, 1996: 295).
§ “(I)n the mechanics of emotion, each feeling has its own distinct repertoire of thought, reactions, even memories” (Goleman, 1996: 296).
1.3. Points of departure
When we consider the commandment of love in the Bible (compare [5]), it seems that a directive (explicit performative) provides a “rational” stimulus for an emotion:
(5) Ek gee julle ’n nuwe gebod: julle moet mekaar liefhê. Soos Ek julle liefhet, moet julle mekaar ook liefhê (Johannes 13:34).
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another (John 13:34).
Therefore, we have to take the function of the rational mind into account when we scrutinize the linguistic portrayal of love in the Bible. In addition, if we compare (6), we have to recognize that the Afrikaans version of the Bible not only demarcates three minds: emotional (hart ‘heart’), spiritual (siel ‘soul’), and rational (verstand ‘mind’), but also links it with the commandment of love – compare the Afrikaans modal moet ‘shalt’:
(6) Jesus antwoord hom: Jy moet die Here jou God liefhê met jou hele hart en met jou hele siel en met jou hele verstand (Mattheus 22:37).
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind (Matthew 22:37).
In Deuteronomy 6:5, however, the word verstand ‘mind’ is replaced by al jou krag ‘all thy might’ – therefore, the concept of force.
Furthermore, we have to acknowledge the fact that the Bible communicates specific speech acts, applicable, inter alia, to the relation of mankind to “the Lord thy God” and to “thy neighbour” (compare Matthew 22:37,38,39). In this regard the concept of love plays a major role: an illocutionary force is conveyed by a directive when the emotion (?) of love is ordained, for instance. If we compare example (5), and take into account “that a tendency to act is implicit in every emotion” (cf. Goleman, 1996: 6), then the assumed effect the utterance has on the listener (the perlocutionary act), implies that he/she should experience love for …
Closely linked to the directive, another principal speech act in connection with love relates to the description of love (also metaphorically): the representative, “a speech act which describes states or events in the world” (cf. Richards, Platt and Weber, 1985: 266). And within each metaphorical description conceptual blends emanate from conceptual integration. Accordingly, structure from different input mental spaces (based on experiences of states and events in the real world) is projected to a separate mental space: the blend. Consequently, background assumptions and anticipation regarding certain contexts are crucial for the understanding of the precise semantic value of the specific expressions that involve the concept of love. This constitutes a very complex comprehension problem in the case of the Bible. Not only does it involve certain doctrines, but also an intricate (culture-based) encapsulation of historical events that took place over a period of time; and different translations from distinct sources, which entail idiosyncratic formulations within each translation. As a result one has to adopt a certain viewpoint for a precise semantic examination of the relevant data in a specific translation. For the purpose of this investigation a cognitive approach has been been adopted, a “renewed cognitive thinking about language” that implies the conviction that “language is shaped by our perception of our ecological world, by congnition, by culture” (cf. Dirven, 1994: 5).
Consequently, this article deals with the Biblical conceptualization of the concept of love in an Afrikaans version of the Bible – on account of its linguistic portrayal. And in this regard one has to realize that although love is one of the most fundamental human emotions, the concept of love is very language/culture–specific; that it does not have the same semantic range in different languages (as will be elucidated in Table 1). Therefore we will not embark on a linguistic/cultural journey to the original Bible text, or to the transformation of the original concept by the Greek translation. We will show that the Afrikaans concept of love has developed in two successive Bible translations from a more objective construal liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) to a subjectivised construal lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love). Accordingly we will examine specific aspects of the love frame within the Afrikaans language/culture - “the knowledge network linking the multiple domains associated with” the linguistic form love (Taylor, 1995: 87). Some relevant questions that should be answered, are:
§ How “basic” is the emotion of love? In this regard we refer to the basic level of categorization, the level at which “people conceptualize things as perceptual and functional gestalts”, the level at which “people normally talk about reality” (Taylor, 1995: 48,49).
§ Does the Bible refer to love as an emotion? If it does, on which level of experience: neurological, psychological, or conceptual?
§ Is “Biblical love” something different from our real world experience of love? Compare, for instance, the different words for love in pre-Biblical Greek, according to Gerhard Kittel in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: eros (infinitive form: erªn): to love in an erotic manner; philos (infinitive form: philein): love between friends; agape (infinitive form: agapan): love of God toward mankind.
To answer these, and other relevant questions, we will investigate the linguistic portrayal of love in an Afrikaans version of the Bible - in view of its instigation, the center of experience of love, its force, and the way in which it is metaphorically conceptualized. Recent neurological findings in connection with the rational and emotional minds will be taken into consideration. We will first of all deal with the Afrikaans verbs used for the experience of love, and its portrayal. Within the context of the Bible, as it is the case in everyday life, we have to look at the ways in which love is acquired. And in this respect the (deictic) center of the experiencer of love is important. We will also deal with the exertion of force in relation to love, and its Biblical portrayal. Lastly, we will look at the metaphorical conceptualization of love in the Bible.
2. The verb to love in Afrikaans
In English the verb to love functions as a non-phrasal verb, as the verb lieben is used in German, although German also has lieb haben; compare:
(7) Da sandten die Schwestern zu Jesus und ließen ihm sagen: Herr, siehe, dein Freund, den du lieb hast, ist krank (John 11:3).
Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick (John 11:3).
In Afrikaans, by contrast, the act of love is expressed by a phrasal verb: the stative verbs het ‘to have’,6 or wees (‘to be’), linked with the ‘adjectival’ predicate7 lief. Compare:
(10) Soos die Vader My liefhet, het Ek julle ook lief. Julle moet in my liefde bly (Johannes 15:9).
As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love (John 15:9).
(11) Die susters het iemand na Jesus toe gestuur om te sê: “Here, hy VIR wie U lief is, is siek.” (Johannes 11:3).
Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick (John 11:3).
2.1. The verb liefhê ‘love have’ (to love)
In Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal the meaning of liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) is described as “(l)iefde besit of koester vir” ‘love possess or cherish for’. If we overlook the preposition vir (‘for’) for the moment, then the definition suggests that the experience of love is a possession (compare besit ‘own’), which reminds of the metaphor experiences are possessions (cf. Lakoff, 1990: 63,64). This relates to the rudimentary meaning of het ‘to have’, according to Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal: “in” or “met de hand gevat houden” ‘to hold in or with the hand’, consequently having the literal meaning: ‘grasp/grip with the hand’ - and, as a result, the concept of ‘possession’ developed. However, the meaning of het ‘to have’ was constrained gradually, to such an extent that some usages of the verb occur where the verb only designates a relation between a subject and an object, and not between an owner and a distinct object. Ultimately this gradual constraint of the meaning of het ‘to have’ resulted in the development of the auxiliary, according to Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal.
