See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343670340

Revealing The Cognition, Ideologies, and Socio-Culture of Kajang: A Cognitive

Linguistics Study.

Book · July 2020

CITATIONS READS
0 82

1 author:

Nirwanto Maruf
Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik
18 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Revealing the Concept of Ammatowa in Pasang ri Kajang View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nirwanto Maruf on 15 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

i
 Revealing the Cognition,
Ideologies, and Socio-Culture of
Kajang: A Cognitive Linguistics
Study

Dr. Nirwanto Maruf

ii
 Revealing the Cognition, Ideologies, and Socio -
Culture of Kajang: A Cognitive Linguistics Study.

Writer:
Dr. Nirwanto Maruf

Editor:
Dr. Nirwanto
Qiara Media Team
Layouter:
Nur Fahmi Hariyanto
Designer Cover:
Dema

Publisher:
CV. Penerbit Qiara Media - Pasuruan, Jawa Timur. Indonesia.

First Printing, 2020

\ Copyright @2020 Nirwanto Maruf
ISBN: 978-623-7925-13-2
Publisher IKAPI No. 237/JTI/2019

All copyrights reserved. It is forbidden to quote and / or reproduce

part or all of the contents of the book without the publisher's written
permission.

Print By CV. Penerbit Qiara Media

Contents outside the responsibility of Printing

iii
 LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC INDONESIA
NUMBER 19 OF 2002
ABOUT COPYRIGHT

ARTICLE 72
CRIMINAL PROVISIONS
SANCTIONS OF VIOLATIONS

a. Whoever intentionally violates and without the right to commit acts

as referred to in Article 2 Paragraph (1) or Article 49 Paragraph (1)
and Paragraph (2) shall be liable to a minimum of 1 (one) month
imprisonment and / or a minimum fine Rp. 1,000,000.00 (one
million rupiah), or a maximum imprisonment of 7 (seven years)
with a maximum fine of Rp. 5,000,000,000.00 (five billion rupiah).
b. Whoever intentionally broadcasts, exhibits, circulates, or sells to the
public a work or product resulting from a violation of copyright or
related rights as referred to in Paragraph (1) shall be liable to a
maximum imprisonment of 5 (five) years and / or a maximum fine
of Rp. 500,000,000.00 (Five hundred million rupiah).

iv
 PREFACE

Cognitive linguistics is a relatively new school of linguistics,

one of the most innovative and exciting approaches to the study of
language and thought that has emerged within the modern field of
interdisciplinary study known as cognitive science. Cognitive
linguistics is an approach that uses to analyze language in order
investigate the conceptual underpinnings of the language usage.
Ungerer & Schmid (1996) describe cognitive linguistics is an
approach to language that is base on our experiences of the world
and the way we perceive and conceptualize it.
Pasang ri Kajang is way of life for Kajang people. They are
delivered orally from generation to generation. They are ancient
messages which related to all knowledge and messages of life, such
as message of guidance, message of mandate, message of counsel,
and messages warning or reminder. Pasang are utterances which
differ from everyday language. They are full of metaphorical
utterances. In order to understand them, we need to reveal the
conceptual ideas mapped in the speaker mind.
This book is attempted to analyze Pasang ri Kajang in term
of Cognitive Linguistics Study. The primary aim of this book is to
reveal the cognition, ideologies and socio - culture of Kajang people
(Ammotoan) that lies in Pasang ri Kajang using analysis of

v
conceptual metaphor developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980,1999,
2002), and the approach of critical metaphor analysis developed by
Jonathan Charteris – Black (2004).

Nirwanto Maruf
Postgraduate Program of Teacher Training and Education.
University of Muhammadiyah Gresik.

May 2020.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise to the Almighty Allah SWT, God of the universe, and also
praise to the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

This book would have never been completed without support from
a number of individuals. Therefore, I would like to express my
gratitude to my esteemed Professors Prof. Dr. H. Hamzah A.
Machmoed, M.A. also to Dr. Harlina Sahib, M.Hum. for their
contribution of thoughts in this book. Also, a special gratitude that I
would like to express to the culturist of Kajang, Mansyur Embas for
his great assistances during my research in Kajang Village.

I would never have enough words to express my gratitude to my

beloved wife Andi Maya Rupa Anjeli who always gave her everlasting
supports and assistances which full of patience and loyalty during the
completion of this book. This work is part of her struggle. Also to
my children: Dzaky Malik Al Maruf, Muh. Fathir Al Maruf,
Anandara A. Adreena Putri Maruf, and Queen Ameera Putri
Maruf. I finally dedicate this book to my late Mother NurLaila Tina
Maruf and father Maruf Unsani, I hope they are proud to this
achievement, Al Fatihah for them.

Gresik, May 2020.

Nirwanto Maruf

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

CHAPTER I GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER II DEFINITION AND UNDERSTANDING 11

A. The Concept of Metaphor 11
B. Dead Metaphors 16
C. Metaphor and Other Figures of Speech 17
1. Metaphors and Similes 17
2. Metaphors and Metonymy 20
3. Metaphors and Personification 24
4. Metaphors and Synecdoche 26
D. Culture in Conceptual Metaphor 28
E. Metaphor and Cognitive Linguistic 32
F. Metaphor and Cognitive - Semantic 35
G. Metaphor and Pragmatic… 38
H. Metaphor and The Notion of Embodiment 41
I. Metaphor and Conceptual Blending 42
J. Metaphor and Thought 44
K. Metaphor and Ideology 45
L. Conceptual Metaphor Theory 47
a. Structural Metaphors 51
b. Orientation Metaphors 52
c. Ontological Metaphors 55
M. Metaphorical Mapping 57
N. Critical Metaphor Analysis 59
O. Concept of Pasang ri Kajang 61
P. Pasang as Corpora 65

viii
Q. Ritual in the Ethnic Kajang 67
R. Conceptual Framework 70

CHAPTER III HOW THE CORPUS ANALYZED 75

A. Data Sources 75
1. Primary Data 75
2. Secondary Data 76
B. Techniques of Data Collection 76
1. Semi – Structured Interviews… 77
2. Field Notes… 77
3. Recording 77
4. Note Taking 77
C. Techniques of Data Analysis 77
1. Data Identification 79
2. Data Interpretation 80
3. Data Explanation 81
F. Data Validation 81

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 83

1. FOREST IS HUMAN 84
2. FOREST IS HERITAGE 87
3. FOREST IS SPRINGS 90
4. FOREST IS CUSTOM 94
5. HEREAFTER IS SUFFICIEN AND ETERNAL LIFE 99
6. AMMA TOA IS A LAW 103
7. AMMA TOA IS A SHELTER 110
8. AMMA TOA IS UNIFIER 115
9. AMMA TOA IS THE BEGINNING 119
10. LIFE IS “KAMASE – MASEA” 122
11. LIFE IS RITUALS 126
12. RELIGION IS “TAREKAT” 129
13. FAITH IS “PATUNTUNG” 134
14. DEATH IS A JOURNEY 137
15. DIVINE IS TAU RIEK AKRAKNA 142

ix
 16. EARTH IS MOTHER 145
17. FIRMNESS IS A FIXED LAW 147
18. DESTINY IS SIMPLICITY… 150

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 169

BIBLIOGRAPHY 178
Appendix 1: Pasang ri Kajang and Images 190
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 217

x
 CHAPTER 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Pasang ri Kajang literally means the messages in Kajang. It is

a set of messages inherited from the ancestors of Kajang to which
Ammatoans refer to for their everyday practices. It is an oral
discourse delivers from generation to generation, and it known as
the guidance of life for Kajang community ( Ammatoan). It regards
to messages of guidance, messages of mandate, messages of counsel,
and messages of warning or reminders (Usop, 1978:119).

Ammatoan considers Pasang as a body of knowledge and

reference in conducting their everyday life. Pasang found in every
aspects of life, including in ritual practices. Every Pasang typically
short, metaphorical and many of them are poetic. They consist of
key of community ethos, prohibitions, commandments, advice for
community members, and admonition to officials
(McKanzie,1999:74).

Language is an important aspect of human being life.

Through language we can give and share information. People
communicate each other through their utterances, but too often they
speak not in the literally ways. The utterances they use frequently

1
metaphorical. When we hear somebody say, “His father is a block
of ice,” or “she is a rainbow to me,” we directly assume that the
speaker does not mean what he/she speaks literally, but in fact he/she
is speaking metaphorically. The existence of such utterances in
which different from what they mean literally are lead us to the
theories of language.

Metaphors used in everyday activities as Lakoff and Johnson

(2003:4) state that “language used in everyday situation or activities
is simply metaphorical since our conceptual system is mainly
metaphorical.” They state that our conceptual system, in term of
which human being think and act, is essentially metaphoric in nature.
Furthermore, Lakoff and Johnson (2003:4) said that the way we
think, what we experience, and what we do in everyday situation, are
very much a matter of metaphor. Base on this claim, metaphor then
seems in the level of conceptual functioning. Metaphor is a kind of
cognitive instrument whereby we conceive our world. Therefore,
metaphor is not merely about words, but it is about thought.
Metaphor is not a figure of speech, but a mode of thought.

Metaphor is often used to depict ideas, reasons, concepts

and emotions that can be difficult to convey literally since the
meaning are abstract and elusive. Elaborating the above mentioned
argument, metaphor is not a linguistic property, but it is pivotally

2
cognitive, conceptual and structural. In addition, it can be a window
to probe and comprehend the mechanism of a culture.

In classical theories of language, metaphor was defined as a

matter of language not thought. Metaphorical expressions were
assumed to be particularly used in novel or poetic linguistic
expression where one or more words are used outside of their
normal conventional meaning. Everyday conventional language has
no metaphor, they all comprehended literally. According to
Aristotle (in Ross, 1952:1457), metaphor consists of “giving the thing
a name that belongs to something else”. He believed that metaphor
was based in analogy, and was considered an implicit comparison.
The nature of metaphors was to replace one thing with another
which unrelated thing or to use different words to express this
replacement relation. Thus, the use of metaphor was just something
for fancy words, not for necessary. This Aristotle‟s comparison
theory turns to be failed to explain metaphor since it only tied literal
utterances to be some kind of similarity or analogy, thus makes every
metaphor more concentrated or related to simile (Ortony, 1993:27).

Another philosopher, Max Black (1993) proposed what

usually called the “substitution theory”, which states that “a
metaphor is where a metaphorical expression is used in place of
some equivalent literal expression”. He adds that metaphor is

3
species of “catachresis” which he defines as the use of a word in
some new sense in order to remedy a gap in the vocabulary. In
another words, putting of new senses into new words.

New metaphors are different from conventional one in that

they are beyond social conventions and “are capable of giving us a
new understanding of our experiences” (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980:139). Furthermore, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) state that the
power of new metaphor is to create a new reality rather than simply
to give mankind a way of conceptualizing a pre-existing reality as
conventional metaphors do. Thus, new metaphor plays a very
important role in imaginary and creation of new meaning.

In order we can understand the cognition or the intention of

the speaker through their word, expression, or sentence which have
metaphorical meaning, we should be able to figure out the
conceptual system that the speaker have in mind and construct them
into our physical experiences. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) state
that metaphors construct through experiences and become a part of
our basic conceptual system, and through our physical experiences
we learn to relate one thing to something else and the mapping is
stored in our brain. Thus, the use of metaphor reflects speaker‟s
ideas and the interactions with the world.

4
 Talking about conceptual system and physical experiences,
Noam Chomsky sees languages as different from one another only
in form. Therefore, he believes that the lexicon of a language not as
a unique system of categorization found on external reality, but
essentially as of labels to be attached to concepts which are language
independent and are determined not culturally but biologically. He
states:
Language and thought are awakened in the mind,
andfollow a largely predetermined course, much like
other biological properties. Human knowledge and
understanding in these areas is not derived by
induction but rather, it grows in the mind, on the basis
of our biological nature, triggered by appropriate
experience, and in a limited way shaped by experience
that settles options left open by the innate structure of
the mind (Chomsky in Wierzbicka, 1992:4).

In metaphor We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson (1980:6) state

that human conceptual metaphor is a system of metaphorically
structured and defined. According to them, conceptual metaphor is
a system of metaphor that lies behind much of everyday language
and forms everyday conceptual system, including most abstract
concept. The substance of metaphor is “understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (Lakoff and
Johnson,1980:5). In conceptual metaphor, there are two semantic
domains which related one to another. Those domains so called

5
“target” domain which describes metaphorically, and “source”
domain which provides the metaphor. The source domain is
characteristically concrete thing and the target domain
characteristically abstract thing that we try to comprehend through
the use of the source domain. These two domains are systematically
correspondences with a linker called as “mappings”. For example,
LOVE IS A JOURNEY (Lakoff and Johnson. 1980, 2003:44-45),
“journey” is the source domain, which is concrete; “love” is the target
domain, which is an abstract idea. Ideas and knowledge from the
source domain of “journey” are mapped onto the target domain of
emotions, called love. It is further explained that conceptual
metaphors function at the level of thought. Thus, they can be seen
as a way of describing the connection that appears among two groups
of ideas in people‟s minds. Here, the conceptual metaphors refer
to those “abstract notions”, while a linguistic metaphor is the actual
or concrete words, phrases, or sentences that realize those notions
in one way to another. Conceptual metaphors are systematic
mappings across two conceptual domains. The source domain is
mapped onto the target domain. The target domain is that which is
described, the source domain provides the terms which the target is
described. As in LOVE IS A JOURNEY, Lakoff and Johnson
dissociate the metaphors as described below:
- The relationship isn‟t going anywhere

6
- Our relationship is off the track
- The marriage is on the bumpy road
- Our relations is at the crossroads right now
- Look how far our relationship have come
- We may have to go our separate ways

Here, the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY is a

conceptual mapping from a source domain (journey) to a target
domain (love). Apparently, the wide range of figurative expressions
can be systematically tracked down to a source domain or a
metaphoric theme. The above expressions indicate that “love” is
conceptualized as a “journey”, since those different figurative
expressions form a coherent which are based on the same
underlying concept. Hence, the area of metaphor occurs in the way
we conceptualize “one cognitive domain in terms of another”
(Lakoff and Johnson. 2003:44).

This research focuses on analyzing Pasang in term of

conceptual metaphor using critical metaphor analysis developed by
Charteris - Black (2004). Critical metaphor analysis is an approach
to metaphor analysis that aims to reveal the hidden intention of
language users and further develop the readers‟ awareness of social
relations that are loaded in metaphoric expression (Charteris –

7
Black, 2004:34). This research analyzes metaphor expressions
found in Pasang in order to reveal the intention, ideologies, and
social – culture aspects of Kajang people.

As described above that metaphor appears in any aspect of

human life, since human think and act are essentially metaphorical.
Thus, they can appear in rituals speech, folklore, mites, legends and
any others. Pasang ri kajang as the life guidance (the locals called
patuntung) of Ammatoa community who lives in kajang regency at
South Sulawesi province contains many metaphorical expressions.
Here are some examples of pasang ri kajang:

- Manna pokok kaju aknapasatongi

(even the trees breathe.)
- Jari u’rangilaloi tanring kaju matea

(You have to remember to be always engaged with the death

wood)
- Dampengangi raung kaju lolo talammengoa

(make the non-toxic young leaves become your fiancé.).

The metaphorical expressions above are structured by the concept

of human. Here the attributes of human such as aknapasa
(breathing), tanring (girlfriend), raung (fiance.) are used to describe

8
the intention of speaker. All of them are reflect to the concept of
human. That is why we can conceptualize them into FOREST IS
HUMAN. Here forest and human are different kind of things but
forest is partially structure, understood and treated in terms of
human. This is what Lakoff and Johnson mean concerning the
essence of metaphor, according to them the essence of metaphor is
“understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of
another.” (Lakoff and Johnson,1980:5).

Many scholars have done similar studies on metaphors, or

researches on Pasang ri Kajang, then why the researcher still wants
to conduct this kind of research. Is it still necessary or relevant in this
modern era? Metaphor is not merely about a figure of speech, but
is neural mapping that influence on how people think, reason, and
imagine in everyday life. In other words, metaphors do not just exist
in language, but in thought, and they live all around us. Cognitive
scientists claim that many of the metaphors we use to understand
reality are based on our experience which embedded in the physical
world. A cognitive linguist Geogle Lakoff has proposed that the way
we think about concepts is fundamentally metaphorical. In other
words, we do not simply talk with metaphors, but we think with
them. In this modern era, people choose to rely on what is simple
and familiar to them. They become more practical, they use one

9
particular word or phrase to deliver their whole intention or
cognition. For instance, a husband says to his wife “it will rain
soon”. She respons with immediately go to the back yard to take all
clothes on the sun dried. Things like this happen in everyday
situation and in everyday language. Therefore, the study of
metaphor is significant in order to reveal the intention or cognition
of language users. In the other hand, study on Pasang ri Kajang still
has its own attraction to study since this ethnic is very unique and
different to others, especially the oral tradition that they have. The
contain of Pasang is full of metaphors, and in order to reveal the
cognition, ideologies, and socio – culture of ethnic Kajang, Pasang is
the way to reveal them. This book is composed to reveal the
cognition, ideologies, and socio culture of Kajang people by
employed conceptual metaphor analysis. As Charteris – Black
(2004:34) mention that critical metaphor analysis is an approach that
aims to reveal the hidden intention or cognition of language users
and further develop the readers’ awareness of social relations that
are loaded in metaphoric expression. Cognition is the ability to
process information through experience, and subjective
characteristics that allow us to integrate all of the informations to
evaluate and interpret our world, as Lakoff and Johnson (1980)
argue that metaphor is cognitive instrument whereby we conceive
our surrounding world.

10
 CHAPTER 2
DEFINITION AND UNDERSTANDING

A. The Concept of Metaphor

The reason why the speaker substituted the metaphorical
expressions for the literal ones is not just for ornament, but also for
persuasion. But before we go further to discuss theories of
metaphor, let us have a look the etymological origin of the word
metaphor. The metaphor is from the Greek meta means with, after
and pherein means bear, carry. Base on the etymological meaning,
it is obvious that the essence notion of metaphor is one in which
meanings are transferred.
As been described before that in classical theories of language,
the metaphor was defined as a matter of language not thought.
Metaphorical expressions were assumed to be particularly used in a
novel or poetic linguistic expression where one or more words are
used outside of their normal conventional meaning. This theory calls
as classical theory of metaphor. Aristotle cited in Eubanks (1999)
states that metaphor is made of two parts which can be easily
extracted or hidden because all metaphors can be stated as similes
and all similes as metaphors. According to him the two parts of a

11
metaphor work on each other by sharing some obvious features. He
then defined metaphor as "giving the thing a name that belongs to
something else." Aristotle considers metaphor as part of the figure of
speech, being used mainly in poetry.
According to Donald Davidson (1975) that to know a sentence's
meaning is to know the conditions under which that sentence would
be true. Thus, he rejects metaphorical meaning and denies linguistic
mechanisms by which metaphorical importance is expressed. He
argues "Metaphors mean what the words, in their most literal
interpretation, mean, and nothing more". For example in
Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, "Juliet is the sun". Here Davidson
considers that when Romeo said it, he just saying that Juliet was
literally the sun. But we aware that it is not like that at all. So,
obviously, Davidson against or rejects metaphorical meaning. He
claims that few human utterances are entirely nothing to do with
metaphorical elements.
Searle (1979) offers a version of metaphor by rejecting
linguistic ambiguity view and thinking that metaphorical utterance is
truly linguistic communication. He views metaphor as simply a kind
of indirect communication. According to Searle (1979:92-93):
The problem of explaining how metaphors work is a
special case of the general problem of explaining how
speaker meaning and sentence or word meaning come
apart… Our task in constructing a theory of metaphor is to

12
 try to state the principles which relate literal sentence
meaning to metaphorical (speaker's) utterance meaning.

Searle considers the interpretive process into three stages. First, the
hearer should determine whether to look for a non – literal
interpretation. Second, if the hearer has decided to seek
metaphorical interpretation, he or she should use several strategies
to work out the possible speaker meaning. Third, the hearer must
also use more principles or strategies to identify the exact meaning
of the situation. According to Searle, the hearer should first
cooperatively accept and determine what the speaker is trying to
express that something other than the literal meaning, then the
hearer works out the intended meaning of the utterance. So, here
Searle intends to say that the speaker meaning is more or less the
metaphorical meaning.
Max Black (1962) has a different view of metaphor. Black
proposes an alternative view in which he claims that "a metaphor is
where a metaphorical expression is used in place of some equivalent
literal expression". He defines metaphor as the use of a word in some
new sense in order to remedy a gap in the vocabulary. In other
words, putting off new senses into new words. He developed on the
basis of the substitution theory which states that metaphorical
expression is a product of an interaction between a metaphorical

13
expression called the „focus", and its "surrounding literal frame"
(1993:27). He argues that metaphors sometimes take its role as
„cognitive instruments". Metaphor must not be treated as solely as a
tool in perceiving analogies of structure between two things belong
to different domains, without concern to the state of mind of the
person who proclaims the metaphorical statement.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) claim that our conceptual system,
in terms of which human beings both think and act, is basically
metaphoric in nature. Furthermore, they claim that the way humans
think, what we experience, and what we do every day, is very much
a matter of metaphor. Metaphor then seems to function at the
conceptual level. They also state that metaphor is a cognitive
instrument whereby we conceive of our world.
Lakoff and Johnson notice that people often talk about
abstract things or ideas by employing the words for more concrete
concepts. People use words from a concrete source to talk about
abstract ideas. Lakoff and Johnson (1980:5) explain in interpreting
metaphor, we understand one kind of thing or experience in terms
of something else of a different kind. A metaphor is a productive
phenomenon that operates at the level of mental processes.
According to them "Metaphor is not merely a property of language
but is also a property of thought."
Lakoff and Johnson in their seminal book with title

14
Metaphor We Live By (1980) claim that our language is full of
metaphors and rooted in bodily experiences. They also state that our
language is metaphorical simply because our conceptual system is
metaphorical. Through our bodily experiences, we learn to connect
one thing to something else. Thus, the use of metaphor reflects
speaker's ideas and the interaction with the world.
Kӧvecses (2002) mentioned that conventional notion of
metaphor can be summarized into five commonly features. First, a
metaphor is a linguistic phenomenon and a property of words.
Second, a metaphor is used for an imaginative and rhetorical
purpose which Aristotle mentions, it is primarily ornamental. Third,
a metaphor is based on a similarity between the two entities that are
compared and identified. Fourth, as Aristotle states metaphor is a
conscious and deliberate use of words, and one should have a special
talent to be able to construct a good metaphor. Fifth, metaphor is
the figure of speech that we use it for certain effects, and it is not an
unavoidable part of everyday communication.
Although insufficient, those early studies of metaphor have a
role to help us to understand some important properties of
metaphor. Charteris – Black (2004:14) states that Aristotle's theory
of metaphor, the notion of movement is important since "it is the
possibility of movement and change that creates the potential for the
metaphor to evoke emotional responses". Those early researchers

15
or theories serve as stepping stones to linguistic research on
metaphor.

B. Dead Metaphors

A dead metaphor is traditionally defined as a figure of speech

that has lost its force and imaginative effectiveness through frequent
use. It is also known as a frozen metaphor or a historical metaphor.
For example: the face of a clock, this metaphor is entrenched in the
English language that they have become part of the way we speak,
and we do not even have to think about their meanings. Another
example like “the body of an essay”, here “body” was initially an
expression that drew in the metaphorical image of human anatomy
applied to the subject matter of essay. “the body of an essay” literally
means the main part of an essay, and no longer suggests anything
else that might be related to an anatomical referent. Therefore, “the
body of an essay” is no longer a metaphor, but merely a literal
statement of fact or categorizes as dead metaphor.
Since dead metaphors have become so conventional, they
might be understood without knowledge of previous connotations.
Dead metaphors occur when there is a semantic shift in a language
that causes evolution. In this case the metaphor becomes literalized.
The origins of dead metaphors may be so common and widely
known that they are not usually thought about, like the time is

16
running out. Max Black (1962) argues that dead metaphor should
not be classified as metaphors, but should be renamed as another
part of speech or literature. While Gibbs (1997) states that a
metaphor can only be dead if it loses its ability to become a
metaphor, which never occurs.

C. Metaphor and other figures of speech

A metaphor is frequently included in discussions of other

figures of speech such as simile, metonymy, personification,
synecdoche etc. From those figures of speech, simile, metonymy,
and personification are sometimes confused to metaphor since the
partition between them appeared unclear in particular contexts.
Nevertheless, some differences between them can be identified.
Figures of speech are imaginative tools in both literature and
ordinary communication used for explaining speech beyond its
usual usage. The purpose of figures of speech is to serve three major
elements such as "clarity, forth, and beauty in language" (Tajali,
2003:100).

1. Metaphors and Similes

The word of simile is derived from the Latin word "Simile"

which means "resemblance and likenesses", it technically means the
comparison of two objects with some similarities. In English, for this

17
comparison some similarity markers such as, "like", "as". In literal
texts, a simile is used to enhance the effect and beauty of the text. It
is the simplest way of delivering the beauty of message which is used
in poetry, prose, and also everyday conversation. The use of simile
as a comparison, like metaphor, it is a semantic figure. It's a cognitive
process perform a central role in the way we think and talk about the
world surrounding, which often relates to the different area.
A simile is much less studied than the metaphor, therefore
there is not much about simile. According to Fromilhague (1995), a
simile has various functions. First, they attend to communicate
concisely and efficiently. They are one of the sets of linguistic tools
which extends the linguistic resources available. Second, they can
function as cognitive tools for thought in that they enable us to think
of the world in alternative ways. In discourse, they can also fulfill
more specific functions depending on the textual genre in which they
occur. In scientific texts, simile has roles as a comparison and
analogical reasoning.
Metaphors and similes are both understood as comparison
statements. According to Ortony (1975:52), "in simile, if there is a
comparison at all, rather than transfer, the comparison can only be
with respect to certain characteristics. Determining what these
features are what is involved in understanding the simile." When we
are comparing metaphor to simile, the distinction is easy to identify,

18
unlike comparing to other figurative languages such as metonymy.
The difference between metaphor and simile only in the absence of
the word "like". These two statements "Mary is an angel" and "Mary
is like an angel", both are likely to lead the hearer to the same kinds
of ideas about Mary's personality or appearance. But unlike Ortony,
Donoghue (2009) in his article titled is a metaphor (like) a simile?
states metaphor and simile are fundamentally quite different
phenomena. They are never properly interchangeable, in the sense
that one could be used in place of the other without compromising
the meaning. The phase "Mary is an angel" may well be paraphrased
as "Mary is like an angel in some respect" this for most of the people
consider as metaphor as "elliptical simile" but according to
Donoghue, this phrase for any context-bound utterance of the
original metaphor, a simile could not be directly transposed without
changing the meaning. In order to sharpen his argument he gives
another example "My Lawyer is (like) a shark", the simile refers
directly to the encoded concept of "shark", while the metaphor to a
superordinate category which involves both real shark and the
lawyer. Another example like "The mind is (like) a computer", in the
simile perspective this sentence lead the hearer to think that the two
concepts (mind and computer) might be comparable, both function
as process and store information, consider as in terms of circuits and
pathways. In contrast when we look from the metaphor point of

19
view. It leads to the complexity of the human brain.

2. Metaphor and Metonymy

When we are comparing metaphor to simile in term of

superficial distinction is easy to identify. But, when it comes to
metonymy, it is more complicated. Metonymy is a word or
expression used to substitute for something which it is closely
associated. Metonymy has a function as referential, it uses one
referent to stand for another referent which directly related to it or
closely associated with it. Metonymies are based on various indexical
relationship between entities. Cormac (1985:36) mentions that
"metonymy employs an attribute as an expression of the entity".
Here, Metonymy is defined as a relationship involving substitution.
Yet, metonymy does not simply as a substitution for one entity to
another entity but inter relates them to form a new complex meaning
(Radden & Kӧvecses (1999:19). Here the example "I like Mozart",
Mozart refers to music composed by Mozart. Another sentence
"The bathtub is running over", here we understood the meaning that
the water in the bathtub is running over, not the bathtub itself.
Gibbs (1994:320) mentions that metonymy as the process of
"people takes one well understood or easily perceived an aspect of
something to represent or stand for the thing as a whole". He

20
identifies that metonymy is diverse and occurs in the variety of
forms in the language. Gibbs (1999:74) also argues that "people
experience little difficult thinking of, speaking of, and understanding
the metonymic language".
Kӧvecses (2002:144-145) mentions that "most metonymic
expressions are not isolated but come in larger groups that are
characterized by a particular relationship between one kind of entity
and another kind of entity." He characterizes "metonymy as a stand
for relationship between two elements within a single conceptual
domain and metaphor is understood as the relationship between two
conceptually distant domains" (Kӧvecses, 2002: 227). Thus, he states
that metonymy is a one domain model and metaphor is a two-
domain model.
Lakoff and Johnson (2003:35) in their book Metaphor we
live by mentioned that metonymy is "using or putting one entity to
refer to another that is related to it". Here the sentences describe the
metonymy: "The Times hasn't arrived at the press conference yet."
(Times refers to the reporter from the Times), "He likes to read
Marquis de Sade" (Marquis de Sade refers to the writing of the
Marquis). "There are a lot of good heads in the university (good
heads refer to intelligent people), "I've got a new set of wheels" (a new
set of wheels refers to the car or motorcycle).
Metaphor and metonymy are different kinds of processes. A

21
metaphor is fundamentally a way of considering of one thing in terms
of another, and the primary function is understanding. Whereas
metonymy has a primary function as referential, therefore it allows
us to use one entity to refer to another (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003:36).
Nevertheless, they also mention that metonymy is not only as a
referential tool. It also serve the function of providing understanding,
for instance when we say "we need some good heads on the project",
here good heads refer to intelligent people, the point is not just to
use a part of body (head) to stand for a whole person, but rather than
to pick out a certain characteristic of the person, namely intelligence
in which associated with the head. The same case with "The Times
hasn't arrived at the press conference yet", the use of The Times not
only refer to a particular reporter who works for Times magazines
but also mean the importance of the institution the reporter
represents. The above two examples as the part of metonymic
concept (The part of the whole) are part of the ordinary, everyday
way we think and act as well as talk. This quit the same with
metaphor feature which mentioned that "our conceptual system is
largely metaphorical, and that the way we think, what we experience,
and what we do every day is very much a matter of metaphor" (Lakoff
& Johnson, 1980).
Metonymic concepts allow us to conceptualize one thing by
means of its relation to something else. As we think Picasso, we are

22
not only thinking of a work of art done by Picasso, but we think the
all the terms that related to Picasso, like his conception of art, his
technique, his role in art history, etc. So, metonymy not only effects
our thought but also our action. Thus, like metaphors, metonymic
concepts shape not just "our language but our thought, attitudes, and
action" (L&J, 2003:40). And furthermore, like metaphoric concepts,
metonymic concepts are grounded in our experience. But the
grounding of metonymic concepts is more obvious than metaphoric
concepts because metonymic concepts usually involve direct
physical or causal association.
In sum, like metaphors, metonymic concepts structure not
just our language but our thoughts, attitudes, and actions. Also, it
grounded in our experience.
The following below is the Metaphor and Metonymy compared in
cognitive linguistic based on Kӧvecses (2002:146-149)

Metaphor Metonymy
1. The two conceptual domain (A 1.The vehicle and target entities
and B) participating in metaphor in a metonymy are based on
stand in relation of similarity. contiguity.
2. Metaphor involves two distant2.Metonymy involves a single
domains, distant in ourdomain.
conceptual system which called
source domain (more concrete)
and target domain (abstract).

23
 Metaphor Metonymy
3. The main function of metaphor 3.The main function of
is to understand a whole system of metonymy is to provide mental
entities through another system. access to a single entity within a
single domain.
It allows us to use one entity to
stand for another entity.
4. Metaphor occurs between 4.Metonymy occurs between
concepts. one word and one concepts as well as between word
referent.
forms and things and between
linguistic forms and concepts
such
as a linguistic sign which contain

Table 2.1. The comparison of Metonymy and Metaphor in cognitive

linguistics

3. Metaphor and Personification

In general perspective, Personification considers as a

figurative element that attributes human thoughts, actions,
characteristics or emotions to something that is not human. Or in
other words, personification is the rhetorical figure by which
something not human is given a human identity or qualities.
Kӧvecses (2002:39) argues that we can conceive of personification
as a form of ontological metaphor. In ontological metaphor, we
conceive of our experiences in terms of objects, substances, and

24
container. In general, ontological metaphors enable us to see more
sharply described a structure where it is very little or none. It has
specific functions such as to refers, to quantity, to identify aspects of
the experience that has been made more described.
Kӧvecses adds that in personification, human qualities are
given to nonhuman entities. Furthermore, personification is
common in literature but it also abounds in everyday conversation
or discourse.
The words of theory, life, inflation, cancer, and computer are
not humans, but they are given the characteristics of human beings,
such as explaining, cheating, eating, catching up and went dead. By
personifying nonhuman as humans, we can understand those
sentences better.
With personification speakers and writers make the objects
or idea like a person and hence, they personify it. Word of personify
defined as to transform into a character endued with human-like
characteristics. Personify also means to embody or symbolize.
Statements like "cancer finally caught up with him", "inflation is eating
up our profits", "life has cheated me." (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003).
Those statements are showing us something nonhuman act as a
human. But here Lakoff and Johnson emphasize that
"personification is not a single unified general process" and that each
personification "differs in terms of the aspects of people that are

25
picked out" (2003:33). "Inflation is eating up our profits", here as
Lakoff and Johnson argue that we do not merely see an inflation is
a person, but as particular kind of person, such as destroyer that why
the relevant conceptual metaphor is "Inflation is a destroyer."
Modern conceptual theories of metaphor regard
personification as a key component and product of the metaphorical
instruments used in language, discourse, and thought. Hamilton
(2002) proposes "a metaphor in language normally reveals a related
conceptual metaphor in thought". Therefore, the reason people to
personification is that because they first think in personification.

4. Metaphor and Synecdoche

Synecdoche like metonymy is based on association. It is

defined as a figure of speech by which the whole of a thing is put for
a part or a part of the whole. To recognize synecdoche it's helpful to
understand that there are different sorts of wholes and parts. A less
common form of synecdoche occurs when a whole is used to refer
to a part, an example of this is when the word "mortals" is used to
mean humans. In fact, "mortals" technically includes all creatures that
die including animals and plants. So by using "mortals" to mean
humans is a synecdoche that uses a category as a part of the whole.
Synecdoche is related and commonly confused with metonymy.
Since these two figures of speech are similar, they are not the same.

26
Both of them create a relationship in which one thing or idea stand
in for another, but the specific of this relationship is different. Those
difference are; in synecdoche, the relationship is one of either part
of whole or whole to part. In metonymy, the relationship between
the two things is not part of whole or whole to part but is rather one
of being closely conceptually related. For example, "the pen is
powerful than the sword". This phrase contains two metonymies;
one in which "pen" which stands for writing, and another in which
"sword' stands in for physical power. Here, a pen is not a part of
writing, and a sword is not part of the physical power. But each thing
is related to the concept it raises.
Synecdoche appears often in everyday language and
literature form prose to poetry. Often as a part of idioms that have
become so well known that few people ever stop to think about the
fact that these expressions do not mean what they literally say.
Synecdoche is a multipurpose literary device, writers use synecdoche
for many reasons. Often synecdoche can elevate language, making a
sentence or phrase sound more interesting or more poetic. It can
also help to writer create a strong voice for a character or for a
narrator. There are two main types of synecdoche, microcosms, and
macrocosms. A microcosm is when a part of something is used to
refer to the whole. Phrases or sentences like "Nice wheels!" a
synecdoche in which "wheels" mean for the car that they are a part of

27
it. "The brain helped me with my homework." A part of the whole
synecdoche in which smart students are referred to as "brains."
While a macrocosm is the opposite, when the whole structure of
something is used to refer to a small part, for instance „the world"
when the speaker really means a certain country or part of the world,
not the whole countries in the world.
Sapir (1977: 13-19) distinguishes two varieties of synecdoche,
they are namely taxonomic and anatomical. Anatomical wherever it
is a physical part or the whole relationship, for examples; "just direct
your feet to the sunny side of the street", here with no implication
that you should leave the rest of your body behind, therefore your
feet means your body or yourself. Some anatomical synecdoche also
regards almost any part of the human body, like "he is a brain". (very
intellectual person or the thinker). While taxonomic defines as one
kind of thing, for examples "Caucasians" refers to white people,
"paper" for Journal article or newspaper, "armor" for tanks, etc.

D. Culture in Conceptual Metaphor

The concept of culture is complex. It can be defined in many

ways depending on the context, and theoretical perspective or
discipline. In cognitive linguistics, the culture usually refers to a
system of collective beliefs, customs, traditions, values, and norms

28
which shared by the members of a community. Hill (2009: 116)
describes culture as a system of norms and values shad among a
group of people. Hill also mentions that “values are abstract ideals
about what a society believes to be good, right, and desirable”.
Meanwhile, “Norms are social rules and guidelines that prescribe
appropriate behavior in particular situation”.
According to Cognitive theory, cognitive and culture are
intimately related, since human cognition works with the notion of
embodiment, such as the bodily, physical and cultural grounding of
human cognition. Cognitive linguistics studies the central role of the
body and its interaction with culture to reveal more about human
meaning and understanding. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) emphasize
this intimate relationship by the mention that experience cannot be
disassociated from culture, and therefore, every conceptual
metaphor carries culture content. They also argue that a person's
culture shapes all the image schemas they have for the world around
them. Therefore, these images are specific to each individual and
would be different for people raised in a different culture. For
instance, the conceptual metaphor of "Times is Money" which taken
from source domain you are wasting my time, only comprehended
in industrialized cultures (Lakoff and Johnson.1980:8-9), but non-
industrialized cultures may have a different value which results in
different interpretations of common experiences.