Against this background the question arises whether the category of het ‘to have’ has a strict radial structure, where “there is a central case and conventionalized variations on it which cannot be predicted by general rules” … “and have to be learned” (Lakoff, 1987: 84). Consider the relation between kennis besit ‘knowledge own’ and liefde hê ‘love has’ in 1 Corinthians 13: 2 in the Afrikaans version of the Bible, but not in the English translation:
(12) Al het ek die gawe van profesie en ken ek al die geheimenisse en besit ek al die kennis, en al het ek al die geloof om berge te versit, maar ek het geen liefde nie, dan is ek niks (1 Korinthiërs 13: 2).
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2).
And we have to consider it in relation to the fact that love can be given, as it is formulated in The Song of Songs, both in the Afrikaans and English versions:
(13) Daar sal ek my liefde vir jou gee (Hooglied 7: 12).
(T)here will I give thee my loves (The Song of Songs 7: 12).
But when we compare example (14)
(14) Die man het/ besit ’n motor.
The man has/ possesses a car.
to examples (15) to (20), it is obvious that the verb het ‘to have’ cannot be replaced by besit ‘possess’ - in examples (15) to (20):
(15) Die man het/ dra/ *besit ’n slegte humeur.
‘The man has/ wears/ *possesses a bad temper.’
(16) Die man het/ ervaar/ *besit griep.
‘The man has/ experiences/ *possesses influenza.’
(17) Die man het/ ervaar/ geniet/ *besit goeie gesondheid.
‘The man has/ experiences/ enjoys/ *possesses good health.’
(18) Die man het/ ly aan/ *besit geheueverlies.
‘The man has/ suffers/ *possesses amnesia/ loss of memory.’
(19) a. Die man het/ is/ *besit dors/ lief/ honger/ spyt/ ens.
‘The man has/ is/ *possesses thirst(y)/ love/ hungry/ sorry/ etc.’
(20) Die man het/ *besit (die vrou) lief.
‘The man *has/ *possesses (the woman) love.’
The man loves (the woman).
In example (14) het ‘to have’ basically refers to “physical possession”, therefore ownership (its prototypical meaning). Taylor (1995: 202,203) distinguishes a whole constellation of properties which constitutes prototypical possession: “the possessor is a specific human being”; “the possessed is a specific concrete thing”; “the relation is an exclusive one”; “the possessor has the right to make use of the possessed”; “the possessor’s rights over the possessed are invested in him in virtue of a transaction”; “the possessor is responsible for the possessed”; “possessor and possessed need to be in close spatial proximity”; and “the relation of possession is a long-term one”. Lyons (1968: 391) has doubts about the relationship between have-sentences and possessive phrases. Langacker (1990: 30) mentions the use of possessive expressions to indicate body parts and kinship relations, and “very much doubt that we understand these relationships metaphorically in terms of ownership”. Taylor (1995: 203) also supports the view that many other kinds of relationships between entities can be encoded by the possessive construction. Examples (15) to (18) are representations of such different relationships. Contrary to love, which can be given (compare [13]), the object noun phrases in (15) to (18) cannot be given: ’n slegte humeur ‘a bad temper’, griep ‘influenza’, goeie gesondheid ‘good health’, and geheueverlies ‘amnesia’. And this also applies to dors ‘thirst’, honger ‘hungry’, and spyt ‘sorry’ in (19a).
Although extension of the meaning of prototypical possession (ownership) results in a reduction of the concept of “physical possession” – compare examples (15) to (18) - it does not apply in the same degree to het ‘to have’ in relation to lief ‘love’. Example (19a) portrays the blending between “possession” (the verb het ‘to have’) and experience (the verb wees ‘to be’) – but in this case in combination with both lief ‘love’ and dors ‘thirst’, honger ‘hungry’, and spyt ‘sorry’. The verb wees ‘to be’, in example (19a), can be paraphrased by ervaar ‘experience’; compare (21):
(21) Die man ervaar dors/ liefde/ honger/ spyt.
The man experiences thirst/ love/ hunger/ regret.
And the verb ervaar ‘experience’ has a very close relationship with words of emotion. We recognize this when we look at the lexical definition of the word ervaar ‘experience’ in Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, for instance: (s)mart, pyn, geluk, ontgogeling, vriendskap, vrees ervaar ‘sorrow, pain, disenchantment, friendship, fear experience’. And this links with the claim of Lakoff (1990: 63) that experiences are possessions.
Therefore, in my view, het ‘to have’ in combination with lief ‘love’, would be conceptualized (in Afrikaans) on a possession continuum nearer to the central category.
2.2. The verbal expression lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love)
If we look at example (19a) again, but without the verbs het ‘have’ and besit ‘possess’, quoted as (19b),
(19) b. Die man is dors/ lief/ honger/ spyt/ ens.
‘The man is thirst(y)/ love/ hungry/ sorry/ etc.’
then we recognize that wees ‘to be’ links with the adjectives dors ‘thirsty’, lief ‘love’(?), honger ‘hungry’, spyt ‘sorry’, in contrast with ervaar ‘experience’ (in example [21]) which links with nouns. Therefore, we can state that in these examples wees ‘to be’ selects adjectives, while ervaar ‘experience’ selects nouns, and not the other way round. Example (19b) also designates the predicative uses of the verb wees ‘to be’, according to Lyons (1968: 389). In this regard he distinguishes four functions of the verb wees ‘to be’: existential, identifying (or equative), locative, and attributive. If we consider the fact that adjectives designate properties (therefore: attributes), we can infer that wees ‘to be’, in example (19b), has a attributive function. But if we consider the fact that only honger ‘hungry’ can be used as an attributive adjective (die honger man ‘the hungry man’, but not *die dors man ‘the thirsty man’, *die spyt man ‘the sorry man’, and *die lief man ‘the love man’), then it becomes clear that attribution is not a clear-cut function. And if we consider the fact that the grammatical structure lief (vir X) ‘love (for X)’ operates on a constituent level, which also implies conceptual grouping (cf. Langacker, 1997: 14-21), then an exclusive attribution function for the verb wees ‘to be’ (in these structures) becomes doubtful. Could it not be that the function of wees ‘to be’, in expressions like (19b), lies on a continuum somewhere between existence and attribution? It looks like a possibility when we consider paraphrased examples in which the verb bestaan ‘exist’ occurs – examples that refer to love and other emotions as ’n gevoel ‘a feeling’ – an explanatory tendency found in most dictionaries, regarding the explanation of specific emotions; compare (22):
(22) Daar bestaan ’n gevoel van liefde vir X / angs/ haat/ opgewondeheid/ ens. by hom.