29
 The metaphors of each culture are varied because the
concept of thought of a society in every culture is different. Culture
and life experiences constantly influence the creation of metaphor.
Therefore, in order to comprehend the real meaning of a
metaphorical expression or metaphoric concepts, one must know
the context and culture in which the metaphor it appears. If the
context and culture are not known, then the interpretation of the real
meaning in a metaphor can be wrong or misinterpreted. As Searle
(1979: 85) argues ".... the hearer requires something more than his
knowledge of a language, his awareness of the conditions of the
utterance and background assumption that share with the speakers
". Lyons (1996: 280-281) also has a similar opinion, he states that we
need context and the situation of conversation to figure whether a
phrase only has literal meaning or metaphorical meaning. For
instance, a phrase like “John is a tiger” can be mean john is a name
of a tiger or has metaphorical meaning.

Allan (2008) emphasizes that conceptual metaphor can be

interpreted only by considering the "cultural context' in which they
occur. Long before Allan, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue that
basic conceptual metaphor is part of the prevalent conceptual
instrument which is shared by the members of a certain culture.
Kӧvecses (2005) claims that conceptual metaphors could be real

30
processes in our social and cultural practices. To prove this claim,
Kӧvecses provides the following examples of conceptual metaphor;
"Significant is Higher", and "Less Significant is Lower" (Kӧvecses,
2005:142). Here, he points out that in seating arrangement at any
formal meeting usually, important people tend to sit higher or
centrally than people who less important. According to Kӧvecses
(2006:3-4) that metaphors are used in order to conceptualize and
build the non – physical and abstract world. This conceptualization
could be done through the embodied experience which correlates
with cultural background. He also argues that conceptual metaphor
produces cultural models or frames which operate in thought.
(2005:126). He adds that the importance of culture in metaphor
cross-cultural and within – culture variation that culture guides the
choice of those elements that participate in conceptual metaphor.
Cross – cultural in conceptual metaphor, Emanation (1999) urges
that the notion that metaphors are “congruence by degree”. In his
research, he was comparing the metaphors concerning the
metaphors concerning sex and lust, he found out that many
similarities and differences in metaphors in Chagga people and
English people. He identifies variations or even different metaphors
between Chagga people and English people. He agrees that many
abstract concepts are motivated metaphorically via our embodied
experience. The conceptual metaphor show high congruence (high

31
congruent metaphors) across cultures since physiological experience
is much alike across cultures.

E. Metaphor and Cognitive Linguistic

Since Lakoff and Johnson in 1980 introduced their theories

of metaphor, metaphor has been considering as a fundamental
mode of cognition, rather than as a linguistic phenomenon.
Cognitive linguistics is an approach that uses to analyze language in
order to investigate the conceptual underpinnings of the language
usage. Cognitive linguistics represents a contemporary approach to
language, language learning, and conceptual structure.
Many cognitive scientists and scholars have adopted
cognitive approach to explaining metaphor. By publishing the book
entitled Metaphor We Live By in 1980, George Lakoff and Mark
Johnson have staged a revolution in the area of cognitive linguistics.
Since then, many researchers have been following their paths by
researching in the same direction, believing that metaphor is
fundamentally a way of thinking. They argue that “metaphor is
pervasive in everyday life, not in language but in thought and action”.
Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think
and act is fundamentally metaphorical in nature” (1980:3).
According to them the locus of metaphor is thought and not
language, since metaphor is an indispensable part of our ordinary

32
way of conceptualizing the world around us. It is reflected in our
everyday behavior. Cognitive linguistics claims that how we construe
our experience with the world is mediated by the nature of our
bodies and we organize our embodied experience metaphorically.

Ungerer & Schmid (1996: x) mention that cognitive

linguistics is “an approach to language that is based on our
experience of the world and the way we perceive and conceptualize
it”. Cognitive linguistics adopts a philosophical stance so – called
experientialism, which is opposed to objectivism. For objectivism,
there is an external objective world that is indepenent of our
perceptions and interaction with it. Meanwhile, for experientialists,
this external world is not fully independent from our perception
interactions. Objectivism argues that thinking amounts to symbol
manipulation. These symbols acquire their meanin by their direct
connection to the outside world. Therefore, our mind is mirror of
reality and is independent from our bodies. Experientialists have a
different view, they believe that thinking is not merely mechanical
manipulation of symbols. Our apprehension of the world is not
direct but bound by our conceptual and perceptual systems. Thus,
thought and language are embodied, in other words they based on
our experiences with the environment we inhabit.

According to Lakoff and Johnson (2003) Cognitive linguistic

33
is the part of linguistic within cognitive science that conceive language
creation, learning and usage as a part of a psychological theory of
how humans understand the world. It understands linguistic
phenomena in terms of conceptualization. It has focused on human
neural make – up as it impacts language and cognition. Cognitive
linguistics has long tended to neglect the sociocultural situation of
cognition or its connections to discourse. One of the basic principles
of cognitive linguistic approach to metaphor is human cognition and
language behavior, as Lakoff and Johnson (1980) state that metaphor
as basic to human cognition and language behavior. Meanwhile,
Evans and Greeen (2006:170) state that our language is one of the
tools to study “the organization of our conceptual system is highly
metaphorical”.

Cognitive linguistic in metaphor is dependent on mappings

between domains. Mapping is two sets of ontological
correspondences that exist between constituent elements of the
source and target domain, whereas the source domain is a more
physical or concrete and the target domain a more abstract kind of
domain, and mapping itself depends on our previous experiences to
construct our new experiences.

Cognitive linguistics classifies the study of language into two

branches, namely cognitive semantics and the cognitive approach to

34
grammar. Cognitive semantics views conceptualization as meaning
construction. It aims to study the relationship between experience,
embodied cognition, and language. While the other one is cognitive
approach to grammar. Here, grammar is viewed as involving our
cognitive processes and is grounded in language use. Grammar is
not simply looked as a system of words and rules of language but a
symbolic or constructional view of language.

The fundamental assumptions or principles of cognitive

linguistics can be summaried as follows (1) language is not a modular
system in our brain, (2) language reflects general cognitive principles,
(3) language and cognition are embodied, that is oir linguistic and
conceptual categories are grounded in physical, social and cultural
experiences, (4) language is all about meaning, language is the vehicle
of meaning and also a window in o conceptualization, (5) there are
common structuring principles which hold across all language areas
(phonology, morphology, syntax, semantic and pragmatics).

F. Metaphor and Cognitive – Semantic

We all understand that semantic is the study of linguistic

meaning of linguistic expressions. It studies how meaning works in
language, and it often involves speaker intuitions about the meaning
of words or phrases, and it plays in our subconscious level. It is how

35
we understand each other when we speak. Meanwhile cognitive
semantics is part of cognitive linguistics notion. It holds that language
is part of a more general human cognitive ability. It has function to
describe the world as people conceive, since there is some difference
between conceptual world or abstract things with the real world or
concrete things.

Cognitive semantics generally refers to the analysis of

meaning and notion in language which explain the use of schema –
based knowledge and particular kinds of imaginative devices, such
as metaphors, metonymy, and conceptual integration (Lakoff and
Johnson, 1986:91). Cognitive semantic urges that the meaning of
words is located in our heads. As Lakoff and Johnson (1986:93)
mention that important principle of cognitive semantic is that what
we have in mind (heads) are carrying the meaning of words which
the same with those that are created them when we perceive. Since,
the cognitive structures in our heads are connected to our
perceptual mechanisms, directly or indirectly, so that meanings are
perceptual grounded.

The main slogan for cognitive semantics is meanings are

mentally encoded which means a semantic for a language is
considered as a mapping from the expressions of the language to
some cognitive or mental entities. Mapping in cognitive linguistics is

36
known as the sets of systematic correspondences between the two
semantic areas or domains. The domain that is described
metaphorically is called the target domain in which it is typically
abstract, and the domain that provides the metaphor is called the
source domain, which typically concrete. For example, in the
metaphor LOVE IS JOURNEY, journey is the source domain,
which is concrete; love is the target domain, which is an abstract idea.
Ideas and knowledge from the source domain of journey are
mapped onto the target domain of feeling, namely love.

According to Evan and Green (2006: 114), cognitive

semantic is a branch of cognitive linguistics, he categories the
cognitive linguistics into two branches, namely cognitive semantics
and cognitive approach to grammar. Cognitive semantics views
conceptualization as meaning construction. It aims to study the
relationship between experience, embodied cognition and language.
While, the cognitive approach to grammar is viewed as involving our
cognitive processes and is grounded in language use. In this case,
grammar is not simply a system of words and rules but it takes a
symbolic or constructional view of language, which consist of an
inventory of units that are form – meaning pairings: morphemes,
words and grammatical constructions.

37
G. Metaphor and Pragmatic
The goal of a pragmatic account of metaphor is to explain
how metaphor is understood, and in particular, how addressees
construct an interpretation of the communicator‟s meaning when a
word or other linguistic expression is used metaphorically. This is a
special case of the more general pragmatic goal of explaining how
addressees bridge the gap between the encoded linguistic meaning
of an utterance and the speaker‟s meaning. Since sentence meaning
is often fragmentary and incomplete, and speaker‟s meaning
typically goes beyond it, this gap is pervasive in verbal
communication, but it is particularly obvious in cases of
metaphorical use. Let us consider this following utterance:

- Anandra is a princess

The linguistically encoded meaning of the word “princess” is the

concept of princess which denotes a subset of female royals. But in
real circumstances, the utterance above might be metaphorically
used to convey that Anandara who is not a female royal, but she is a
spoiled, indulged girl, used to have a special treatment, to having her
wishes fulfilled, and so on. A pragmatic account of metaphor is
concerned with how the move from encoded linguistic meaning to
metaphorical interpretation is made.

38
 Existing pragmatic accounts differ on several important
points. One is their view of how metaphorical use affects the truth
conditional content of utterances. The speaker in metaphor does not
“say” anything, but merely “make as if to say” something that is not
itself communicated, but is merely a vehicle for conveying the
speaker‟s implicit meaning. As the above utterance for instance, the
speaker might “make as if to say” that Anandara is a princess in order
to implicate that she is spoiled, indulged girl, etc. According to an
alternative semantic or truth – conditional pragmatic view that
metaphor affects not only the implicatures of an utterance but also
its truth – conditional content, and more generally the content of any
assertions or other direct speech act that it is used to perform. In
utterance of Anandra is a princess, the speaker might be seen as
asserting that Anandara is a PRINCESS, where PRINCESS here is
a modification of the encoded concept PRINCESS is both a part of
what is explicitly communicated and a vehicle for implicatures.

Sadock (1979) cited in Charteris – Black (2004:10) argues

that metaphor is beyond the scope of semantic because it is
inherently indirect and relies on a conflict between what is said what
is meant to be said. Meanwhile, Searle (1979) also cited in Charteris
– Black (2004:10) claims that metaphor is best seen as a matter of
utterance meaning (as district from word or sentence meaning) and

39
is this therefore best accounted for with reference to a theory of
pragmatics. This view also has support from Levinson (1983:156):

A pragmatic approach will be based on the assumption

that the metaphorical content of utterances will not be
derived by principles of semantic interpretation, rather
the semantic will just provide a characterization of the
literal meaning or conventional content of the expressions
involved, and from this, together with details of the
context, the pragmatic will have to provide the
metaphorical interpretation.

The basic of this point of view is that metaphor leads to a

search for whatever relevant interpretation could reconcile the
conflict between what is said and what is meant. Charteris – Black
(2004:10) say that when we employing a metaphor, the speaker
invites the hearer is able to participate in an interpretative act, this
will succeed if the hearer is able to overcome the tension between
what is said and what is meant, and this is a matter of defining
pragmatic aspect of metaphor. Levinson cited in Charteris – Black
(2004:10) also argues that the interpretation of metaphor relies on
the ability to think analogically. To some extent this view points the
way to an integration of a pragmatic and a cognitive view of
metaphor.

40
H. Metaphor and the Notion of Embodiment

The mind and body are closely interrelated. People‟s

embodied experiences are fundamentally linked to their thinking,
language and understanding. Since 1980s, the idea that the body
matters to the mind has been known as embodiment, and the notion
of embodiment is discussed in cognitive linguistics. Since then, it has
been a central, orienting concept in cognitive linguistics research. In
general, embodiment uses to mean something about how the mind
relates to the body. The notion of embodiment is clearly mentioned
by Lakoff and Johnson (1999:37):

“The claim that the mind is embodied is, therefore, for

more than the simple-minded claim that the body is needed
if we are to think. Our claim is, rather, that the very
properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the
brain and body are structured and the way they function in
interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”

Lakoff and Johnson also mentioned in their book Metaphor

we live by (1980) that experiential gestalts which are based on the
nature or our bodies, our interactions with our physical environment
and our interactions with other people within our culture. These
experiential gestalts serve as the grounding of conceptual metaphors
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980:117) which make the ideas of conceptual

41
metaphor theory are closely connected with the notion of
embodiment.
Since conceptual metaphors are based on our embodied
experience, it is believed that many conceptual metaphors are
universal because many of our bodily experiences are much alike
across cultures. Many researches on psycholinguistics and linguistics
have provided empirical evidences about the correlation of
embodied experience with metaphorical language. Gibbs et al
(2004) examine how human feeling about hunger has motivated the
conceptual metaphor DESIRE IS HUNGER among American
English and Brazilian Portuguese. They studied the different sets of
question were given to investigate the kinds of linguistic expressions
concerning “hunger” that are often employed by these students to
metaphorize “desire”. While in linguistic level, Sweetser‟s analysis
(1990: 28 – 30) about the MIND AS BODY metaphor also supports
the idea that many conceptual metaphors are motivated by our
bodily experience.

I. Metaphor and Conceptual Blending

Another recent development within the framework of

Cognitive Linguistics which is also based on a particular cognitive
ability is the conceptual Blending. Conceptual Blending is also
known as the Theory of Conceptual Integration. It is a theory of

42
human cognition. The core notion of conceptual integration theory
(CIT) is that many types of human thought consist of the integration
or blending of mental spaces, and that the ability to perform certain
types of conceptual blends is what distinguishes human from other
beings.
Like metaphor in Conceptual Metaphor Theory, blending is
understood as a pervasive phenomenon in human thought, which
affects everyday language. It plays a fundamental role in the
construction of meaning in everyday life, especially in the social and
behavioral sciences. In conceptual metaphor theory, metaphors are
cross – domain mapping of source and target domains, and the
connection between the two domains is established by the
metaphor‟s basis. Basis elements of the source domain are mapped
onto elements of the target domain, each source has an entailment
potential that can be mapped onto the target.
Lakoff and Johnson (1999) consider conceptual blending as
part of the Integrated Theory of Primary Metaphor. In a way,
conceptual metaphor is also based on cross-space (domain)
mapping, although conceptual integration has more components
and additional mechanisms involved as discussed above. Also,
whereas the two-domain model is highly parsimonious, and is useful
and effective for a number of purposes such as the ongoing hunt for
conventional metaphors, it is claimed that the many-space model

43
explains a range of phenomena invisible or untreatable under the
two-domain model and reveals previously unrecognized aspects of
even the most familiar basic metaphors. A brief analysis of both
theories reveals that each theory has its own strengths and
weaknesses. However, the strength of any particular theory depends
on its applicability to a specific context. The specific context in
question here is the cognitive process, metaphor.

J. Metaphor and Thought

Lakoff and Johnson in their book Metaphor We Live By

(1980, 2003) strongly argue that the locus of metaphor is in our
thought. According to them Metaphor is not just a matter of
language, but rather than a matter of thought and reason. Metaphor
is exists in the mind of a speaker, and may thus be unconscious. A
theory which postulated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) calls
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) suggests that conceptual
metaphor play an important role in the human thought processes,
and largely unconscious.
Metaphor is not merely a linguistic phenomenon, but more
fundamentally, a conceptual and experiential process that structures
our world. As many linguists have also pointed out that metaphor is
in thought. Richards (1936:93) argues that metaphor is “an
interaction between two thought of different things active together

44
and supported by a single word or phrase.” He divides metaphor
into two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. For instance metaphor like
“Men are Wolves”. Here Men is the tenor whereas wolves is vehicle.
Men as tenor is understood in terms of the vehicle ( Wolves)
metaphorically.
Black (1993) also attempts to interpret metaphors at a
cognitive – conceptual level, a level which different from treating
metaphors as merely language. He argues that metaphor is the
interaction of the “systems of implication” of the two domains,. This
idea similar to Richards‟ notion of “interaction between two
thoughts.” This claims by Richards, and Black that metaphor is the
“interaction between two thoughts” and metaphor is “the system of
implication” reveal the complete nature of metaphor. In other words
in order to understand metaphor involves the concepts and beliefs
shared by the speakers‟, readers‟ or listeners‟ community, other
than merely the linguistic meaning of the figurative expressions.

K. Metaphor and Ideology

Metaphor shares in the socio-cognitive aspect of ideology by

reproducing it through discourse. Fairclough (1995:73) argues that
“language is a material form of ideology, and language is invested by
ideology.” He locates ideology in lexical meanings, presuppositions,

45
implicatures, metaphors, and coherence. Meanwhile, Wolf and
Polzenhagen (2003:268) state that “global ideological pattern may
arise from the application of particular metaphors and the neglect of
alternative ones.” Therefore, since language is ideological and since
language is invaded by ideology such as metaphor, so metaphor is
also ideological.

Metaphor and ideology are closely connected, since the

ideology is often shaped with the help of the metaphor. Van Dijk
(1998:7) defines ideologies as “the fundamental beliefs of a group
and its members”. An important characteristic of the ideology is the
fact that it is at the same time cognitive and social (ibid: 30).
Van Dijk (1998: 126) develops a socio-cognitive view of ideology as
follows: a) whatever else ideologies are, or whatever social conditions
and functions they have, they are first of all systems of beliefs. The
nature of these belief systems, as well as their relations with other
mental objects and processes, (also) need to be studied in a cognitive
framework, b) Ignoring such cognitive dimensions of ideology, and
merely analyzing them in terms of social practices, social
formations, or social structures, provide incomplete insight into
ideologies, and phenomena, and hence an inadequate theory, c)
ideologies are socially acquired, shared, used and changed by group
members, and hence are a special type of socially shared mental

46
representations, d) ideologies are reproduced through their everyday
uses by social members in the accomplishment of social practices in
general, and of discourse in particular. Such uses not only have social
foundations but also cognitive ones, such as the personal
experiences, knowledge and opinions of social members. In order
to relate the social dimension of ideologies with their personal uses,
only a cognitive theory is able to provide the necessary interface.

L. Conceptual Metaphor Theory

According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), conceptual

metaphor is when we understand one conceptual domain in terms
of another conceptual domain. Lakoff and Johnson argue that many
of the utterances we use in our daily communication are
metaphorical, for examples “keep the machine working”, or “it
drives me crazy”. Related to this, Deignan (2005:18) mention that
our language is hardly “metaphor – free”, since metaphors are so
pervasive that we may even be unconscious in using them.

In conceptual metaphor, there are two semantic domains

which related one to another. Those domains so called “target”
domain which describes metaphorically, and “source” domain
which provides the metaphor. The source domain is
characteristically concrete thing and the target domain

47
characteristically abstract thing that we try to comprehend through
the use of the source domain (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). These
two domains are systematically correspondences with a linker called
as “mappings”. Mapping is the sets of systematic correspondences
between the source and the target domain (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980). People use words of concrete source field to talk about an
abstract target field. According to cognitive view of metaphor, people
understand one conceptual domain in term of another conceptual
domain. In other words, we are trying to understand the abstract
concept through the use of the concrete one. The target domain is
the domain that we try to understand by using the source domain.
For example, ARGUMENT IS WAR is a conceptual metaphor:

- Your claims are Indefensible

- He attached every weak point in my argument
- His criticisms were right on the target
- I demolished his argument
- I‟ve never won an argument with him.
- You disagree? Okay, shoot!
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

Those metaphorical expressions above are structured by the concept

of war. Although there is no physical battle, but there is a verbal
battle. The structure of an argument such as indefensible, attached,

48
demolished, won, shoot, strategy and shot down reflect to concept
of war. That is why we conceptualize them into “Argument is war.” This
is an example of what it means for a metaphorical concept. Argument and
war are different kind of things. Argument is a verbal discourse, and war is
armed conflict, they performed different kinds of actions. But “argument”
is partially structured, understood, performed, and talked about in terms
of “war”. It explains the essence of metaphor is “understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980:5).

Conceptual metaphors enable us to quantity, visualize, and

generalize about abstract concepts because they make us of
relationship within source domains that we know very well from our
concrete experience. In this way, metaphors are grounded or
embedded in our physical experience (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980:19). Furthermore, Kovecses (2006:246) urges that our
understanding and conceptualization of the world are based on our
physical environment, in particular on our body which serves as
reference for the perceptions of the reality around us.

Gibbs and Wilson (2002) also argue that many conceptual

metaphors used to talk about emotions are motivated by bodily
sensation that we experience when we have those emotions. For
examples, Gibbs claims that many expressions used to talk about

49
anger are motivated by conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HEATED
FLUID IN A CONTAINER. The linguistic metaphors (source
domain) which related to this are: “She got all steamed up” and “I
was fuming.” (Gibbs, 2004:203). In this case, we perceive our own
body as a container. When we become angry, we experience
physical sensations of heat and internal pressure which threaten to
build up to dangerous levels within the perceived container.
Furthermore, Gibbs (1997) argues that significant aspects of cultural
experiences should be taken into consideration when trying to
understand what is conceptual about metaphor, because “public,
cultural representation of conceptual metaphors have indispensable
cognitive function that allow people to carry less of a mental burden
during every day thought and language use” (Gibb, 1997:146).
Conceptual Metaphor Theory rejects the notion that
metaphor is a decorative device, peripheral to language and thought.
Instead, the theory holds that metaphor is central to thought, and
therefore to language. From this starting point, a number of tenets
are derived. These tenets are: metaphors structure thinking,
metaphors structure knowledge, metaphor is central to abstract
language, metaphor is grounded in physical experience, metaphor is
ideological (Deignan, 2005).
As mentioned above that metaphor is in our thought,
therefore metaphor is known or renamed as conceptual metaphor

50
in conceptual metaphor theory. A conceptual metaphor is
formulated or postulated as “X IS Y”, whereby Y as the source
domain is used to understand X as the target domain. Conceptual
metaphor is written in capital letters to distinguist it from its linguistic
expressions (Charteris – Black, 2004), for instance the conceptual
metaphor FOREST IS HUMAN. Here HUMAN is the source
domain by which we understand the target domain (FOREST).

The linguistic expressions which coherent with this

conceptual metaphor are “even the trees (forest) breathe”, “the
forest absords rain”, forest calls for rain to bring out the springs”
(Maruf, 2018). The use of lexical items of “breathe” and “absorb”
are embodies to the human attribute and activities that human do
breathe and absorb. They reflect to the concept of human.
According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:26,79), conceptual
metaphor can be classified into three types that we use in natural
language to structure our concepts:

a. Structural Metaphors

These metaphors refer to a conceptual metaphor that is

constructed from one conceptual structure to another, in other
words, in structural metaphor one concept is understood and
expressed in terms of another structured, prominently defined

51
concept. With this kind of metaphor, we can use the words
concerning one concept to talk about another concept. For example
ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor, here WAR is a concept that is
frequently mapped into the target domain ARGUMENT. As we
know that war is a concrete concept that we are very familiar with.
We know that war is a very complex process that involves plan,
attack, defense, counter attack, fight, win, lose, etc, and argument is
abstract concept. As the result, the knowledge of war can be used to
talk about the unknown abstract concept that is war. War and
Argument share many similarities, as we can see on these following
expressions:
- He shot down all of my arguments
- Your claims are indefensible
- I demolished his arguments
- If you use that strategy, he‟ll wipe you out.
- I‟ve never won an argument with him
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 5)

b. Orientation Metaphors

These metaphors are those that have to do with spatial

orientation grounded in the physical and cultural experience, such
as above / below, in / out, in front of / behind, and so on. As Lakoff

52
and Johnson (1980: 14) argue that “they are not arbitrary. They are
based on our physical and cultural experiences.”
The diversity of our direct experiences in both physical and
cultural environment creates several metaphors which have an
internal coherence and lead to a complete understanding of those
experiences. These metaphors will be linked in one way or another
to the experience that gives rise to them and they will be more or
less successful according to the culture especially those related to
space and the most abstract concepts. The following examples are
kind of orientation metaphors with some linguistic expressions that
express them and their physical basis:
HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN.
- I‟m feeling up.
- That boosted my spirits
- My spirits rose
- You‟re in high spirits
- I‟m feeling down
- He‟s really low these days
- I fell into a depression
- My spirits sank

The physical basis: drooping posture typically goes along with

sadness and depressions, posture with a positive emotional state.

53
CONSCIOUS IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN
- Get up
- Wake up
- He rises early in the morning
- He fell asleep
- He dropped off to sleep
- He‟s under hypnosis
- He sank into a coma

- I‟m up already
The physical basis: human and most other mammals sleep lying
down and stand up when they awaken.
HEALTH AND LIFE ARE UP; SICKNESS AND DEATH ARE
DOWN.
- He‟s at the peak of heath
- Lazarus rose from the dead
- He‟s in top shape
- He‟s way up there
- He‟s sinking fast
- He came down with the flu
- His health is declining
- He dropped dead
- As to his health, he‟s way up there.

54
The physical basis: serious illness forces us to lie down physically.
When you‟re dead, you are physically down.
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 15)

c. Ontological Metaphors

These metaphors allow us to select units from our internal

experience and to manipulate them as if they were physical things. It
assists us to categorize, to group, to quantify and to rationalize them.
Every concept comes from the physical experience of the world, as
Lakoff and Johnson mention that “our experiences with physical
objects (especially our own bodies) provide the basis for an
extraordinarily wide variety of ontological metaphors.” (2003:25).
Moreover, Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 33) mention that the most
obvious ontological metaphors are when we specify a physical
objecet as being a person, when we see something non human as
human. This is what we called personification and others which
covers a wide range of metaphors.
In order to construct ontological metaphors, Lakoff and
Johnson highlight two procedures known in literary analysis, they are
as follow:
a. Personification: the physical object is treated like a person, it

55
 brought to life in human terms.
For examples:
- Inflation is eating up our profits
- Life has cheated me
- Cancer finally caught up with him

b. Metonymy: allowing us to use one entity to stand or refer for

another that related to it. Metonymy has primary a referential
function, but metonymy is not merely a referential device. It
also serves the function of providing understanding.

For examples:

- He likes to read Marques de Sade (the writing of the

masquis)
- Acrylic has taken over the art world (the use of acrylic
paint)
- The Times hasn‟t arrived at the press conference yet
(the reporter from the Times Magazine).
The aim of Ontological metaphors to explain what is unclear
by means of something clearer, as Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 49)
say “we typically conceptualize the non-physical in terms of the
physical. We use ontological metaphors to understand events,

56
actions, activities and states. Here events and actions are
conceptualized metaphorically as objects, meanwhile activities as
sub-stances, and states as containers (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980:31).

M. Metaphorical Mapping

The most significant notion in cognitive metaphor theory is

the mapping, in which a metaphor can be understood as a mapping
from a source domain to a target domain. According to theory,
metaphor involves the knowledge of the two conceptual domains
(source and the target domains), these are sets of systematic
correspondence (mapping) between these two conceptual domains
that our understandings of the source domain motivate and create
comprehension of the target domain.

Moreover, in conceptual metaphor theory argues that the

mapping is grounded in our embodied experience. Lakoff and
Johnson (1980, 2003) called it the embodiment hypothesis. As
Gibbs (2006: 436) mentions “our bodily experiences provide the
source domain for metaphorically structuring aspects of abstract
target domain spaces”.
Radden and Dirven (2007:12) argue that mapping is the
projection of one set of conceptual entities onto another set of
conceptual entities. Metaphor is not just the notion of similarity or
comparison between the literal and figurative meaning in an

57
expression. The transference of metaphor in meaning is realized by
structuring mapping between two domains (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980:5). For instance, in the metaphor TIME IS MONEY, the
source domain MONEY is mapped onto the target domain TIME.
Lakoff (1993: 206 – 207) argues that there are ontological
correspondences in mapping which the aspects in TIME
correspond to the aspects in MONEY. Conceptual metaphor are
presented as capitalized formula A IS B, where A is the target
domain and B is the source domain, with A being described as B.
Through mapping source domain (B), the target domain (A) is
reified by source (B), for example ARGUMENT IS WAR
metaphor reifies the target domain (abstract) ARGUMENT to the
source domain (concrete) WAR. In order to comprehend the
sentences like “your claims are indefensible” and “I demolished his
argument”, our understanding of the domain of argument is
processed through understanding the domain of war. The
experience of argument evokes our knowledge about war, in other
words, the knowledge we use to comprehend war is used to
comprehend argument through the use of metaphors, and the
knowledge we use to reason about war is used to reason about
arguments.(Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 5).
The thing that we should be understood regarding this
metaphorical mapping is the source domain and the target domain

58
should not identical because the target domain is just partially
understood in terms of the source domain. If they were identical,
there would be no metaphorical sense and its literal sense, but just a
word with a single meaning (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 109).

N. Critical Metaphor Analysis

Critical metaphor analysis is concerned with integrating

critical discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, pragmatics and
cognitive linguistics to explore speaker cognition and covert power
relation through the analysis of metaphoric expressions. Critical
metaphor analysis (CMA) has been a meaningful enrichment of both
Critical Discourse Analysis and Conceptual Metaphor Theory.

Critical metaphor analysis is an approach to metaphor

analysis that aims to reveal the hidden intention (cognition) of
language users and further develop the readers‟ awareness of social
relations that are loaded in metaphoric expression (Charteris –
Black, 2004:34). This approach also brings metaphors back into the
traditional view of metaphor that metaphor is a branch of
philosophy, where metaphor was considered as a way of
argumentations as well as a way of composition and style.

Charteris – Black (2004) state that metaphor analysis should

59
integrate linguistic, semantic, cognitive, and pragmatic criteria
because metaphor cannot be explained only by means of linguistic,
cognitive, pragmatic theory. The framework used to analyze
metaphor must combine three components: linguistic, cognitive and
pragmatic criteria since any one component itself is not sufficient to
give comprehensive explanation of metaphoric expressions.
CMA has three steps; Identification, interpretation, and explanation
of conceptual metaphors.
a. Metaphor identification indicates a close reading of a sample
of texts to figure out candidate metaphors. These candidate
metaphors have metaphoric potential, but they can be
confirmed as metaphoric expression or abandoned because
they are not metaphorical expressions by a qualitative phase in
detailed corpus analysis.
b. Metaphor interpretation is concerned with ascertaining the
relationship between metaphors and the cognitive and
pragmatic elements that determine them, which indicates the
identification of conceptual metaphors, and where feasible,
conceptual keys. Conceptual metaphors are used to resolve
the semantic tension between metaphors while conceptual keys
are identified to solve the semantic tension between conceptual
metaphors.
c. Metaphor explanation: The reasons why these metaphors

60
 instead of the others are chosen in a certain situation. To
explain a metaphoric usage, it needs to identify the social
agency that is involved in the production of metaphoric
expressions and their social role in persuasion, that is to say,
the ideological and rhetorical motivation of a metaphorical
expression. The formation of conceptual metaphors and
conceptual keys and illustration of the typical evaluation of the
metaphors will assist in explaining why they can be persuasive
(Charteris – Black, 2004:39). The explanation should reveal
“understanding of thought patterns which construct people‟s
beliefs and action” (Cameron & Low, 1999:88).

O. Concept of Pasang ri Kajang

Literally, Pasang ri Kajang means “message in kajang”. It is a
set of messages inherited from ancestors of Kajang. Pasang is an oral
tradition transmitted from generation to generation. Pasang is a body
of knowledge and reference in conducting everyday life for Kajang
community. However, for the Kajang community, Pasang is more
than just a message. Kajang people consider Pasang is very sacral
since if it is not implemented in daily activities, it will lead to the
effect of damage in ecological balance and chaotic social system.
Also, Pasang is a guide for human beings in all aspects, in social,

61
religious, livelihood, culture, environment, and leadership system. It
mentions in Pasang that every individual who against of it, it will bring
serious consequences to him or her. He or she will be get rid of the
village and/or suffer from a disease in this world, also be punished
in the hereafter where he/she will miss the opportunity to meet
his/her ancestors. His or her spirit will not be accepted by God and
will transform into a form of an animal who behaves exactly the same
as himself/herself when he/she was still alive.

Pasang ri Kajang has been studied by number of researchers.

They discuss various aspects contain in Pasang based on their
interest in studies, for instance, forest conservation, leadership,
rituals, agricultures, etc. Pasang ri Kajang is an oral discourse which
well known as the guidance of life for Kajang (Ammatoa)
community, the locals call patuntung. Pasang contains ancient
messages regarding messages of guidance, messages of a mandate,
messages of counsel, and messages warning or reminder. These
messages are guidance for the Ammatoa community to live their life,
they deliver orally from generation to generation. Lureng (1980: 68)
defines Pasang as an oral tradition as well as a system of knowledge
that contains the values of culture which always under the guidance
of Ammatowa. He also argues that Pasang is a guidance of how
people of Kajang live in society. Pasang has functions regard to the

62
political system, the socio-cultural including the mutual excitement
and religious system.

Pasang as a system of knowledge derived by Tu Riek

Akrarna (the Almighty God) which is passed to the first Amma Toa.
People of Kajang believe that Amma Toa is the first mankind on
earth, in local language called Mula Tau. Ammatowa has a role as a
mediator between human being and Tu Riek Akrarna. Pasang
obligates its followers to believe and maintain whatever is inherited
by their ancestors. It consider as the only source and knowledge of
how to live life. It obligates Kajang people to believe that there is
only one God as mentioned in Pasang as follow: “Tu Riek 'Akrakna,
ammantangngi ri pakngarakanna, anrek nisei riekne anrekna Tau
Riek Akrakna nakiappala doang, Padato’ji pole nitarimana pangrota
iya tojekna, gitte makiinjo punna nigaukangi passuroanna, nanililiang
pappisangkan”. Meaning: Tu Riek 'Akrakna will act and does
something He wants. We do not know where Tau Riek Akrakna is
and where He is not, we can only pray, but Tau Riek Akrakna will
tell us if our prayers are accepted, we surely meet Him when we obey
His orders.

Akib (2008:25) argues that Pasang ri Kajang is the way of life

of Kajang people with functions to give directions, to arrange, forms
as well as the actual meaning of human‟s life. It defines which can

63
be done and which can be done or forbidden.
In relation to conceptual metaphor, Pasang ri Kajang
contains many metaphorical expressions, and in order to understand
those expressions, we need to comprehend the concept and
experiences stored in mind of Kajang people, since metaphor is a
cognitive instrument whereby we conceive of our world. According
to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:5), in interpreting metaphor, we need
to understand one kind of thing or experience in terms of something
else of a different kind, because the essence of metaphor is
“understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of
another”. Here some Pasang which contained metaphorical
expressions:

- Manna pokok kaju aknapasatongi

Translation: Even the trees breathe
- Iyamintu (borong) akkiyo bosi anggenna ereya nipake aklamung
pare, bakdo apparie timbusu.
Translation: It (forest) has a function to calls for the rain to
bring out a springs then the water is used to plant rice and
corn.
- Injo boronga iya kontaki bosiya nasaba kunnimae
pangairangnga iaminjo boronga nikua pangairang.
Translation: The forest absorbs rain because in here (Kajang)

64
 the forest functions as irrigation.
- Injo boronga anrek nakkule nipanraki, punna nipanraki
boronga, nupanraki kallenu
Translation: The forest should not be destroyed, if you destroy
the forest it means you destroyed yourself.

The above Pasang are structured by the concept of human.

Here the attributes of human such as aknapasa (breathe), akkiyo
(calling), kontaki (puff/absorb), and kallenu (your body) are used to
describe the cognition of speaker. All of them reflect the concept of
human. From those Pasang above we can conceptualize them into
“WOOD IS HUMAN”. Here wood (forest) and human are different kind
of things but wood (forest) is partially structure, understood and treated in
terms of human. This is what Lakoff and Johnson mean the essence of
metaphor as “understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms
of another.”

P. Pasang as Corpora
As have been described above that Pasang means messages.
These messages inherited from ancestors of Kajang people. It is an
oral tradition which passed down from generation to generation. For
Ammatoans, Pasang is not just messages, but it is considered as very
sacral and implemented in everyday practices. It is a guide f or every
member of Kajang community in any aspects of life such as in social,

65
religious, rituals cultural, environment and leadership system.

Pasang has been studied by many researchers such as Usop

(1978), McKanzie (1994), Katu (2000), Gising (2010), Sahib (2017),
and many others. Usop‟s work has been considered as the
authoritative reference to study Pasang, since the last two researchers
(and many others) refer to the Usop‟s work. Usop was a researcher
at the Training Center for Social Science Research in Jakarta in
1976. He studied and collected Pasang when he conducted
fieldwork in Kajang. As a Pasang collector, he looked for informants
who were able and willing to inform him about Pasang. He focused
in collecting Pasang from people living in ilalang embayya (inner
territory) and Kajang luar (outer territory). As the result of his
studies, he classifies Pasang into several categories: 1) Definition of
Pasang, 2) religious aspects, 3) ritual system, 4) social system, 5)
Ammatoa‟s roles and inauguration, 6) government, 7) communal
life, 8) taboo and punishment.