‘There exists a feeling of love for X/ fear/ hatred/ excitement/ etc. by him.’
He is experiencing a feeling of love/ fear/ hatred/ excitement/ etc.
The Afrikaans expression in (22) clearly explicates an existential structure.
2.3. The conceptual blend: liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) and lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love)
In the previous sections we have argued that (i) an element of possession does occur in the expression liefhê ‘love have’ (to love); and that (ii) lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) involves a blend between existence and attribution. We have also mentioned the conceptual blend between “possession” (the verb het ‘to have’) and experience (the verb wees ‘to be’).
These views link with Jackendoff’s (1990: 193) appraisal that the alienable possessive field acts as a conceptual parallel to the spatial field: therefore “‘y has/possesses x’ is the conceptual parallel to the spatial ‘x is at y’” – compare Jackendoff (1990: 192). In this regard, according to Jackendoff (1990: 192), possession “plays the role that location does in the spatial field, as the central element of a group of [STATE] and [EVENT] concepts”.
If we consider the examples in Afrikaans in which liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) and lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) are interchangeable (compare example [23], for instance), then we can hypothesize a metaphor to the effect that possession is existence, linking with existence is location here (for Afrikaans):
(23) As die slaaf egter uitdruklik sou sê: ‘Ek is lief vir my eienaar en vir my vrou en my kinders (Eksodus 21:5) - 1983 translation.
Maar as die slaaf reguit sê: ‘Ek het my heer, my vrou en my kinders lief’ (Eksodus 21:5) - 1933 translation.
And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children (Exodus 21:5).
We can only hypothesize such a metaphor if we accept that to experience love, implies that love is in some way “possessed” (as was argued in section 2.1) - that love “exists” at the location of the possessor. But in this respect the experience of love relates to experiences such as the following in Afrikaans - where to have and to be are interchangeable:
(24) Ek het/ is verkoue.
‘I have/ am cold.’
I have a cold.
Jackendoff (1990: 191) points out that the possession pattern in a construal like (24) entails that you can “have one, get one, give yours to someone else”. But this pattern does not completely apply to the examples in (25), where one can get it, have it - but not give it, as was also pointed out in section 2.1:
(25) Ek het/ is honger/ dors/ spyt/ skaam/ lus/ vaak.
‘I have/ am hungry/ thirsty/ sorry/ ashamed/ desire/ drowsy.’
The conceptual blend beween het ‘to have’ and wees ‘to be’ in (25) probably suggests the influence of both Dutch and English on Afrikaans.8 Compare the Dutch and English versions represented in (26) and (27) respectively:
(26) Ik heb honger/ dorst/ spijt/ schaamte?/ lust?/ vaak.
(27) I am hungry/ thirsty/ sorry/ ashamed/ desire/ drowsy.
In both instances (hebben + adjective and to be + adjective) the verbs are interchangeable with voelen/gevoelen and to feel, respectively, suggesting experience as such.
With regard to the previous discussion, we will now focus on the occurrence of the expression of love by way of the verbal expression lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) in the 1983 Afrikaans translation. Although lief wees ‘love be’ requires an obligatory prepositional phrase with the preposition vir ‘for’, some examples seem to lack it, for instance (28a):
(28) a. Hulle is lief om van My af weg te dwaal (Jeremia 14:10).
‘They are love to from me away to wander.’
Thus have they loved to wander (Jeremiah 14:10).
Example (28a) is actually the reduced form of (28b), in which case daarvoor ‘for it’ links the finite complement clause (object clause) om van My af weg te dwaal ‘to from me away to wander’:
(28) b. Hulle is lief (daarvoor < vir dit) om van My af weg te dwaal.
‘They are love (for it) to from me away to wander.’
The 1983 Afrikaans translation of the Bible reveals at least 27 instances in which the experience of love is explicated by the verbal expression lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love), instead of liefhê ‘love have’ (to love), or other phrasal expressions, like Só het hulle daarvan gehou (Isaiah 66:3), from the 1933 Afrikaans translation, or the Dutch indien gij geen behagen in haar hebt (Deuteronomy 21:14); or the English he had delight in Jacob’s daughter (Genesis 34:19), or the German denn er hatte Lust am Ackerbau (2 Chronicles 26:10). Table 1 gives an account of the variables for lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) in different translations. The applicable verses are identified in Table 1.
Table 1. Variations of the verbal expression lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) in different translations/ Bibles
Bible verse
|
Afrikaans translation
1983
|
Afrikaans translation
1933
|
Dutch translation
1892
|
Dutch translation
1951
|
English
translation
1994
|
German translation
1975
|
Genesis 34:19
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
liefhebben
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
Exodus 21:5
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieb haben
|
Deuteronomy 21:14
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
Deuteronomy 28:56
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
1 Samuel 18:16
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieb haben
|
1 Samuel 18:22
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
phrasal expression
|
love
|
lieben
|
1 Kings 11:1
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieben
|
2 Chronicles 26:10
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
love
|
phrasal expression
|
Proverbs 9:8
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieben
|
Proverbs 18:21
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
liefhebben
|
phrasal expression
|
love
|
lieben
|
Proverbs 20:13
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieben
|
Proverbs 21:17
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieben
|
Isaiah 66:3
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
Jeremiah 8:2
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieben
|
Jeremiah 14:10
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
liefhebben
|
phrasal expression
|
love
|
phrasal expression
|
Ezekiel 16:37
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieben
|
Ezekiel 24:21
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
Hosea 3:1
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
love
|
phrasal expression
|
Malachi 2:11
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieb haben
|
Luke 16:14
|
lief wees
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
John 11:3
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieb haben
|
John 13:23
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieb haben
|
John 19:26
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieb haben
|
John 20:2
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieb haben
|
John 21:7
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieb haben
|
John 21:20
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
liefhebben
|
love
|
lieb haben
|
Titus 1:8
|
lief wees
|
liefhê
|
liefhebben
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
phrasal expression
|
Three points are stressed, considering the data in Table 1:
1. The verbal expression lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) from the 1983 Afrikaans translation encapsulates different experiences of love, amongst others: love for an undesignated person (compare Proverbs 9:8); love of a man for a woman (compare Genesis 34:19); love of a woman for a man (compare Deuteronomy 28:56); love for a collective object (compare Exodus 21:5); love from a collective subject (compare 1 Samuel 18:22); love for a certain kind of behavior (compare Proverbs 18:21); love for inanimate objects (compare Isaiah 66:3); love for an abstract object (compare Malachi 2:11); love of Jesus for … (compare John 11:3); love for a certain attribute of behavior (compare Titus 1:8). From these examples we can infer that lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) covers a wider experiential range of love than liefhê ‘love have’ (to love), especially when we compare the expression of love in these examples to the expression of love in the First Epistle of John, in which case love refers to a relationship between God and mankind, and a relationship between people. Also compare (29) and (30) in this respect:
(29) Hy is lief daarvoor om te stap.