Pasang as an oral tradition can be considers as a corpus

linguistic. Corpus linguistics is a methodology to obtain and analyze
the language data either quantitatively or qualitatively. It can be
applied in almost any area of language studies. The data ( Pasang)
that I use in this dissertation is taken from my field works in Kajang
district either in inner Kajang (illalang embaya) and outer Kajang

66
(Kajang luar). Also, it is taken from some scholars‟ works like Usop
(1978), Katu (2000), Mc Kanzie (1999). But the data which I took
from other scholars‟ works have been checked and confirmed by
my reliable informants for their reliability.

Q. Rituals in the Ethnic Kajang

The word "ritual" comes from Latin word ritualis meaning "of
rites". According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (AHDEL) mentions that ritual is a ceremonial act or a
series of such acts, the performance of such acts. In theoretical
discourse, rituals are generally regarded as possessing two structural
patterns. Firstly, on the foundational level, rituals are regarded as
actions as against to cognitive beliefs, and often described as
"thoughtless action – routinized, habitual, obsessive, or mimetic –
and therefore the purely formal, secondary, and mere physical
expression of logically prior ideas" (Bell, 1992:19). Edward Shils in
Bell (1992:19) argues that rituals are considered to be separable
from beliefs although rituals and beliefs are tied together. Shils also
states that "beliefs could exist without rituals; rituals, however, could
not exist without beliefs." Thus, in theoretical discourse, rituals are
more as summarized units of community beliefs, values and
expressed in actions. These beliefs, values, and actions live in a
communal composition which is defined and determined by the

67
resident community.
Generally, ritual perceives as a form of prayer, meditation,
or art which can assist people to connect their inner being with others
and to godly the spirit or the holy power. Turner (1969:2) views all
rituals as containing religious or spiritual components in the
referents which the symbolism involved. He also viewed ritual as the
essential mechanism for transmission of cultural identity, and
assesses ritual and its symbolism, together with the experience of
community for those making the transition from one phase to
another. Turner (1969:19) defined ritual as "prescribed formal
behavior for occasions not given over to technological routine,
having reference to beliefs in mystical beings and powers." He argues
that ritual as a symbolic action by saying that "Rituals are storehouses
of meaningful symbols by which information is revealed and
regarded as authoritative, as dealing with the crucial values of the
community (Turner 1969:2).
Ritual for Kajang community is very important aspects and
they are very common that they are integral parts of everyday
practice. It does not mean that everyday practice is ritual, however
ritual and everyday practice are tied together in complex bonds.
Rituals in Kajang community (Ammatoans) are categories
into five major types. First, the rituals of journey of life which
included tompolo (the seventh day of birth), kalomba (for the safe

68
life of a child), akkatterek (haircut), pakbuntingan (wedding), and
funeral that consists of several different kinds of rituals such as tilapo,
dampo, lajo-lajo, and pakdangangngang. The second category is
house ritual, such as naik ri bola (moving into a new house), and
situruk - turuk (mutual assistance) in constructing a new house. The
third is rituals of belief that include ukmattang (ancestral veneration),
doangang (praying), tinja and samaja (oath), tarabogoro mange ri tau
salama’ (come to visit great ancestors), addingingngi (a placatory
appeal in the forest), and apparuntu panganro (praying in the forest).
Fourth is agricultural rituals, this include before planting and after
harvesting rice and corn. This agricultural rituals such as akborong
gallung (for land fertility), and aknganro ri Sapo (praying in Sapo, it
conducts when problems of agriculture are happened). The fifth is
inauguration ritual, especially for a new Ammatoa (the chief of Ammatoa
community).

69
R. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

70
The conceptual framework above shows that Pasang ri Kajang as
the corpus is analyzed using conceptual metaphor theory and critical
metaphor analysis. Critical metaphor analysis (CMA) is described
into three processes; data identification process, data interpretation
process, and data explanation process. In data identification process,
after the carefully reading of the text established, then we look for
the candidate metaphors in corpus, those candidate metaphors
should meet one of the criterion as mentioned by Charteris – Black
(2004: 21, 35): linguistic, pragmatic, and cognitive in order to
determine whether a certain linguistic expression is a candidate
metaphor or not. Linguistic criteria looks a metaphor is a word or
phrase that causes semantic tension by (1) Reification, referring to
something that is abstract using a word or phrase that in other
contexts refers to something that is concrete, (2) Personification,
referring to something that is inanimate using a word or phrase that
in other contexts refers to something that is animate, (3)
Depersonification, referring to something that is animate using a
word or phrase that in other contexts refers to something that is
inanimate. Pragmatic criteria looks a metaphor is an incongruous
linguistic representation that has the underlying purpose or
influencing opinions and judgments by persuasions, this purpose is
often hidden and reflects speaker intentions within particular
contexts of use. In cognitive criteria looks a metaphor is caused by

71
and may cause by a shift in the conceptual system. The basis for the
conceptual shift is the relevance of, or psychological association
between the attributes of the referent of a linguistic expression in its
original source context and those of the referent in its novel target
context. This relevance or association is usually based in some
previously unperceived similarity between the referents in those
contexts.

The next process is data interpretation. This process is

concerning with interpersonal meaning that is identifying the type of
social relations that are constructed them. It is the process of
explaining and highlighting the metaphorical meaning and its
entailments. This interpretation process has two main functions.
First, spotlights the semantic tension that has justified the
expression‟s classification as a metaphor. Second, it identifies the
key conceptual domains underlying the linguistic metaphor. This
process involves establishing a relationship between metaphors and
the cognitive and pragmatic factors that determine them. It involves
the identification of conceptual metaphors.

The last process calls data explanation. This process

determines the involvement of identifying the social agency which
implied in metaphors production and their social role contained.
The formation of conceptual metaphors, conceptual keys, and

72
illustration of the typical evaluation of metaphors assisted in
explaining why they can be persuasive. It is concerned with textual
meaning that is the way that metaphors are interrelated and become
coherent with reference to the situation in which they occur. It
permits us to establish the ideological and rhetorical motivation, and
the evidence of these ideological and rhetorical motivation comes
from the corpus in which metaphors occurs. All those processes are
meant to analyze metaphor expressions found in Pasang in order to
reveal the intention, ideologies, and social – cultural aspects of
Kajang people.

In conceptual metaphor, there are two semantic domains

which related one to another: target domain and source domain.
These two domains are systematically correspondences with a linker
called as mapping. Mapping is the systematic set of ontological
correspondences that exist between constituent elements of the
source and target domain. It grounded in the body and the everyday
experiences and knowledge. Target domain is characteristically
abstract thing which described metaphorically, while source domain
is characteristically concrete things. The source domain is the one
provides metaphorical expressions (metaphors). These
metaphorical expressions as a source domain which motivate and
create comprehension of the target domain which consider to be the

73
abstract things. We are trying to understand the abstract concept
through the use of concrete one. The target domain is the domain
that we try to understand by using the source domain.

74
 CHAPTER 3
HOW THE CORPUS ANALYZED

This chapter describes the details of data source, location of

research, how corpus was collected, and how to analysed them.
Mainly this chapter is comprised into three main phases. They are
as followed: (1) data collection, (2) data analysis, and (3) data
interpretation to reveal the intention, ideologies and socio - cultural
of Kajang people.

A. Data Sources

The data or corpus in this book are are categories into two kinds of
data, primary and secondary data.

1. Primary Data

The primary data of this book was Pasang ri Kajang and they
were taken from people or members of community on the site of
research who have capabilities, reliable, and have very important role
in the Ammatoans community. These people I called Community
of Interpreters. They were as follow; Ammatowa (the leader/chief of
Ammatoans community), Galla (chief assistant of Buhe Amma),

75
culturists of Ammatoans Kajang and others who consider
understand Pasang very well. The data collected through fieldwork
by asking several people or members of community who have very
important role in Ammatoans community, they were as follows:
Ammatowa himself and his assistances such as Galla Pantama, Galla
Kajang, Galla Lombok, Galla Puto, culturalists of Kajang, former of
chief village, and others who consider understand Pasang very well.

2. Secondary Data

The data sources also include supplementary data were

taken from other documents such as previous researches, journals,
articles and any others.

B. Techniques of Data Collection

The data collection was done through the observation
method, a method of qualitative investigation, which is defined by
Gorman and Clayton (1997:44) as “involving the systematic
recording of observation phenomena or behavior in a natural
setting”. The researcher chose specifically the unstructured
observation method, in which “the observer records any behavior or
event which is relevant to the research questions being investigated”
(Gorman and Clayton, 1997:105). This observation method
employed several techniques of data collection as follows:

76
1. Semi - structured Interviews. The semi – structured interview is a
qualitative data collection strategy. Through this kind of interview
data are collected gathered information by asking questions about
the data that the researcher needed

2. Field notes. The field notes attempted to record all experiences

and observation, so the various components in the host community
were recorded. How people carry out their daily activities, their
behaviors, their thought and conversation which concern with the
conducting observation are taken note.

3. Recording. It was one way to record the data that taken from
people or the community of interpreters when they are being
interviewed so that no data missed. This was very challenging
method of collecting data that researcher conducted since the
utilizing of modern tools in are forbidden in area of “Kajang Dalam”
(inner territory of Kajang).

4. Note taking. Note taking was employed to write down all the
relevant data when the interview is conducted. All information or
messages that delivered nonverbally or verbally which consider
relevant with the purpose of the research were noted.

C. Techniques of Data analysis

In analysing the data, the conceptual metaphor theory
developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999, 2003) and Critical

77
Metaphor Analysis (CMA) developed by Charteris – Black (2004)
were employeed. CMA believes that metaphor is central to thought
and language and it is an approach to analysis of metaphor that aims
to identify the intention underlying language used (Charteris – Black.
2004:34). Charteris – Black describes 3(three) stages in CMA; first
metaphors are identified, second they are interpreted, and then they
are explained. Charteris – Black (2004:34-35) state that:

Metaphor identification is initially concerned with

ideational meaning- that is, identifying whether they are
present in a text and establishing whether there is a tension
between a literal source domain and a metaphoric target
domain. Metaphor interpretation is concerned with
interpersonal meaning – that is, identifying the type of social
relations that are constructed through them. Metaphor
explanation is concerned with textual meaning: that is, the
way that metaphors are interrelated and become coherent
with reference to the situation in which they occur.

In addition, Chateris – Black‟s (2004:21) define metaphor as “a

linguistic representation that result from the part of use of a word or
phrase from the context of domain in which it is expected to occur
to another context or domain where it is not expected to occurs,
thereby causing semantic tension”. This definition is actually
developed from Lakoff‟s (1993) idea of conceptual metaphor. More
over Charteris – Black (2004:22) put forwarded that “a conceptual
metaphor is a statement that resolves the semantic tension of a set of

78
metaphors by showing them to be related.” Nevertheless, for the
purpose of this research, the researcher also used the definition of
conceptual metaphor by Kovecses (2002: 248):

“When one domain is understood in terms of another

conceptual domain, we have a conceptual metaphor. This
understanding is achieved by seeing a set of systematic
correspondences, or mapping, between domains.
Conceptual metaphor can be given by means of the formula
A is B, or A as B, where A and B indicate different
conceptual domains.”

The techniques of analyze data in this research arranged into three

stages below:

1. Data Identification: The candidate metaphors were examined

in relation to the criteria for the definition of metaphor
specified. It is establishing whether there is a tension between
a literal source domain and a metaphoric target domain.
According to Charteris – Black (2004: 35), there are three
metaphorical criterions: linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive.

The identification stage involves two main stages. The first stage is a
close or carefully reading of the text (Pasang) in order to identify
candidate metaphors found in Pasang ri Kajang. The second stage
is to identify candidate keywords, which are words or phrases that
meet at least one of Charteris – Black three metaphorical criteria:
Linguistic, pragmatic, and cognitive (2004:35). The presence of

79
 incongruity or semantic tension either at linguistic, pragmatic or
cognitive levels which found in words or phrases in Pasang ri Kajang
use as the criterion to determine whether a certain linguistic
expression is a candidate metaphor or not. A semantic tension refers
to the “abnormal” use of domains. First step, we identify the
candidate metaphor in linguistic level. A linguistic metaphor is any
expression which involving three linguistic criteria: (1) Reification
which means a word or phrase representing something abstract as
concrete, (2) Personification which means reference to an inanimate
object as being alive, (3) depersonification means reference to a
living being as an inanimate object. If they are not involved linguistic
criterion, then we move to the second step. Does the candidate
keyword of metaphor have qualities of pragmatic tension. Pragmatic
tension refers to an incongruous word or phrase being used to
influence opinions. Then, third step is look for the cognitive tension
which refers to a shift in understanding as result of the metaphor.
After the candidate metaphor keywords are decided, then, we move
to the second technique of analyzing data.

2. Data interpretation: In this stage requires establishing a

relationship between metaphors with the cognitive and
pragmatic features that determine them. It is concerned with
interpersonal meaning that is identifying the type of social
relations that are constructed them. It involves explaining and
highlighting the metaphorical meaning and its entailments.

80
 This interpretation stage has two main functions. First,
spotlights the semantic tension that has justified the
expression‟s classification as a metaphor. Second, it identifies
the key conceptual domains underlying the linguistic
metaphor. Here the conceptual metaphors are used to resolve
the semantic tension between metaphors, and conceptual keys
are identified to solve the semantic tension between
conceptual metaphors.
3. Data explanation: this stage determines the involvement of
identifying the social agency which implied in metaphors
production and their social role contained. The formation of
conceptual metaphors, conceptual keys, and illustration of the
typical evaluation of metaphors assisted in explaining why they
can be persuasive. It is concerned with textual meaning that is
the way that metaphors are interrelated and become coherent
with reference to the situation in which they occur.

D. Data Validation
In validating the data, data triangulation method was employeed.
Data triangulation method involves using the different sources of
information in order to increase the validity of the study. These
informants are people that consist of very reliable people who have

81
significant roles in Ammatoan community namely the chief of tribe
of Kajang (Ammatowa), assistants of Ammatowa, culturalists of
Kajang, former of chief villages, and public figures who consider
understand Pasang very well.

82
 CHAPTER 4
ANALYSING THE CORPUS

The corpus of this book is taken from the indigenous oral discourse
of Kajang people so called Pasang ri Kajang. The collected data or
corpus was analyzed to figure out the conceptual metaphor themes
based on the model of conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980), and critical metaphor analysis (Charteris – Black,
2004). According to Charteris – Black (2004: 35), the identification
stage involves two main stages. The first stage is a close or carefully
reading of the text (Pasang) in order to identify candidate of
metaphors found in Pasang ri Kajang. The second stage is to identify
candidate of keywords, which are words or phrases that meet at least
one of Charteris – Black three metaphorical criteria: Linguistic,
pragmatic, and cognitive (2004:35). Nevertheless, in the metaphor
identification process was also involved Metaphor Identification
Procedure (MIP) developed by Group (2007). This MIP conducted
to find out the metaphorically used lexical units in the corpus.
According to the MIP (Group, 2007), the identification should
includ several stages such as manual reading, determining the lexical
unit, then determining the meaning of the lexical unit. If the

83
contextual meaning differs from basic meaning, then it is marked as
metaphor. This process led to the selection of Pasang ri Kajang,
the lexical items that were marked as metaphors.

After analyzing the corpus, the researcher successfully postulates

several conceptual metaphors obtained from the analysis as follow:

1. FOREST IS HUMAN
Knowledge concerning human is used to map the abstract
concept by attributing them to human attributes. The personification
supports to conceptualize a large number of abstract concepts in
human terms (Lakoff, 1993, Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). These
human attributes have been found in source domain in Pasang as
follows;

Corpus (1): Manna pokok kaju aknapasa tokji.

MB : Manna / pokok / kaju/ak- napasa / tok - ji

PS : Even /trunk / wood /ACT.Pref.breathe / ADV.- Part.
LT : Even / tree / wood / breaths /too
IT. : The Kajang people believe that the trees in forest act like
human – they breathe and live.

Corpus (2): iamintu borong akkiyok bosi anggenna ereya nipake

aklamung pare, bakdo appakrie timbusu.

84
MB¹ : ia-mi-intu / borong / ak - kiyok / bosi / angge - na /ere – ya/
PS¹ : That / forest / ACT.call / rain / Prep. Poss/ water /
MB² : ni- pake /ak - lamung/pare,/bakdok/akpakriek/ timbusu
PS² : PSV.used/ACT.plant / rice /corn / produce/
spring.
LT : It is/ a forest/ calls / rain, /until/ the water/ uses/ to
plant/ rice,/ corn,/ produces / springs.
IT. : The rainforest brings a lot of water which
people use to grow rice and corn and which also
ensures that water remains available in spring.

Corpus (3): Injo boronga kontaki bosiya nasaba kunnimae

panggairanga iaminjo boronga nikuwa pangairang
MB¹ : Injo / borong - a /kontak – i /bosi-ya /na- saba/
kunni- mae /
PS¹ : Dem/ forest / absorb / rain / Conj. /
Adv. /
MB² : panggairang- a /ia-minjo/ borong- a/ ni- kuwa
/pangairang.
PS² : irrigation / Pron. / forest/ PSV.call/ irrigation.
LT : That / forest / absorb / rain / because / here/
irrigation / is / forest / which / called / irrigation.
IT. : Rainwater from the rainforest is considered to

85
 be a natural irrigation system by the villagers.

Table 4.1 Mapping for FOREST IS HUMAN

Source: HUMAN Target: FOREST

Aknapasa (breathing) Trees also inhale air for

live/grow
Akkiyo (calling) Transpiration process

Kontaki (absorb) Root as absorption of water

In these Pasang, the metaphor is signaled by the lexical items

aknappasa (breathe), akkiyok (calling), and kontaki (absorb). The
lexical item aknappasa embodies to the human attribute that human
do breathe in order to live. Also akkiyok (calling) and kontaki
(absorb) are related to the human activities. They reflect the concept
of human. That is why we postulate the conceptual metaphors into
“FOREST IS HUMAN.” Here forest is partially structured,
understood and treated in terms of human. This is what Lakoff and
Johnson mean the essence of metaphor as “understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in term of another.” These lexical
items are used to describe the cognition of speaker that trees (forest)
also the living creatures that have to be preserved since they bring

86
life and provide the supply of water for Ammatoan‟s daily needs and
the plant as well. Forest (trees) is the source of water supply for
Ammatoan village, there is no irrigation in the village, because they
believe that irrigation may damage their forest. Also, forest in the
eyes of Ammatoan is a very sacral place. They believe that forest is
the stairs for the human souls to heaven from the earth and to ascend
to the heaven. This belief is based on the legend of how the first man
(Tau Manurung) had descended from heaven to the earth and he
landed in the forest, and also in the same forest he returned to
heaven from earth. Until now, some ritual activities are also
performed in forest.