‘He is love for that to walk.’
He loves to walk. / He is fond of walking.
But not:
(30) *Hy het stap lief.
‘He has walking love.’
He loves to walk. / He is fond of walking.
2. The verbal expression lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) does not appear in the 1933 Afrikaans translation at all. The change from liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) to lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) in the specific examples clearly illustrates a conceptual change that took place/is taking place in Afrikaans.
The development of liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) to lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) does not only result from a language contact influence of Dutch and English as such: therefore liefhebben ‘love have’ (to love) from Dutch to liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) in Afrikaans; and then to lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) in Afrikaans in accordance with the to be + adjective constructions in English, which also suggest a certain kind of feeling like the to be + love; compare (25), (26), and (27) again:
(25) Ek het/ is honger/ dors/ spyt/ skaam/ lus/ vaak.
‘I have/ am hungry/ thirsty/ sorry/ ashamed/ desire/ drowsy.’
(26) Ik heb honger/ dorst/ spijt/ schaamte?/ lust?/ vaak.
(27) I am hungry/ thirsty/ sorry/ ashamed/ *desire/ drowsy.
This process rather represents a process of grammaticization - but a process of grammaticization which involves subjectification. According to Langacker (1990: 16) such a grammaticization process implies a general form of semantic change. As an element becomes grammaticized, it moves along a continuum that extends from lexical to grammatical. As the conceptualizer becomes cognitively less aware of the lexical content of an element (owing to the reduction of conceptual import), the construal of the element becomes maximally subjective (grammaticized). From this we can infer that the experience of love in Afrikaans cognitively also became a [STATE] concept - like the hungry/ thirsty/ sorry/ ashamed/ desire/ drowsy concepts are [STATE] concepts. Although one could be very conscious of one’s hunger, thirst, regret, shame, drowsiness, and cold - compare (25) - in normal circumstances one would carry on with another action if no possibility exists to counter these experiences for the moment - to such an extent that the specific experience could fade in the background of other experiences. Langacker (1990: 7) uses the example of glasses to illustrate these kinds of construals. If one takes off one’s glasses and looks at them to examine them, then the construal of the glasses is maximally objective. On the other hand, when one wears them to examine some other object, so that they fade from conscious awareness, then the construal of the glasses becomes maximally subjective. This example can be extended to refer to the simple use of glasses as such, because one is far-sighted or near-sighted (or both). The moment you have to go without your glasses, you not only become aware of the lack of glasses, but also of the vision deficiency (personal attribute, or the “existence” of a deficiency) you have. But we have to bear in mind that from one instance to another the intensity of the experience may differ. And, depending on that, Afrikaans allows a continuum for conceptual import in this regard via the selection of het ‘to have’ and wees ‘to be’, especially for the experience of love. Accordingly, Langacker (1990: 7) postulates that “subjectivity/objectivity is often variable or a matter of degree”.
3. Although liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) could be replaced by lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) in every instance (except in examples in which liefhê ‘love have’ [to love] occurs without an object: Wie nie liefhet nie, het geen kennis van God nie. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love [1 John 4:8]), only twenty-seven examples of lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) were found in the 1983 translation of the Afrikaans version of the Bible, and only eight in the New Testament. In most instances, like the following example, liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) could easily be replaced by lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love), without serious grammatical implications; compare (31a) and (31b):
(31) a. Jy moet die Here jou God liefhê met jou hele hart en met jou hele siel en met jou hele verstand. Dit is die grootste en die eerste gebod. En die tweede, wat hiermee gelyk staan, is: Jy moet jou naaste liefhê soos jouself (Mattheus 22:37,38,39).
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Matthew 22:37,38,39).
(31) b. Jy moet vir die Here jou God lief wees met jou hele hart … Jy moet vir jou naaste lief wees soos vir jouself.
‘Thou shalt for the Lord thy God love be with all thy heart … Thou shalt for thy neighbour love be as for thyself.’
The selection of lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) would have put the experience of love in the subconscious mind, “on the periphery of awareness” (cf. Harriman, 1961: 316) - subjectivized as a [STATE] concept (compare [31b]). But in example (31a) liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) explicates the commandment of love (implicit performative), therefore love as a force. Compare the modal moet ‘shalt’, which indicates a force over which the addressee has no control (also compare section 5 for a discussion of the force of love). We can infer that the use of liefhê ‘love have’ (to love), instead of lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love), indicates a more objectivized experience of love, which in the context of the Bible is a crucial matter.
3. The acquisition of love
Before love can be executed, the experience/feeling of love has to be instigated. And if one considers that in various instances in the Bible the act of love is ordained, compare (31a), especially by the use of the modal moet ‘shalt’, the question arises:
Can one execute a command of love if love is not being initiated somehow? Considering the Bible, can a view like the following be justified? “Not just love, but our angers and fears, as well, sweep over us, seeming to happen to us rather than being our choice” (Goleman, 1996: 293); or do we have to look for an answer in the notion that there are “quick and slow paths to emotion – one through immediate perception and the other through reflective thought” (Goleman, 1996: 293). What does the Bible linguistically reveal about the neurological, psychological, and conceptual experience of love – also about these different viewpoints?
In section 3.1 we have pointed out that, according to Goleman (1996: 6), a tendency to act is implicit in every emotion. In Afrikaans the act of love is expressed by the verbal constructions liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) and lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love). And in Afrikaans the verbs designating the inducement of love, are word ‘become’ and kry ‘get’, like in:
(32) X word lief vir Y.
‘X becomes love for Y’.
X falls in love with/ grows fond of Y.
(33) X kry Y lief .
‘X gets Y love’.
X falls in love with/ grows fond of Y.
Both lief word ‘love become’ (to become enamoured) and liefkry ‘love get’ (to get enamoured) suggest a process – not a sudden event – contrary to the English fall in love, although grow fond of also designates a process. I only found liefkry ‘love get’ (to get enamoured) in the Afrikaans version of the Bible (compare Genesis 34:3; Numbers 14:31; Deuteronomy 21:11; and 1 Thessalonians 2:8). The contexts in which liefkry ‘love get’ (to get enamoured) was found, do not correlate with the context of (31a) – love for “the Lord thy God” and love for “thy neighbour”. I found a few examples in which metaphors were used to indicate the inducement of love/ the stimulus for love. The following discussion, as throughout this article, focuses on the Afrikaans version of the Bible, and is not, necessarily, appropriate for other translations, as one will see when one compares it with the King James Version. But the purpose of this article is not to compare different translations as such. Contrasts are only pointed out in certain instances to aid the examination of Afrikaans data.
In example (34) the deictic verb kom ‘come’ is used, suggesting a movement of an entity (love) that is taking place in space, originating in the Spirit, and terminating in (a) recipient(s). Contrary to the deictic verb gaan ‘go’, the deictic kom ‘come’ always implies termination (in the deictic center - or a place with which the speaker associates him-/herself, involving the identity of the speaker, and the place and time of the utterance) - cf. Botha (1980: 77-99). Love is, therefore, portrayed as a moving entity, coming from a source (the Spirit), moving along a path, and terminating in a goal (the speaker). Compare (34):
(34) Ek versoek julle dan dringend, broers, in die Naam van ons Here Jesus Christus en op grond van die liefde wat van die Heilige Gees kom: Stry saam met my deur vir my te bid (Romeine 15:30).
(N)ow I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me (Romans 15:30).
The construal in (34) actually suggests love as a stimulus for stryd ‘struggle’ (strive). But if we relate it to (35), in which case the love of Christ acts as a force (dring ‘constrain’), and especially (36), where a passive construction is used to indicate explicitly that the Spirit acts as the agent (stimulus) for the inducement of love (by selection of the verb wek ‘awaken’), then an ambiguous reading of (34) seems possible: the Spirit initiates love, also by giving love. In example (37) it is also explicitly stated that the Spirit of God fills (vul) us with love, and other qualities. And in this regard love becomes an attribute of mankind (compare section 2.2).
(35) Die liefde van Christus dring ons, omdat ons tot die insig gekom het dat een vir almal gesterwe het, en dit beteken dat almal gesterwe het (2 Korintiërs 5:14).
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead (2 Corinthians 5:14).
(36) Dit is ook hy wat ons vertel het van die liefde wat deur die Gees in julle gewek is (Kolossense 1:8).
Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit (Colossians 1:8).
(37) Die Gees wat God ons gegee het, maak ons immers nie lafhartig nie, maar vul ons met krag en liefde en selfbeheersing (2 Timoteus 1:7).
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7).
These examples are not very explicit in stating whether the acquisition of love is a sudden happening or a gradual process, although the verb wek ‘awaken’ could suggest an instantaneous event, while vul ‘fill’ could signify a sequential process. Consequently, love can be initiated via the emotional mind, or its instigation can come via the rational mind, according to Goleman’s (1996) explanation.
4. The (deictic) center of love
With reference to the Afrikaans verbal expression liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) we have argued that the expression of love in Afrikaans links with an element of possession (compare section 2.1). Also compare the many examples in which the noun liefde ‘love’ is used in a possessive construction. Out of 313 examples in which the noun liefde ‘love’ occurs, 124 instances are possessive constructions – almost 40%.
And with reference to the Afrikaans verbal expression lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) we postulated that the concept of possession blends with the concept of existence/ attribution (compare section 2.2).
We can furthermore mention Lakoff’s (1990: 62) view that in English there is a metaphor “to the effect that existence is location here; nonexistence is location away”, and that “existence is metaphorized as a bounded area around where we are”, acknowledging the deictic center (here) as the domain of existence. To some extent this view links with the intrinsic notion of deixis, based on a distinction drawn between an intrinsic deictic point-of-orientation and an external deictic point-of-orientation (cf. Tanz, 1980: 6; Schwerdtfeger, 1982: 58,59). Relations to referents like people, cars, houses, etc. can be defined with regard to orientational attributes inherent to the specific reference objects, its permanent directional features; therefore, from an intrinsic deictic point-of-orientation. If we take the attribute nature of lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love) into consideration, then the intrinsic deictic point-of-orientation could be considered to be enriched by attributes of love that is imposed on the ego from outside the deictic center.
Accordingly, love originates within the ego, owing to the incentive from outside the ego – according to examples (34) to (37). It is furthermore directed towards an entity outside the ego, or towards the ego itself (“thyself”), when “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” - compare example (31a). From this viewpoint the experience and expression of love relate to the intrinsic deictic point-of-orientation.
In addition, the use of the directional preposition vir ‘for’ emphasizes the fact that the ego functions as deictic center of love in Afrikaans. In the case of lief wees vir ‘love be (for)’ (to love) the preposition vir ‘for’ is obligatory, while with liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) its use is optional. In every instance where liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) is used, the preposition vir ‘for’ can be inserted. In this regard Ponelis (1979: 205) claims that the use with vir ‘for’ signifies more affect, and more explicitness. In this respect we can argue that vir ‘for’ implies the deictic center, if we take in consideration that, on a non-literal level, vir ‘for’ signifies direction, or alignment, according to Kempen (1984: 87). Alignment, or direction, only takes place from a certain vantage point – that of the deictic center. Therefore, without vir ‘for’ the ego’s involvement (within the deictic center) is partially reduced in the construal of love in expressions with liefhê ‘love have’ (to love). Examples with vir ‘for’ are numerous in the Afrikaans version of the Bible. Compare examples (38) and (39) for instance:
(38) As iemand sê: “Ek het God lief,” en hy haat sy broer, is hy ’n leuenaar; want wie sy broer, wat hy kan sien, nie liefhet nie, kan onmoontlik vir God liefhê, wat hy nie kan sien nie (1 Johannes 4:20).