2. FOREST IS HERITAGE

Here, HERITAGE is the source domain in which concrete

thing conceptualized as feature belongs to the culture. The
conceptual metaphor of FOREST IS HERITAGE explained by the
source domain of the following Pasang:

Corpus (4): Iya minjo boronga kunni pusakayya, injo boronga

angkontai bosiya, akakna akpakalompo timbusu.
MB¹ : iya-minjo /borong-a/ kunni /pusaka- ya,/injo /
borong-a/

87
PS¹ : Pron / forest / Adv. /heritage
/Pron./ forest /
MB² : ang- konta- i/ bosi-ya/ akak- na/ ak-paka
/lompo-i/ timbusu.
PS² v : ACT.absorb/ rain / Pron.ACT/ ACT.
V./ enlarge/ spring.

LT : It‟s / that / forest / here/ the heritance /, it‟s /

forest/ absorbes /rain that / enlarge / the springs.
IT. : Here, forest is considered to be an inheritance
from the ancestors which supplies water feeding
the springs.

Corpus (5): injo jamanna Ammatowa nalarangi annakbang kaju ri

boronga iyaminjo nikua adak tana.
MB¹ : injo / jamang- na/ Ammatowa / na-
larang-i/ ang-nakbang/
PS¹ : Pron./ job. Poss. / Ammatowa/ ACT.forbid /
ACT. Cut / MB² : kaju / ri /borong- a/ iya
minjo/ ni- kua /adak tana.
PS² : wood/ Prep./forest / Pron /
PASS.say/ law customary

LT : It‟s /the job /of Ammatowa /forbids /cut

88
 /wood /in /the forest/, it‟s /said /by /customary
law.

IT. : It is the duty of Ammatowa to forbid people to cut down

the trees in the forest because forest is considered a
customary inheritance as states in customary law.

Table 4.2 Mapping for FOREST IS HERITAGE

Source: HERITAGE Target: FOREST

Pusaka (inheritance) Forest as heritage from the

ancestors
Adak tana (customary Prohibit cutting trees in forest
law)

The conceptual metaphor FOREST IS HERITAGE is signaled by

the lexical items of pusaka (inheritance) and adaktana (customary
law). Literally, heritage is the transmitted of feature acquired from a
predecessor. People of Kajang believe that taking care of the forest
is an obligation for them, and this obligation is customary law
inherited from their ancestors. Ammatowa as the leader of the
community has an obligation to maintain this law. People of Kajang
believe that Ammatowa as a representative of Tau Riek Akrakna (the

89
Almighty God), and it is the duty of Ammatowa to preserve the
world and everything in it, including the relationship between people
and the natural surroundings. The customary law prohibits people
from damaging or cutting down the trees in the forest. If trees are cut
down, it will decrease the rain, and dry off the springs (timbusu).
They believe forest brings rain and trees produce springs. These
messages are inheritance from their ancestors long before them.

Conceptual metaphor theory mentions that source domain

should map the target domain, in the others words that the source
domain provides the terms (the above Pasang (4), (5)) which the
target is described. The conceptual metaphor of FOREST IS
HERITAGE is a conceptual mapping from a source domain
(HERITAGE) to a target domain (FOREST). Thus, the above
Pasang indicate that FOREST is conceptualized as HERITAGE
since they form a coherent which based on the underlying concept
(Pasang (4), (5)). Hence, the area of metaphor occurs in the way we
conceptualize “one cognitive domain in terms of another (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980).

3. FOREST IS A SPRINGS
A metaphor is frequently found in Pasang ri Kajang. Pasang
contains ancient messages related to all knowledge and messages of

90
life. Some of them can only be expressed by referring to what is
experienced in the physical world because some Pasang mean by
which the “unknown can be conceptualized in terms of what is
already known” (Charteris – Black, 2004). Also Lakoff and Johnson
in their book titled Metaphor We Live By (1980) mentioned that
through our bodily experiences we learn to connect one thing to
something else. Thus, the use of metaphor reflects speaker‟s ideas
and the interaction with the world. In relation to the statements
above, here are some Pasang which refer to the experience in the
physical world.

Corpus (6): Nariek kaloro battu ri boronga, nariek timbusu battu

rikajua

MB¹ : Na- riek/ kaloro/ battu/ ri /borong-a/ na- riek/ timbusu/ battu/

PS¹ : Adv. / river / come/ Prep./forest, / Adv. / spring /

come/ MB² : ri / kaju- a./

PS² : Prep./ trees /

LT : There / river/ come/ from/ forest/, there/ springs/come/

from/ trees.

IT. : The existence of river was due to the existence of the forest,
and the existence of springs is due to the existence of trees

91
 because the forest and trees bring water to the river and supply
water for the spring.

Corpus (7): Punna nitakbang kajua ri boronga nuni pappiurangiang

ri Tau Riek Akrakna angngurangi bosi patanre timbusu. Nibicara
Pasang ri turioloa.

MB : Punna/ ni- takbang-i/ kaju-a/ ri/borong-a /

nu-ni/ pak-pi-ukrangi
PS¹ : Conj. / PASS.cut/ tree/ Pref./forest
/wish / pray
MB² : ri /Tau Riek Akrak- na / ang-ngurang-
i/ bosi/ pa- tanrek/
PS² : Prep./ God / NEG. reduce / rain /
wipe-off
MB³ : timbusu./Na-bicara/ Pasang / ri / tu- riolo-
wa.
PS³ : spring / PAST.say/ pasang/Prep./ PASS.
time
LT : If / you /cut down /wood /in/forest,/wish
(pray) / to/ God / not reduce /rain,/
eliminate / spring / said the costumary law/
since long time ago.

92
IT. : The ancestors state in customary law
(Pasang) that if we cut down the trees in the
forest, then we should pray to the God
Almighty not to reduce the rainfall and get
rid of water in springs.

Table 4.3 Mapping for FOREST IS SPRINGS

Source: SPRINGS Target: FOREST

Timbusu (Springs) - Forests store water

- Forest function as reservoir.

These Pasang are based on the close relation between people and
earth. Spring (timbusu) is the only water supply in Ammatoa
community. Therefore, Ammatoans are depending their needs for
the water in springs that they have in the village. They believe that
roots produce spring, leaves bring rain for them. Lakoff and Johnson
(1980) state that human conceptual metaphor is a system of
metaphorically structured and defined. On conceptual metaphor
above, FOREST has been explained through the source domain of
SPRING (timbusu). Thus, it indicates that it is conceptualized as
SPRING since those expressions (Pasang) form a map into the
underlying concept of FOREST. Hence, the area of metaphor

93
occurs in the way we conceptualize “one cognitive domain in term
of another” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). So, the conceptual metaphor
of “FOREST IS A SPRING” is explained with analogies deriving its
structure from the basic metaphor of mother earth. Ammatoans
believe that leafs of trees have a function to call for rain, and spring
is made by forest (roots of trees). The target domain of FOREST
are mapped into the underlying concept of SPRINGS which
described by source domain (the above Pasang).

4. FOREST IS A CUSTOM
Critical metaphor analysis is a way of revealing underlying
ideologies, attitudes and belief. (Charteris – Black, 2004:42). Kajang
people believe that their ancestor (Ammatowa the first) landed for
the first time in forest, and they also believe that forest is an
inhabitation of their ancestors. Thus, they consider forest is a very
sacral place and it is guarded by holy spirits in every corners of it.
Custom requires them to protect and preserve the forest. Forest is a
restrictive area. It forbids for everyone to perform any activities in
sacred forest (Borong Karama‟) except ritual activities. The
conceptual metaphor FOREST IS A CUSTOM means that forest
is understood in terms of custom, in the other words that the
structure of the source domain (CUSTOM) is mapped into the

94
target domain (FOREST). Here FOREST is conceptualized as a
CUSTOM. The target domain of FOREST has been explained
through the source domain of CUSTOM (adak) as seen in the
following Pasang:

Corpus (8): injo nattahang ri boronga nasabak Pasang. Riettoi

tanayya rettoi adaa.
MB¹ : injo /na- ttahang / ri/borong- a/ nasabak/
Pasang./Riek- toi

PS¹ : DEM.Pro/ ACT.resist/ PREP./forest /because/

Pasang/ Adv.

MB² : tana-yya/ riek-toi/ ada- a.

PS² : soil / Adv. / custom.
LT : That / preserve / in / forest / because /
customary law./ There „s/ a soil /,There‟s / a
custom.
IT : Forest is sustainable because it is quarded by
customary law (Pasang). If we destroy the land
that means we destroy the custom.

Corpus (9): Nikasipalliangi ammanrak – manraki borong.

95
MB : Ni- kasipalli- angi/ ang- manrak – manrak-i /borong.
PS : Pass.forbid. / ACT. destroyObj. /forest.

LT : Forbidden / destroy / forest.

IT. : It is forbidden or taboo to destroy the forest.

Corpus (10): injo atoranna adaa punna riek palanggarang nihaju ri

boronga takbage tallui iamintu pokok babala, tangnga babbala,
cappa babbalak.

MB¹ : injo /atorang-na/ adak- a /punna /

riek/ palanggarang/ ni- haju/

PS¹ : DEM.Pron/ rule /Poss.Law/ if /Adv. /

prohibition /PASS.violate

MB² : ri /borong-a /taka- bage /tallu-i / ia- mintu/

pokok/ babbalak,/

PS² : PREP/forest / devide / 3 Obj. fec./

ADV. / heavy / whip /

MB³ : tangnga / babbala,/cappa /babbalak.

PS³ : medium/ whip / light / whip.
LT : that / the rules of /custom / if / there‟s /
violation / in / forest / divided / into / three /
namely / main / whip / medium / whip /light /
whip.

96
IT. : According to the the rule of custom, if
someone violates the law regarding forest
management, he/she will be punished base on
whether his/her violation such as serious
violation, medium violation, or light violation.
Table 4.4 Mapping for FOREST IS CUSTOM

Source: CUSTOM Target: FOREST

Adak (custom) Forest is a place for rituals.

Kasipalli (taboo/forbidden) Forest is sacred place, forbidden

to
conduct activieties other than
rituals.

The underlying conceptualizations of FOREST above are the

creation of relationship between two domains by shifting the use of
words from one context to another. This conceptual shift that is
driven by abstract concept facilitates the appearance of a new
concept of forest that relates with other domain (custom). Forest
(borong) and custom (adak) are two different concepts but they are
coherence on the conceptual system of Kajang people. Kajang
people believe that forest is a part of their custom (adak) since most
of their daily activities are related to forest ( borong) especially those
regards to rituals.

97
The lexical item of Nikasipalliangi is from the root kasipalli which
means taboo or forbidden. Taboo is a part of culture of Kajang
people, in managing their way of life. Several things that are
forbidden (kasipalli) in forest such as cutting tree (takbang kaju),
catching shrimps (rao doang), cutting rattans (tatta’ uhe), and
harvesting honey (tunu bani). If all the taboo or forbidden things are
violated, sanctions will be granted according to the kind of violation.
There are three kinds of sanctions regarding violation done in the
sacred forest, light violation (cappa bakbala), medium violation
(tangnga bakbala), serious violation (poko bakbala). Bakbala literally
means a whip. The word of bakbala is used for sanctions base on
their level of the violation. If the violation committed is categorized
as serious violation, the sanctions given are poko bakbala which
literally means the handle of a whip. Pokok bakbala is the highest
sanction of fine. The fine of this sanction is sampulonna real (12
Arabic real) or 24 ohang, plus one roll of white fabric, and the wood
taken from the forest should be returned. The second sanction is
tangnga bakbala. Tangnga bakbala is literally means the thong of a
whip. The fine of this sanction is sangantuju real (8 Arabic real) or
12 ohang plus one roll of white fabric. The last sanction is called
cappa bakbala literally means popper of a whip. It is categorized as
the lightest sanction with fine of appa real (4 real) or 8 ohang plus
one roll of white fabric.

98
5. HEREAFTER IS SUFFICIENT AND ETERNAL LIFE

Faith principally consists of concepts that lead to the belief

and obedience for their followers. The faith is a sense of belief on
unseen world, ideas about God and Hereafter, and the object in faith
systems are abstract since they are related to the feelings through
worship. As to faith system of Ammatoans community, Akib
(2003:53) urges that Pasang contains the value of “kunne” or
guidelines which concerns with mundane life but the main objective
is a sufficient life in hereafter. These following Pasang are coherent
with conceptual metaphor above:

Corpus (11): Inni linoa pammari – marianji, ahera pammatangang

karakrakkang
MB¹ : inni / lino- a/ pang-mari-mariang-ji /, ahera /
pang- mantang/
PS¹ : DEM.Pron/ world/ temporary only
PART/hereafter/stay
MB² : ang- ka- rakrak- ang.
PS² : ACT. permanent
LT : This/World/ is/temporary /only,/hereafter /is
stay/permanent place.
IT. : Living in the world is temporary, the hereafter is for
eternity. Therefore we should obey the God‟s wills by

99
 leading a simple life.

Corpus (11): Kalumanynyang kalupepeang ri allo ri bokona Tu

Riek Akrakna.

MB¹ : Kalumanyang/kaluppepeang / ri
/allo /ri / boko- na
PS¹ : Well - off /extraordinary
/PREP./day/PREP./PREP.end.POSS/ MB²
: Tu Riek Akrana
PS² : God.
LT : Rich / extraordinary / in/ the day /in /
hereafter / of / God.
IT : We are ordered to live in simplicity,
because the extraordinary wealth will only be
provided in the hereafter by Almighty God

100
Table 4.5 Mapping for HEREAFTER IS SUFFICIENT AND

ETERNAL LIFE

Source: SUFFICIENT AND

Target: HEREAFTER
ETERNAL LIFE
Kalumannyang kaluppepeang
Only provided in hereafter
(extraordinary wealth/ sufficient
life)

Karakrakkang (eternal life) Only found in hereafter

The Pasang above regard to the journey metaphor as mention by

Lakoff and Johnson (1980:60), they urge that journey metaphors
involve travellers, paths travelled, places where we start, and places
where we have been. Also, Journey is purposeful and has
destinations that we have in mind. Pasang above mention that the
mundane life is only for stopover (pammari – mariangji) the place
where we start. The real life will be on hereafter as a place for
eternal life (pammatangang karakrakkang), and the wealth or
sufficient life (Kalumannyang kaluppepeang) is only provided in
here after, this is the destination where we are heading to.

Mapping in conceptual metaphor must be in one direction.

101
The source domain must map the target domain. In this case, the
conceptual metaphor of HERE AFTER IS SUFFICIENT AND
ETERNAL LIFE consists of a structured set of narrative
relationship that map from the source domain of SUFFICIENT
AND ETERNAL LIFE and to the target domain of HEREAFTER.
According to the Ammatoan community, the essence of human life
is how to live based on what is ordered in Pasang. The main aspect
which mentioned in Pasang is to trust in God Almighty (Tu Rie
Akrana), and it is implemented through the obedience by carrying
out his commands and not doing what is prohibited. One of the
concrete forms of their obedience is to live in simplicity ( Kamase –
masea), because Ammatoan believes that living in Kamase – masea
is God‟s will for them. They have faith to Pasang which teaches them
to live in simplicity as the principle of Kamase – masea. Live in
Kamase – masea means to live on what have been provided or
“existed” (Lekba) by Tu Rie Akrana with full of sincerity and
resignation (Appisokna), contemplation (Tapakkoro), and patience
(Sakbara). Therefore, to preserve the wholeness of “existed”
(Lekba), the Ammatoan choose to settle in certain area which they
call Butta Kamase – masea (a land of simplicity), an area where there
is no excessive life or wealth (pammatangang karakrakkang) since
they believe that sufficient and eternal life are only provided later on
in hereafter by God Almighty (ri allo ri bokona Tu Riek Akrakna).

102
They also believe that in the hereafter, everyone will be provided
with a luxury house in the heaven that does not exist in the world
(bola tepu anre’ rapanna ri lino) by Tu Riek Akrana.

6. AMMATOWA IS A LAW
Ammatowa is the supreme leader of the existing law in
Ammatoan community. He owns the ultimate decision in solving the
problems that occur in Ammatoan community. He is as a custom
leader who believes to be the representation of God ( Tu Riek
Akrana) on earth as all his actions and deeds are considered to be
God‟s will. Therefore, Ammatowa should always uphold the
principle of honesty (panggukang lambusu) in everyday life. He is
required to be in contemplation or surrender ( Tapakkoro) to Tu
Riek Akrakna to carry out his commandments and prohibitions.
The descriptions above are elaborated in the following Pasang:

Corpus (12): Ikau adaka, ikau karaenga. Lambusu bukrungko,

paklalanganga angkuayaa.
MB¹ : i- kau /adak- a,/ i- kau / karaeng./
Lambusu/ bukrung- ko,
PS¹ : 2nd.Sing./custom/2nd.Sing. /king
/straight /firmness.sing/
MB² : pang-Laklang-a/ angkua- ya.

103
PS² : Ammatowa / ordered.
LT : You /are / custom, /you / are /king./ Straight /
firmness, /Ammatowa / said.

IT. : You are the Ammatowa, you are the ruler and the king,
therefore you are required to be honest to your people, and
maintain firmness, as you have been ordered by God
Almighty.

Metaphors could be considered as analogies – comparisons that

share primarily relational information, and they can also be based
on common object attributes. The lexical item of bukrungko is from
the word of bukrung with suffix “ko” which means you. Bukrung is
taken from a name of a tree that grows upright without having any
branches and it stands firmly. It refers to honesty ( lambusu) and
straight in acts. The use of bukrung as an analogy for the character
of the Ammatowa who is required to be straight (honest) with no
crook in any acts he makes like tree of bukrung which grow straight
up. Meanwhile, the word of paklalanganga means haven, it refers to
Ammatowa as protector for the Ammatoans. Others Pasang
mention:

Corpus (13): Sallukriajowa ammulu ri adahang, anraik – raik

pamarentata anraik tokki kalak – kalauka pamarentata kalauk tokki.
MB¹ : Salluk-ri-a-jowa/ ang- mulu/ ri /adahang-

104
 ang /an-raik – raik/
PS¹ : Follow/ too/Prep./cultivate.ACT/ go there/
MB² : pamarenta- ta / ang-raik / tok-ki / kalak –
kalau-ka / pamarenta-ta/
PS² : government / ACT.go /west /toward
the sea/ government/
MB³ : kalauk / tok-ki
PS³ : toward the sea/ west.
LT : Follow /the tool/ to cultivate/ the soil,/ /government/ go to/
west /we / go to/ west /too, /east /government / go /we /go to
/ east/ too.

IT. : Obey the leader by carrying out his orders and do not
violate his prohibition.