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? (1 John 4:20).
(39) En hierdie gebod het ons van Hom gekry: Wie vir God liefhet, moet ook sy broer liefhê (1 Johannes 4:21).
And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also (1 John 4:21).
5. The force of love
The source of love exists within the ego. But its energy has to be activated. In this regard Goleman (1996: 6) states that “(a)ll emotions are, in essence, impulses to act” … “a tendency to act is implicit in every emotion.” And in the context of the Bible the Spirit of God acts as the originator of the energy of love – as was apparent in examples (34) to (37).
As we have shown, one of the Afrikaans verbal expressions for love (lief wees [vir] ‘love be [for]’ [to love]) suggests that the force of love has direction, while in the case of liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) the indication of direction is optional.
Consequently, these directional adjuncts imply that the instigation of love exerts force as such. Under normal circumstances the force is directed from a point-of-orientation within the deictic center: the ego (vantage point). But in the context of the Bible a force from outside the ego (and deictic center, for that matter) is executed on the ego to influence the direction of the force of love: to “God” (Matthew 33:37), to “thy neighbour” (Matthew 5:43), to “your enemies” (Matthew 5:44), to “one another” (John 13:34), etc. In this regard the modal moet ‘shall’ in junction with liefhê ‘love have’ (to love) is used 36 times in the Afrikaans version of the Bible. Only in one instance behoort ‘ought’ is used. Therefore, in this example, the obligation to love is not that strong. Compare:
(40) Geliefdes, as dit is hoe God sy liefde aan ons bewys het, behoort ons mekaar ook lief te hê (1 Johannes 4:11).
Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another (1 John 4:11).
Interesting enough, in the King James Version the commandment of love is only accompanied by the modal shalt in 14 instances. Other kinds of speech acts function in the other corresponding verses: mostly implicit commands, and in a few cases invitations.
The ego is subjected to an external force (formulated as a commandment) over which it has no control. Compare:
(41) Ek gee julle ’n nuwe gebod: julle moet mekaar liefhê. Soos Ek julle liefhet, moet julle mekaar ook liefhê (Johannes 13:34).
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another (John 13:34).
But if we compare the following examples, it becomes obvious that the external force (the obligation to love) actually relates to an internal force that originates from knowledge. This knowledge involves different rational insights:
· In example (42) the rational insight refers to an understanding of the meaning of the death of Jesus. It is suggested by the use of the verb weet (“perceive we”):
(42) Hiéraan weet ons wat liefde is: Jesus het sy lewe vir ons afgelê. Ons behoort ook ons lewens vir ons broers af te lê (1 Johannes 3:16).
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16).
· In example (43) the rational insight comprises an understanding of a promise to be a relative of God and to have knowledge of God. The promise is implied by the conditional clause want liefde kom … (“for love is …”); compare (43):
(43) Geliefdes, ons moet mekaar liefhê, want liefde kom van God, en elkeen wat liefhet, is ’n kind van God en ken God (1 Johannes 4:7).
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God (1 John 4:7).
· In examples (44) and (45) an understanding of the possibility to be near God becomes the rational insight. The image schema of containment is metaphorized in clauses like bly God in ons (“God dwelleth in us”), wie in die liefde bly, bly in God en God bly in hom (“he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him”). The integration of container and contained suggests a blend with the proximity/distance image schema. Taylor (1996: 134) rightly posits that the “degree of emotional involvement and the possibility of mutual influence are understood in terms of proximity”. Compare (44) and (45):
(44) Niemand het God nog ooit gesien nie, maar as ons mekaar liefhet, bly God in ons en het sy liefde in ons sy doel volkome bereik (1 Johannes 4:12).
(N)o man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us (1 John 4:12).
(45) En ons ken die liefde wat God vir ons het, en ons glo daarin. God is liefde; wie in die liefde bly, bly in God en God bly in hom (1 Johannes 4:16).
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him (1 John 4:16).
· Examples (46) and (47) mention a knowledge of the counteraction of fear as a rational insight, explicated by the conditional clauses want in hierdie wêreld lewe ons … (“because as he is, so are … ”), and (w)aar liefde is, is daar … (“but perfect love casteth out fear”):
(46) Hiérin het die liefde sy doel volkome met ons bereik: ons het niks te vrees vir die oordeelsdag nie, want in hierdie wêreld lewe ons reeds deur die liefde net soos Jesus (1 Johannes 4:17).
Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world (1 John 4:17).
(47) Waar liefde is, is daar geen vrees nie, maar volmaakte liefde verdryf vrees, want vrees verwag straf, en wie nog vrees, het nie volmaakte liefde nie (1 Johannes 4:18).
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love (1 John 4:18).
The relationship between an external and internal force relates to what Talmy (1985: 310) refers to as “a basic semantic configuration in language, the divided self.” The knowledge or understanding of the above-mentioned concepts within the ego (based on belief and faith) exerts a force on the energy of love to deviate it accordingly. Therefore, this force of deviation (impersonated by an external command) instigates the obligation. Goleman’s (1996: 293) view in this respect substantiates the above:
Because it takes the rational mind a moment or two longer to register and respond than it does the emotional mind, the first “impulse” in an emotional situation is the heart’s, not the head’s. There is also a second kind of emotional reaction, slower than the quick-response, which simmers and brews first in our thoughts before it leads to feeling. This second pathway to triggering emotions is more deliberate, and we are typically quite aware of the thoughts that lead to it. In this kind of emotional reaction there is more extended appraisal; our thoughts – cognition – play the key role in determining what emotions will be roused. … In this slower sequence, more fully articulated thought precedes feeling. … More complicated emotions … follow this slower route.