The above Pasang gives an idea that the Ammatoan must obey their
leader, because for them the leader (Ammatowa) is a chosen man of
God, they believe that Ammatowa is the representative of God in
the world. Pasang and Ammatowa are very significant and
determinate in life of the Ammatoan. Their existence is analogous
to the holy books which must be obeyed and his commands should
be followed. Therefore, in order to understand the existence of the
Ammatoan, we have to understand adequately the communal

105
concept of both Pasang and Ammatowa. The Pasang (13) above also
mentions that if the leader goes there (anraik – raik), they should to
there too, and if the leader goes another way or an opposite way
(kalau) literal meaning toward the sea, then they will go to that way
as well. It describes that Ammatoan should obey their leader. Others
Pasang also say:

Corpus (14): Amma ammana adak, Amma ammanak karaeng

MB : Amma / ang-ma nak / adak,/ Amma / ang-manak /

karaeng.

PS : Ammatowa/ gives birth/custom/ Ammatoawa/ gives

birth/noble.

LT : Ammatowa / gives birth / custom, /Ammatowa/

gives birth /nobles.
IT : Ammatowa is the one who created custom (Adat),
and he appointed the nobles as well.

Corpus (15): Ikau Karaenga siurang adaka, pakahajii jari – jarinu

nasabak punna salai jari – jarinu iyareka riek pauawanna anjari
pamarenta, ammanraki tau takbala, tanna kajariangi erang pole.
MB¹ : i-kau /Karaeng-nga,/ siurang/ adak-a,/ paka-haji /
jari – jari-nu/

106
PS¹ : 2nd Sing./ king /be friend/custom/ take
nd
care/fingers 2 .POSS/
MB² : nasabak / punna/ salak-i / jari – jari-nu / i-ya-rieka/riek
/pa-uan-na
PS² : because/ if /wrong/ fingers 2nd POSS/ words
/then/3rd.PLU.
MB³ : nan-jari / pamarenta /a-manra-ki/ tau / takbala,/ tanna/
PS³ : because/government/ damage /people/NEG. / become/

MB⁴ : kajariang-i/ areng pole.

PS⁴ : anything / too

LT : You /are / king, / be friends /custom,/ take care /your

fingers,/ if /wrong /your fingers /or /your words, /then / they
/ become / official /damaging /people, /not /become
/anything/ too.
IT : You are the king who acts and speaks on behalf of
custom, be careful with your commands and your words
Table 4.6 Mapping for AMMATOWA IS A LAW

Source: A LAW Target: AMMATOWA

Ammatowa (custom leader) Creator of Adak (custom

law) and Karaeng (nobles)

107
Karaeng (nobles) executor of custom law =
custom law executor.

Adak (customary law) created by

Ammatowa
(customary leader)
Pammerentah (civil servants) Executor of civil law

since when you deliver a command, it become an official statement

of the government. And if you treat your people improperly, they
will yield nothing but disaster.
The Indonesian word “adat”, is often translated as “custom”
or “customary law”. Adat (adak) can refer to custom, tradition, ritual,
appropriate behavior, and rules or practices of social life. The
metonymic concept allows us to conceptualize one thing by means
of its relation to something else. In this case of the metonymy “the
part for the whole”. Lakoff and Johnson (1980:36) urge that
metaphor is principally a way of conceiving of one thing in terms of
another, and its main function is to help understanding. Meanwhile,
metonymy has primary function as a referential function, that is, it
allows us to use one entity to stand for another. Like the Pasang
above mentioned that “Amma ammana adak, Amma ammanak
karaeng”, (Amma manafests the custom) means Ammatowa as a
supreme leader stands for a whole customary law (Adak), the one

108
who produces Adak. According to Kajang mythology, when humans
have not much inhabited the earth, the name of Ammatowa has not
been known. There is only Sanro Lohe (magic shaman). Sanro Lohe
is not just as a healer who can cure illness, but also a leader in the
ritual ceremony as well and the leader of the community. When
numbers of human are multiplied, the term of Ammatowa became
recognized. Then, Ammatowa formed the division of power as
mentioned in above Pasang (14) which means that Ammatowa is a
custom and he is a king (karaeng) as well. He is the one who
manifested adak (custom) and produced karaeng (nobles). In
carrying out the customary rules, Ammatowa is assisted by five
assistants so- called Adak lima, they are as follows (1) Galla Puto who
is acts as a spokeman for Amma Toa, (2) Galla Lombo who is in
charge of government affairs at inner territory (illayang embaya) and
outer territory (ipantarang embaya) of Kajang, (3) Galla Kajang who
takes care of religious rituals, (4) Galla Pantama for agriculture affair,
and (5) Galla Maleleng for fisheries.

Another Pasang (15) above mentions that “pakahajii jari –

jarinu” (take care your fingers) means Amma Toa as a leader who
rules his people is required to be careful with his “fingers”. Here,
“jari – jari” (fingers) has a referential function, it refers to the way of
Ammatowa rules his people. Metonymy as mentioned previously
that it has a referential function, but it is also a way of extending the

109
meaning of word based on its association to another. In this case,
“jari – jari” (fingers) is associated with the way of Ammatowa rules
his people. Base on that Pasang mentioned above, then, we postulate
a conceptual metaphor of AMMATOWA IS A LAW. Here, the
target domain AMMATOWA is explained through the source
domain LAW as described in above mentioned Pasang.

7. AMMATOWA IS A SHELTER

The conceptual metaphor AMMATOWA IS A SHELTER

means that AMMATOWA as a customary leader of Ammatoan
community is understood in terms of SHELTER. The source
domain (SHELTER) is mapped into the target domain
(AMMATOWA). The target domain of AMMATOWA has been
explained through the source domain of SHELTER as explained in
the following Pasang:

Corpus (16): Ammatowa paklaklanganta ngasek.

MB : Ammatowa / pak-laklang-ang-ta/ngasek.
PS : Ammatowa/ACT.protect /1st
FOC.Plu. LT : Ammatowa / shelter/ for / all of us
IT : Ammatowa is a place where we can find
shelter for all of us.

110
Corpus (17): Kunni – kunnina, Aklaklangngasek mako ri nakke,
nasabak nakke najokjok pangellai ri Turiek Akrakna.
MB¹ : Kunni - kunni-na/ ak-laklang-asek / mako / ri / nakke,
PS¹ : meanwhile /ACT.take all /2nd Plu.Obj./Prep./1st
Sings.

MB² : na-sabak/ nakke / na- jokjok /

pangellai / ri / Tau Riek Akrakna.
PS² : because/1st Sings/PASS.appoint/PASS.say/ADV./
God.
LT : Now / take /a shelter / you all /at / me /.because / I
/was appointed /by /the God Almighty.
IT : I have been appointed by the God Almighty to be
responsible for sheltering you all, and you all come
under my responsibility.

Corpus (18): Aklalang rikaju lompoa, akkambiang ricinaguria.

MB : Ak- laklang/ ri-kaju / lompa-a,/ak-

kambiang/ ri-cinaguria
PS : ACT. take in/PREP.wood/big /ACT.hold
on/PREP.cinaguria
LT : take in/into /the big tree,/ and /to hold /on /the
cinaguaria

111
IT : We have been ordered to take shelter in
Ammatowa as our leader, and to firmly hold to the
customary law (Pasang).

Table 4.7 Mapping for AMMATOWA IS A SHELTER

Source: A SHELTER Target: AMMA TOA

- A man provides
proctection
Aklalang
(haven/shelter) - A man appointed by God
for haven/shelter
Kaju Lompoa (a big Amma Toa considers as a big
tree)
tree where people can find a
shelter for protection or “Tuni
Paklaklangi” (a place for shelter)

As has been described above that Ammatowa is a supreme leader in

Ammatoan community. He is a customary leader who has
influences in every aspect of life in Ammatoan community, and as a
customary leader, he should provide solutions to every problem of
the Ammatoan. He becomes a shelter (paklalangan) for every
Ammatoans.
The lexical item “Aklaklang” means a haven or a shelter. Here, the

112
word of Aklalang is associated with the role of Ammatowa as
customary leader. His role is to maintain not only the life of the
community but also the world, and to take care not only of the life
of human beings, but also the crops and the environment. In his
cosmological status, Ammatowa represents divine being, and his
“office” is a divine kingship. Being the direct descendent of the
divine, Ammatowa personhood is perceived as the incarnation or
representation of God (Tu Rie Akrana). The Ammatowa plays a
divine role in maintaining the order of the world. Ammatowa
performs his divine personhood to control the world for orderliness
and the land for fertility. To assure fertility, Ammatowa must ritually
lead at agricultural activities, and to assure the prosperity of the
community, every activity is directed and centered on extensive
process of rituals.
The word of “Kaju Lompoa” (a big tree) refers to
Ammatowa himself. He as a king ( Karaeng) considers as a big tree
where people can find a shelter for protection or “Tuni Paklaklangi”
(a place for shelter). As a king, he has power to rules any business of
the community. All activities have to be under control of the
Ammatowa. Without the approval of the Ammatowa, any ritual
performed does not count. All the ritual should ask the
Ammatowa‟s advice and endorsement.
The word of “cinaguria” is associated with a kind of plant

113
which is very difficult to pull up. It stands for the Pasang. It suggests
that one firmly holding the Pasang would not go astray. As
mentioned before that Ammatowa and Pasang are very significant
and determinent in life of the Ammatoans. Their existence is like
two sides of coin that cannot be separated. Ammatoans should
follow Pasang and should listen to his commands as another Pasang
mentions “Amma nilanggere, nituruki, siagang nipaklalangngi”
(Heard Amma‟s advice, followed his deeds, and made him as a role
model).
The conceptual metaphor AMMATOWA IS A SHELTER
which described metaphorically by source domain (Pasang above) is
categorized as a container metaphor (ontological metaphors). We
use ontological metaphors to comprehend events, activities or
actions, and states. Events, and actions are conceptualized
metaphorically as objects, activities as sub – stances, states as
containers. Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 30) argue that “each of us is
a container, with a bounding surface and an in – out orientation.”
We project our own in – out orientation onto other physical objects
that are bounded by surfaces. Bounded objects can be human being,
rocks, or land areas (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:31). A shelter is a
container object, while things or people inside of it is a container
sub-stance (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 30). Ammatowa as a
protector for his people is considered as a container (shelter) for the

114
bounded objects namely his people – Ammatoans.

8. AMMATOWA IS UNIFIER
The conceptual metaphor also can be arranged along with
symbols. The image in the symbol constitutes the source domain,
and the meaning content constitutes the target domain to be
expressed. Analogically, the use of metaphors and symbols is based
on intuitive capacity to perceive various dimensions of reality. The
symbol has function to describe the relationship of social
relationships and the structure of the society as describe in following
Pasang:

Corpus (20): Akbulo sipappak, aklemo sibatu, tallang sipahua,

manyuk siparampe, lingu sipakainga, sipalatautang sipakasirik.

MB¹ : Ak-bulo/ si-pappak, / ak-lemo / si-batu / tallang /

si-pahuak,/

PS¹ : ACT.bamboo/ RECIPROC.unite/ ACT.lime /one

/drown/RECIPROC tell

MB² : Manyuk/ si-pa-rampe,/ lingu /si-paka-ingak,/ si-

paka-tau-tang
PS² : drift / help RECIPROC/lost/remind RECIPRO
/tell RECIPROC MB³ : si-paka-sirik.

115
PS³ : embarrass RECIPROC.

LT : A bunch of /bamboo, /one /lime, /drowning /help

/each other,/ drifting / help / each other,/ lost /
remind /each other,/ telling /each other /embarrass /
each other.

IT : We must be strong in unity like a bunch of bamboo

which sticks in the ground strongly. We have to unite
in diversity under the proctection of Ammatowa, and
when bad things occur, we should reunite in the
spirit, and when we lulled by new circumstances
which go against custom we should remind one
another, not embarrass one to another.

Table 4.8 Mapping for AMMATOWA IS UNIFIER

Source: UNIFIER Target: AMMA TOA

Akbulo sipappak (a stick A single bar of bamboo with

of bamboo) strong roots as the strong unity
and harmony symbolize the
Ammatowa to his people.

116
 Source: UNIFIER Target: AMMA TOA

aklemo sihatu (one lime) The peel of lime (Amm Toa) to

cover and protect the flesh of
lime (Ammatoan)
tallang sipahua (drowning If bad luck occurs, it is back to
help each other) Ammatowa to unite the spirit.

Manyuk siparampe’ To let remind each other to go to

(drifting remind each the right path (Amma Toa) when
other) drifted by new thing.

Ammatowa as a customary leader is always strives to maintain the

unity and togetherness of Kajang community both in inner territory
(Ilalang embaya) and in outer territory (ipantarang embaya) which
both still have genealogical and cultural relationship to each other.
This relationship of togetherness and unity known as “assigajangeng”
(we all Kajang people) is bound by cultural similarities and Pasang
as the guidance. None of the Ammatoan feels themselves apart from
the others, they have sense of empathy and tolerance to each other
(sipakatau and sipakalebbi) as described in the above Pasang.
“Akbulo sipappak” means a single bar of bamboo which sustained
by its strong roots symbolized as the unity and harmony between the
leader and the community. “Aklemo sihatu” means a lime which is

117
used to symbolize roundness (firmness) of unity like the round
shape of a lime. A lime is consists of several elements such as the
peel, the flesh with various taste. The peel symbolizes as Ammatowa
who has function or duty to cover or protect the flesh (Ammatoans).
The flesh itself has various in taste which symbolizes the diversity of
traits of Ammatoan. Ammatowa and his people are united in the
frame of assikajangeng with Pasang as the guidance.

The phrase of Tallang sipahua is form by lexical items of

“tallang" and “sipahua”, “tallang” means drowning, while "sipahua‟"
means back to the common ground. So "tallang sipahua" has a
meaning that when a bad luck occurs then we must come back
together to unite the spirit, in order to live with peace in this world
which full of peace. “Manyu 'siparampe”: "manyu''' means drifting
or lulling, while "siparampe" means to remind each other. So that
"manyu siparampe" can be interpreted that when we are lulled into a
new circumstance, which is no longer in accordance with the rules
then we should do self – reflect or introspect and let us remind each
other to go to the right path.
The lexical items of “Akbulo”, and “a’lemo” have symbolical
functions as unity and Ammatowa. In the conceptual metaphor
above, AMMATOWA and UNIFIER are two different kinds of
thing. Ammatowa is a leader of particular community, and Unifier is

118
a term of person who made things become one, but AMMATOWA
is understood, and performed in term of UNIFIER. It is
“understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of
another (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:5).

9. AMMATOWA IS THE BEGINNING

Knowledge of time is often used to map the abstract concept.

The word of “beginning” refers to the point at which something
begins or start, and it is used as the source domain for the above
conceptual metaphor in order to comprehend the target domain
AMMATOWA. The following Pasang are coherent to the
conceptual metaphor above:

Corpus (21). Simemangana lino, Amma riekmo

MB : Simemang-ang-na/ lino / Amma / riek-mo

PS : beginning /earth /Ammatowa/exist Adj.
LT : The beginning/ of / earth, / Ammatowa /exists /
already
IT : The creation of the world comes together with the
creation of Ammatowa.

Corpus (22): Riek sakra battu ri Tau Riek Akrakna: ikau tokmintu

119
Ammatowa, na ikau tokmintu appakriek anutallu, na ikau tokmintu
angkamuai tanatowa.
MB¹ : Riek /sakra /battu /ri /Tau Riek Akrakna:/ i-kau / to-
mintu/
PS¹ : ADV/voice/come/Prep./ Creator /2nd Obj. Sing./Aux.
MB². : Ammatowa,/ na i-kau /tok-mintu /appak-riek /anu- tallu,/ na-
i- kau
PS² : Ammatowa/ 2nd.Sing/ Aux. / creator / three /also 2 nd.
Sing.
MB³ : tok- mintu / ang- kamua-i / tanatowa.
PS³ : Aux. /ACT. Know /tanatowa.
LT : There‟s / a voice / from /the creator:/ you / are
/Ammatowa,/ and / you /are /also /creator /the three /, and
/you /also/know/ tanatowa.
IT : There is one voice came from the God Almighty
mentioned that you are the leader, you are the one who
should create the three nobles who will assist you to
govern the land, and you are also the one who should
guard the old land (Kajang).

120
Table 4.9 Mapping for AMMATOWA IS BEGINNING

Source: BEGINNING Target: AMMA TOA

Simemangana lino (the Amma Toa exists in

spirit/beginning of world. the beginning of the world

Amma Toa appointed by God

Angkamiki (guardian)
Tallua (three nobels)
to guard Tana Towa (the first
land created by God on earth)
It created by Amma
Toa to assists him with govern
issues (ada 'tanaya')

Ammatowa is considered as the first human being in earth by

Ammatoan. The first Ammatowa was called Tau – Manurung (one
who came down from heaven), and was sent by Tau Riek Akrakna
(the Almighty God) to the world in certain place of customary forest.
Therefore, since then forest has been considered as the most sacred
and holy place in Kajang area, Ammatoans believe that their
ancestors landed for the first time in that forest. In fact, this place has
been considered as the beginning of the earth creation, that why it is
called Tana Towa (Old land). Tau – manurung or the first
Ammatowa was the first in the family tree of the Tu – Kentarang in
Kajang.

121
 The lexical item of “tallua” (three) explains that Ammatowa
created the Karaeng Tallua (the three nobles). They assist
Ammatowa in the field of government (ada 'tanaya'), beside Karaeng
Tallu, Amma Toa also created Karaeng limaya (five nobles) or Adak
Limaya. Karaeng limaya or Adak Limaya assists Ammatowa with
customary issues (customary councils). Karaeng Tallua is a trinity
concept in the field of government as mention in Pasang "Karaeng
tallu mingka sekreji" means that if one of them has attended the
ceremony, then Karaeng Tallu is considered present.
Conceptual metaphor and ideology are closely connected.
Teun van Dijk (1998:7) defines ideologies as “the fundamental
beliefs of a group and its members”. People form ideologies, since
they want to differentiate themselves or their group from others, as
well as to identify themselves within a given group. The conceptual
metaphor AMMATOWA IS THE BEGINNING, it is a cognitive
dimension of Ammatoans‟s ideologies which are found in the above
Pasang.

10. LIFE IS “KAMASE – MASEA”

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue that metaphor is rather a matter of

experience or everyday life than merely a matter of language.
Metaphor allows us to understand ourselves and our world. The

122
conceptual metaphor LIFE IS KAMASE – MASEA, the target
domain of LIFE can be described in term of KAMASE – MASEA
as the source domain in which supported by a several following
Pasang.
Corpus (23): Anrek kalumanyanyang kalupepeang riek kamase –
masea.
MB : Anrek /kalumanyanyang /kalupepeang, /riek
/kamase – masea/
PS : None/ wealthy / extraordinary/ only / simplicity
LT : None / rich / extraordinary, / only / simplicity.
FT : The state of prosperity or extraordinary wealth
does not exist in this land (Kajang), only simplicity
of life.