6. Prominent metaphors of love
Johnson (1987:xiii) stresses the fact that embodied and imaginative structures of understanding are central mechanisms that enable us to grasp our world. These embodied and imaginative structures involve preconceptual image schemas, “so deeply grounded in common human experience that they constitute … universal prelinguistic cognitive structures” (Lakoff 1987, as paraphrased by Taylor, 1995: 135). He further maintains that a fairly small number of image schemas manifest themselves in metaphorical elaborations in many areas of experience – and “metaphor is not merely a linguistic mode of expression; rather, it is one of the chief cognitive structures by which we are able to have coherent, ordered experiences that we can reason about and make sense of”, according to Johnson (1987: xv).
In the previous sections our focal point was the very essence of the nature of love, its neurological and conceptual (psychological) origin - as it is linguistically portrayed in an Afrikaans version of the Bible. But our understanding/conceptualization of love is also enriched by associated mental spaces based on image schemas. The acquisition of love, its deictic center, and the force exerted by love, all involve certain image schemas. We did, however, not point them out in detail in the relevant sections. Owing to a lack of space, an extensive examination is not possible within the limits of this discussion. Therefore we will only mention a few metaphorical delineations of love on account of the image schemas involved.
By virtue of the image schemas involved, love is metaphorically linked to different experiences in the Afrikaans version of the Bible. The most prominent ones are:
· Love is portrayed as a possession (throughout the Bible possessive noun phrases with liefde ‘love’ as noun are numerous).
· Examples (44) and (45) illustrate the portrayal of love as a container. An explanation was given in the relevant section.
· Example (44) also involves the metaphoric delineation of love as a filler.
· In section 5 a discussion was given of love as a force. Examples (34) to (37) embody its metaphorical portrayal.
· Linked to the image schema of containment, the portrayal of love as proximity was discussed in the examination of examples (44) and (45).
· Love is also portrayed as an instrument; compare for example the agentive clause deur die liefde (“by love”) in example (48):
(48) In Christus Jesus is dit nie van belang of jy besny is of nie. Al wat van belang is, is geloof wat deur die liefde tot dade oorgaan (Galasiërs 5:6).
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love (Galatians 5:6).
· But perhaps the most crucial metaphor in the Bible – one which links with force as such – is love as an act. Compare the use of the word daad (“deed”) in example (49):
(49) Liewe kinders, ons liefde moenie net woorde en lippetaal wees nie, maar moet met die daad bewys word, en dan in opregtheid (1 Johannes 3:18).
My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18).
Yet, if we consider the Afrikaans verb bewys (“proof”) in (49), it becomes clear that the act presupposes a result. And within the context of the Bible, explicated by example (42), which we repeat, it becomes clear that the metaphor implies that the act extends to a sacrifice – in this case the highest sacrifice, namely one’s life: Jesus het sy lewe vir ons afgelê (“he laid down his life for us”). And this metaphor reveals itself throughout the Bible in many variations:
(42) Hiéraan weet ons wat liefde is: Jesus het sy lewe vir ons afgelê. Ons behoort ook ons lewens vir ons broers af te lê (1 Johannes 3:16).
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16).
7. Conclusion
This article begins with a reference to the complex nature of the concept of love, referring to it as a “mischievous devil”. This is only another metaphor amidst many, regarding love. And metaphors about love are numerous in die Bible, owing to the fact that emotional concepts (like many of the most basic concepts in semantics) are understood metaphorically (cf. Lakoff, 1990: 51). And in this regard one domain of experience (love) is understood in terms of many different domains of experience, which involve mappings from source domains to the target domain: love. Lakoff (1990: 51) points out that the mapping comprises epistemic correspondences, and in this regard knowledge about different things is mapped onto knowledge about love, with respect to the different metaphors about love. He also mentions that ontological correspondences map certain scenarios (knowledge structures) onto a corresponding love scenario.
Against this view of the metaphor we ventured to examine the knowledge structure of love, with regard to its conceptualization and its portrayal in an Afrikaans version of the Bible, but also on account of recent neurological findings in this regard.
Love, as it is portrayed in the Bible, does fit into the distinctive nature of an emotion:
· An incentive initiates love, mostly through the rational mind, on account of a force that emanates from a knowledge structure involving the meaning of the death of Jesus, inter alia; but also on account of an understanding of different speech acts within the Bible, like a promise, for instance (compare [43]). But the Bible is also very explicit regarding a force exerted by the Spirit in order to activate love (compare [37]). It is not clear whether this action involves the emotional mind directly. Perhaps the Damascus experience of Saul suggests a commitment of the emotional mind.
· The experience of love implies a neurological, psychological, conceptual and linguistic involvement of the ego (deictic center). In this regard the Bible clearly distinguishes, and explicates the active participation of three “minds”: rational, emotional, and spiritual (compare [31a]). Neurologists demarcate two minds, thus far.
· The Bible also acknowledges the tendency to act, an intrinsic feature of love, and other emotions (compare the sacrifice metaphors).
But this “mold” is appropriate for almost any emotion, if not all. What distinguishes love from other emotions? Can we demarcate a prototypical experience of love? This is not easy, perhaps impossible, owing to the fact that love is not a “basic level experience”, in accordance with basic level categorization, “a level of categorization which is cognitively and linguistically more salient than the others”, the level at which “people normally talk about reality” (cf. Taylor, 1996: 48,49). Therefore Goleman (1996: 289) regards emotions/feelings like the following to be members of the category love: acceptance, adoration, affinity, agape, devotion, friendliness, infatuation, kindness, trust. Also these emotions/feelings do not really reflect “basic level experience”. They represent acts of love. Consequently, we have to search for “love-representing acts”. The love as sacrifice metaphor is one of the finest candidates (especially in the Bible) for these acts. Interesting enough, Afrikaans has the expression bring ’n offer ‘bring an offer’ (to sacrifice), in which case the deictic verb bring ‘bring’ implies movement towards a locality with which the speaker associates him-/herself as if he/she were at the certain locality, which is not the case. The deictic use of bring ‘bring’ relates to another love as metaphor, which is a very important spatial metaphor (in cognitive terms), namely love as proximity. Consequently, to distinguish love from other emotions and to endeavor a demarcation of a prototypical experience of love, we probably have to investigate relevant spatial metaphors. But this was not the purpose of this article.
This article dealt with the love frame in an Afrikaans version of the Bible, and although comparisons with other translations were made from time to time, its only purpose was to elucidate the love frame in the Afrikaans version as such. All the above apply to the 1983 Afrikaans translation of the Bible. In this regard it was clear that “there are culture-specific differences in the conceptualization of emotions”, a statement of Wierzbicka, quoted by Niemeier (1997: 92). In Afrikaans the conceptualization of love varies on an objectivity/subjectivity continuum. This phenomenon is not strange to Afrikaans, but only in the 1983 Afrikaans translation lief wees (vir) ‘love be (for)’ (to love), which implies a more subjective experience of love, starts to evolve. The conceptual implications are numerous, and one can only speculate on how the next translation will accommodate construals on this level.
Endnotes
1 This article is based on the 1983 Afrikaans translation of the Bible. Reference is also made to the 1933 version. Both translations are considered literal translations, like the King James Version, from which the English translations for the Afrikaans examples were taken. The translation philosophy for literal translations contrasts with the philosophy for dynamic equivalent translations. An example of the latter is the New International Version of the Bible in English (cf. Logos Library System).
2 For the understanding of the concept God, apart from Its portrayal as “love” (cf. The First Epistle of John 4:8/16), God is also very frequently portrayed as “Father” - as “a consuming fire” (cf. Deuteronomy 4:24), “thy refuge” (cf. Deuteronomy 33:27), “a rock” (cf. Psalm 18:31), “Shepherd” (cf. Psalm 80:1), etc.
3 Goleman (1996: 289) mentions the fact that researchers still continue to argue over which emotions can be considered primary, and whether there are primary emotions at all. If there are primary emotions, he considers the following to be candidates: anger, sadness, fear, enjoyment, love, surprise, disgust, shame.
4 Goleman (1996: 8) states: “In a very real sense we have two minds, one that thinks and one that feels.”
5 Also compare http://www.cns.nyu.edu/ledoux/book.html for information on research done at the LeDoux Lab, Center for Neural Science, New York University.
6 Dutch also expresses love with a phrasal verb, liefhebben. The verb liefhê consists of a verb plus an adverb particle.
7 Afrikaans also has a non-phrasal verb, designating the act of love, namely bemin. But this verb is usually utilized in a romantic fashion. Strangely, it does occur in the Bible twice; compare:
(8) Oor Benjamin het Moses gesê: “Wie deur die Here bemin word, is veilig by Hom, skuil altyd by Hom en leef onder sy beskerming” (Deuteronomium 33:12).
(And) of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; (and the LORD) shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders (Deuteronomy 33:12).
(9) Die koning van die noorde sal hom nie steur aan die gode van sy voorgangers of aan die god wat deur vrouens bemin word of aan enige ander god nie, maar sal homself belangriker as hulle almal beskou (Daniël 11:37).
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all (Daniel 11:37).
8 Afrikaans, or Cape Dutch, is principally derived from the Zuid-Holland (South Holland) dialect of the mid-17th century. English had (and still has) a considerable influence on Afrikaans. See Donaldson, B.C. (1988) The Influence of English on Afrikaans in this regard.
References
Botha, Willem J.
1980 Die Grammatika van die Eerste Persoon. Pretoria: University of South Africa (Dissertation).
Deutsche Bibelstiftung
1975 Die Bibel, oder Die Ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung.
Dirven, René
1994 Metaphor and Nation. Duisburg Papers on Research in Language and Culture 22. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Donaldson, Bruce C.
1988 The Influence of English on Afrikaans: A Case Study of Linguistic Change in a Language Contact Situation. Pretoria: Serva Publishers.
Fauconnier, Gilles
1997 Methods and Generalizations. Plenary lecture delivered during the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 14 – 19 July 1997.
Gesamentlike Kommissie Verteenwoordigende die drie Hollandse Kerke in Suid-Afrika
1947 Die Bybel (1933). Kaapstad: Britse en Buitelandse Bybelgenootskap.
Goleman, Daniel
1996 Emotional Intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.
Harriman, Philip L.
1963 Dictionary of Psychology. London: Peter Owen, Vision Press.
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantics and Cognition. London: The MIT Press.
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Kempen, W.
1984 Voorsetselverbindinge in Afrikaans. Kaapstad: Nasou
Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.)
1985 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Michigan/Devon: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/The Paternoster Press Ltd.
Knuttel, J.A.N.
1916 Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal. Kaapstad: Juta.
Lafferty, Elaine J., Madeleine Nash, Alice Parker and Dick Thompson
1997 The mood molecule. Time, 150(13): 48-55.
Lakoff, George
1990 The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1): 39-74.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1990 Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1): 5-38.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1997 Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1): 1-32.
Logos Library System
1995 Nuwe Afrikaanse Vertaling (1983) (electronic copy). Bible Software 2.0. Washington: Logos Research Systems.
Lyons, John
1968 Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Microsoft
1992 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition (electronic copy). Microsoft Bookshelf ‘95. Multimedia Reference Library. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Corporation.
Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap
1951 Bijbel (negende druk, 1983). Haarlem: Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap.
Niemeier, Susanne
1997 To have one’s heart in the right place – metaphorical and metonymic evidence for the folk model of the heart as the site of emotions in English. In Smieja, Birgit and Meike Tasch (eds.). Human Contact through Language and Linguistics. Duisburg Papers on Research in Language and Culture 31. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Odendal, Francois F. (ed.)
1994 Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. Johannesburg: Perskor.
Reader’s Digest
1990 ABC’s of the Human Mind. Pleasantville, New York/Montreal: The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.
Richards, Jack, John Platt and Heidi Weber
1985 Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman.
Shareware
1994 King James Version. The Complete Bible (electronic copy). Carlsbad, California: Micro Star Software.
Schwerdtfeger, Anna-Mart
1982 Deiksis: oriëntasie en konfrontasie in die ruimte. Klasgids, 17(2): 52-63.
Staten-Generaal der Vereenigde Nederlanden
1892 Bijbel, dat is De Gansche Heilige Schrift, vervatten al de kanonijke boeken des Ouden en Nieuwen Testaments. London/Utrecht: Britsche en Buitelandsche Bijbelgenootschap.
Van Schalkwyk, Dirk J. (ed.)
1994 Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, Negende Deel, L, Stellenbosch: Buro van die WAT.
Talmy, Leonard
1985 Force dynamics in language and thought. In Papers from the Parasession on Causitives and Agentivity at the twenty-first Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 293-337. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Tanz, Christine
1980 Studies in the Acquisition of Deictic Terms. Cambridge/London: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, John R.
1995 Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory (second edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Geen opmerkings nie:
Plaas 'n opmerking