Corpus (24): Angnganre nariek, care-care nariek, pammalli juku

nariek, tana koko galung nariek, Bola situju-tuju

MB¹ : Ang-kanre/ na- riek,/ care - care/ na- riek,/pang- halli/ juku/
PS¹ : ACT.food/ available/ clothing/ available /NOM.Suff.buy/fish/
MB² : na-riek,/ tana / koko /galung / na- riek,/ bola / si- tuju - tuju./
MB² : available/land/farm / rice / available/ house/ simple/
LT: Food / Available,/ clothing,/ available/ money to buy / fish,/
available / land /, farm, /rice / available/ a simple house .

123
IT: Our encestors taught and demand us to live in simple life,
simple life is when food is available, clothes are available, money to
buy fish (dishes) available, fields for growing rice and other plants
available and also a simple house to live in, nothing more.

Corpus (25): Amentengko nukamase – mase, acidongko nukamase

– mase, akdakkako nukamase – mase, akmiakko nu kamase–mase.
MB¹ : Ang- menteng- ko /nu-kamase – mase,/ a-cidong-ko/
PS¹ : ACT.stand 2nd.Sing./2nd Sing. Humble /ACT.sit.2nd
Sing.
MB² :nu-kamase-mase,/ak-dakka-ko/nu-kama-semase,/
ak-miak-ko
PS² : 2nd Sing. Humble/ACT.walk 2nd Sing./ 2nd
Sing.humble/ACT.talk 2nd Sing. MB³ : nu-kamase–
mase.
PS³ : 2nd Sing. Humble
LT : Stand /you are /humble, / sit /you are/ humble,/ walk
/you are humble,/ talk /you are/ humble.
IT : Humble life principles should be practiced or
carried out in everyday life, even when you stand, sit,
and talk. It teaches you to care for each other, and
respect other‟s belonging.

124
Table 4.10. Mapping for LIFE IS “KAMASE – MASEA”

Source: KAMASE – Target: LIFE

MASEA
- Ammatoan‟s way of life
- “Gannak” the principle of
Kamase – masea (simplicity/ life which teaches us to
humble life) look for more, only things
provided by God.
- Life in modesty, self –
fulfillment, self – relieance,
and suffieciency.

The above Pasang do not explicitly mention about life. However, the
concept of life can be inferred from the context of Kamase – masea
and found at the conceptual level. Kamase – masea is a life style or
cultural behavior undertaken by Ammatoans in carrying out their life
in simplicity or humble ways. This is the way of Ammatoan apply
their ancestors‟ ideology to live in simplicity or humble way. It
requires them to receive whatever already provided by the Tau Riek
Akrakna (the God Almighty) without desire of looking for others
things to lead their lives. In practicing kamase
– masea, there is one ideology that related to it so called “gannak”
(fulfilled, enough). The idea of gannak (fulfilled, enough) is that one
has food to eat (Angnganre nariek), clothes to wear (care-care

125
nariek), money to buy fish or dishes (pammalli juku nariek), land for
garden and/or for rice field (tana koko galung nariek), and a simple
house to live in (Bola situju- tuju). The practice of kamase – masea
and the idea of gannak would prevent someone from having things
which do not belong to him/her. They encourage Ammatoans to
conduct a friendly and strong community, each individual care for
the others, and respect each other belongings.
Akib (2003: 2) argues that kamase – masea contains ideas or
conceptions taken from the values containing in Pasang ri Kajang. In
addition, he (2008:8) states that the principle of Kamase – masea is
covered by emotional bundle, which cannot be separated from belief
system since it has a sacred value, reward and sanction. Ammatoan
community is required to take care their behavior, they have to
practice the value of humble in everyday life even when they stand
(Ammenteng), sit (accidong), walk (akdakka) and talk (akmiakko) as
described in Pasang. Kamase - masea is essentially a commitment to
live in modesty, self – fulfillment, self – reliance, and sufficiency.

11. LIFE IS RITUALS

The conceptual metaphor LIFE IS RITUALS above describes in
the following Pasang:

126
Corpus (26). Napaccidommi adak lima Karaeng tallu

MB : Na-pa-cidong-mi/ adak/ lima / Karaeng / tallu

PS : ACT. sit / customary/ five/ king / three
LT : Presenting / five / customary devices/ three / nobles.
IT : Kajang people in performing rituals, they should
invite/present the five costumary devices and three nobles
in every ritual. If they are not attending the ritual, it is
considered illegitimate or illegal ritual.

Table 4.11. Mapping for LIFE IS RITUALS

Source: RITUALS Target: LIFE

Five assistants of
adak lima (costumary Ammatowa who assist in
devices) costumary issues including rituals.
They assist Ammatowa
with
Karaeng Tallu (three govern issues (adak
nobles) tanaya). One of them should be
present in
every ritual. if one of them has
attended the ceremony, then
Karaeng Tallu is considered
present.

127
Ammatoan engages rituals daily. For Ammatoan, rituals are
inseparably related to everyday life, and they have their own system
of categorization for rituals. They put rituals into three types namely
akdaga, aknganro, and baca doang. Akdaga (feasts) includes all
rituals that involve feasts, animal sacrifices, erang berasa (gifts of
rice), solok (gifts of money). This kind of ritual involves animal
sacrifices such as horses, cows, and water buffalos. Ammatoan
categories akdaga includes some lifes cycle rituals such as akkalomba
(life safe of a child), akkattere (haircut), pakbottingang (weddings),
pamatengang (funerals), minro baji (status reparation), and naik ri
bola (moving into a new house). The second types of ritual is
aknganro (invocations). Rituals of aknganro are kind of rituals
without any animal sacrifice and feast involve. These rituals include
rituals in the forest such as addingingngi, apparuntu panganro, and
akborong gallung, rituals perform at certain hamlets such as akngaro
ri sapo and inauguration, ritual performs at rivers such as tinja
(vows), and rituals perform at graves tarabagoro mange ri tau salamak
and abbattasa jerak (cleaning graves). The last type of ritual is baca
doing, this is a small and simple ritual. This kind of ritual is usually
performs whenever they find their business successful as the act of
thanksgiving or when they recover from disease and illness or others,
such as naik ribola (moving into a new house), tuka (making a new ladder),

128
sunnak (circumcision), angngisi (teeth filing), duppa ulang (welcoming
Ramadan), pallappasak ulang (farewell of Ramadan), and shukkuruk
(thanksgiving). All these rituals indicate that Ammatoan engages or conduct
rituals daily. Rituals become their everyday practices, since every single
aspect of life has each own ritual.

12. RELIGION IS “TAREKAT”

The conceptual metaphor RELIGION IS “TAREKAT‟

means that religion is understood in terms of tarekat, the structure
of the source domain “TAREKAT” is mapped into the target
domain RELIGION. Here RELIGION is conceptualized as
“TAREKAT‟. The target domain of RELIGION has been
explained through the source domain of “TAREKAT‟ as seen in
the following Pasang:

Corpus (27). Tau Riek Akrakna ammantangi ri pangaraknna, Anrek

niissei riek na anrekna Tau Akrana, nakipalakdoang.
MB¹ : Tau Riek Akrak-na/ ang- mantang-i/ ri /pang-
akrak- nga-na,/
PS¹ : God / ACT.live /Prep./ Pre.Nom.wish/
MB² : Anrek/ ni issek-i / riek /na anrek- na / Tau Riek
Akrak-na,/
PS² : Neg./PASS.know/exist/ ACT.Neg.exist.POSS/

129
 God MB³ : na-ki ak- palak do-ang.
PS³ : ACT.ask. only.

LT : God /lives /in /his wish,/ not /known /exist /or

/not/, God /we /ask (pray) /only.
IT : Almighty God does everything as He wishes, no
one knows his existence. Human being only pray in
him to ask everything but all depend on God,
whether he fulfills our wishes or not.

Corpus (28). Sitte makinjo punna nigaukangi passuroanna,

naliliang pappisangkanna.
MB¹ : Sitte / ma-ki-injo / punna/ ni-gauk-ang-i/pak- suroang-
na,
PS¹ : 1st Plu./ACT.consider/when/ meet / order POSS.
MB² : na-ni lili- ang/ pak-pi-sangka- na.
PS² :ACT.avoid / prohibition POSS./
LT : We/ consider /meet/ him/ if/ we /do/his order/and
/avoid/ his prohibition.
IT : We have told that when we do what God‟s told us to
do, and avoid his prohibition, then we consider already
meet the Almighty God.

130
Corpus (29). Jeknek takluka, sambayang tamatappuk.

MB : Jeknek/ tak-luka,/ sambayang / tang-ma-tappuk

PS : Wash /Neg.break/ pray / Adv. Neg. stop.
LT : unbroken /ablution / praying / never stop.

IT : The customary law (Pasang) told us not to stop doing

good to others, if you apply this in every day practices
then you are consider performing sholat (praying).

Corpus (30). Pakahajik atekaknu iyamintu agama, naiyantu

sambayangnga jaman – jamanji.
MB¹ : Pa-ka-hajik / atekak-nu / iya-mintu /agama, / na-
iya-intu/
PS¹ : ACT.fix/behaviorPOSS.2ndObj./Pron.that/
religion/ACT.Pron.that/
MB² : sambayang-a / jaman – jaman- ji
PS² : pray/ do Adv.
LT : Fix / your behavior/, that /religion, /and /praying
/easy to do
IT : Always be good on your behavior that what
religion teaches us, and by always perform good
deeds means you perform religion and
performsholat (praying). They both do not so

131
 hard to do.

Table 4.12. Mapping for RELIGION IS “TAREKAT”

Source: TAREKAT Target: RELIGION

Jeknek takluka (unbroken Religion (Islamic law) applies

ablution)
Pakahaji tekaknu (fix your
intention(behavior))
base on comprehension of
takekat. Unbroken ablution
means always perform a good
deed.
Religion refers to do good
things.

The Ammatoan has a dualistic belief, namely Islam as a recognized

religion of the state and the belief of Patuntung as a mandatory
ancestral teaching. Patuntung as a belief system of society is inherited
from their ancestors. Patuntung is derived from the word tuntungi
(Makassarese) and translated into Bahasa Indonesia means "seeking
the source of truth". As the believer of Patuntung, Ammatoan
believes that there are basic beliefs which contain in Patuntung,
namely (1) Believing in Tau Riek Akrakna (God Almighty), (2)
Believing in Ammatowa, (3) Believing in Pasang, (4) Believing in
hereafter (allo riboko) and (5) Believing in Fate. Tau Riek Akrakna

132
is the sole power of the Absolute and the source of all beings.
For the Ammatoan community to grow a single divine concept, they
believe that if there is more than one God, then the world becomes
unbalanced and chaotic as the above Pasang (27) describes.
Tau Riek Akrakna is a dogmatic expression consisting of
four words that each word has its own meaning. “Tau” means
person, “Riek” means exist or have, and “akrak” means the will.
While the word “na” is the possessive pronoun. So, Tau Riek
Akrakna means the one who has of the will or the infinite willing or
the Almighty (Katu: 2005:25).

The existence of Tau Riek Akrakna is in all space and time,

so it is not known exactly where he is located. If a man obeys his
commandments and avoids what is forbidden, at that time he meets
Tau Riek Akrakna as decribed in Pasang (28) above.
The comprehension of Islam among Ammatoan is not
based on the understanding of Islam law, but is based on activities
related to the “tarekat”. Since among the indigenous people of
Kajang in Tana Towa village at the time, no one can read and write
so that the effort to gain knowledge about the religion (Islam) met
the difficulty. Therefore, the people of Kajang especially who live in
ilalalang embayya (inner territory) know Islam based on the
comprehension of “tarekat”. It can be seen on Pasang (29) and (30)

133
above. These Pasang explain that by doing good things to fellow
human beings is considered performing sholat (prayers) and other
religious activities in accordance with Islam shari‟a (syariat Islam).

Lakoff and Johnson (2003; 35) mention that metonymy is

“using or putting one entity to refers to another that is related to it”.
They also mention that metonymy is not only as a referential
function, but it also serve the function of providing understanding.
Metonymy concept allows us to conceptualize one thing by means
of its relation to something else. Like the conceptual metaphor
RELIGION IS “TAREKAT”, religion (or practicing religion) and
tarekat in the eyes of Ammatoan has a same concept. They believe
that religion (Islam) is the same thing with their ancestral teaching so
– called tarekat. By practicing tarekat, they believe that they are
practicing religion (Islam). So, RELIGION as the target domain is
described by the source domain TAREKAT. We try to understand
RELIGION by using the source domain TAREKAT in which
explained or described on above Pasang.

13. FAITH IS “PATUNTUNG”

Faith is the concept of the belief and obedience for the believers.
Object of faith is abstract, and the believers manifest their feelings
through worship. The conceptual metaphor FAITH IS

134
“PATUNTUNG” is postulated from the following Pasang:

Corpus (31): Guru sarak tangattappak ri patuntunga kaguruanna,

guru patuntung tangattappa ri guru saraka kapatuntunganna.

MB¹ : Guru / sarak/ tang-a- tappak /ri /patuntung-a/ ka- guru-

ang-na,/ PS¹ : teacher/religion/Neg.know /Prep./
Patuntung/ POSS.knowledge/ MB² : guru / patuntung /
tang-a tappak/ ri /guru /sarak-a
PS² : teacher/ patuntung/ Neg.know /Prep./
teacher/religion/ MB³ : ka-pa- tuntung-ang-na
PS³ :ACT.gundance.POSS.

LT : Religion /teacher/does not believe/ patuntung /his

knowledge is useless/ patuntung /teacher/ does not
believe in/ religion/ his patuntung is useless.
IT : Islamic teachings and mandatory ancestral teachings
(patuntung) are two in one concept. Therefore, Islamic
teacher who does not believe in patuntung, his
knowledge is invalid, and patuntung teacher who does
not believe in Islamic knowledge, his patuntung
knowledge is invalid.

135
Table 4.13. Mapping for FAITH IS “PATUNTUNG”
Source: PATUNTUNG Target: FAITH

Patuntung (guidance / Faith system / Mandatory

learning /demand ) ancestral teaching in Ammatoan
community

As mentioned before that The Ammatoan has a dualistic belief,

namely Islam as a recognized religion of the state and the belief of
Patuntung as a mandatory ancestral teaching. According to
Ammatowa (2016), Islam was accepted as official religion in Tana
Toa by the first Ammatowa (Bohe Sallang) who embraced Islam.
Formal recognition as a follower of faith Patuntung is found in
Ammatoan in their self-identification as moeslem. It is like a concept
of two in one, as it is described in above Pasang (31). Rashid (2002)
mentions that the notion of Patuntung is derived from the word of
“tuntung” which can be means “to demand” or “learning”, so
Patuntung means “those who demand” or “learner”. Also can be
means “peak.” It meant that someone who is trying to reach the peak
or top of something. or Tuntung means “to search”.

Levinson (1983: 156) argues that in pragmatic approach, metaphors

are lead to a search for whatever relevant interpretation could

136
reconcile the conflict between what is said and what is meant. The
concept of “PATUNTUNG” is interpreted as a faith system by
Ammatoan, because it is recognized as a belief system of society that
inherited from Ammatoan‟s ancestors, and it becomes a faith system
of Kajang community especially the ones who live in illalalang
embaya (inner territory). The faith system is value reflection of
Pasang through spiritual aspect.

14. DEATH IS A JOURNEY

Conceptualization of DEATH IS A JOURNEY comes up

from the principle of understanding the domain of death in terms of
the domain of Journey. Here, metaphors can be understood as
mappings from the source domain (JOURNEY) to the target
domain (DEATH). This metaphorical mapping transfers different
attributes from the source domain of journey to the target domain of
death. Death is metaphysical phenomenon, while journey is a
traveling from one place to another. The human knowledge about
journey used to map death. This conceptual metaphor has been
found in the following Pasang:

Corpus (32): Hajik tojeki matea paklingkaanga rianja rakjingi rolo

nampa lumbak balasakna.

137
MB¹ : Hajik / toje- ki/mate-a/ pak-lingka-nga/ ri- anja / rakjing-i/
PS¹ :Adj.good/Indeed/death/NOM.journey/Prep.hereafter/ Adj.
difficult/
MB² : rolo/ nampa/ lumbak /balasak-na
PS² : first / then /easy /N. reward.POSS.

LT : Good /indeed / death /is journey /to hereafter,/ difficult/first

/ then / easy/ on its reward/.

IT : Kajang people believe that only the death of good people
deserves to have a journey to hereafter.

Corpus (33): Tala jammengi matea aklikanaja ri anja iyaji jammeng

nungtaklea ri jampea.
MB¹ : Tala/ jamming-i /mate-a/ aklingka-na-ja/ ri /anja/ iya-
ji/
PS¹ : None/ soul /death / journey ACT./ Prep/hereafter
/only/
MB² : jamming/nung- tak-lea/ ri / jampea.
PS² : soul /Neg. find /Prep./grave.
LT : None/the soul / of death/ journey /to hereafter/only
/the soul/not found /in /grave
IT : Death is a process of separating soul or spirit from the
physical body. The soul of death will never be travel to

138
 hereafter if the soul still remains in the grave.

Corpus (34): Lino pammari – pariangji, ahera pammantangngang

Karakrakkang.

MB : Lino/pang-mari-mari ang-ji,/ahera/pang-mantang-
nga/ka-rakrak-ang.
PS : world/temporary ACT.only/hereafter/ NOM.stay
/forever/
LT : World /temporary only/, hereafter/ is place to stay/
forever

FT : Life in the world is only for temporary, hereafter is

a place to live forever.

Table 4.14 Mapping for DEATH IS JOURNEY

Source: JOURNEY Target: DEATH

Jammeng (Sailing / Journey) Dead person sailing to particular

place (hereafter)

Paklingkaang=“Lingka”
(Journey) Death is Entering eternal life in
hereafter

139
In Kajang ethnic when someone passes away, people usually chime
a drum (Palingoro) to inform that one member of the community
passes away. During three months and ten days there are some
activities done by the members of grieving family. A dead person is
usually handled by a person with magical powers called (tu paruru
tu mate). Before performing the ritual, the family has to decide the
types of death ritual that they want to which depending on the
financial ability and social status of family members. There are two
types of death ritual namely akdampok for wealthy family, a’lajo –
lajo for family who is not quite well-of, and dangang biasa for
commoners. If family members decide to perform a’lajo – lajo ritual,
they should not state the dead person‟s original descendants. But if,
they want to conduct akdampok death ritual, they have to state their
original descendants in front of the customary devices. It
symbolizes that the family meet the requirements for this kind of
ritual namely the social status aspect, and financial aspect.

Death ritual of Kajang is usually attended by many people

who live outside or far from the house of grieving house and inside
ilalalang embaya (inner territory). Ammatoan who are going to
attend the death ritual must wear black cloth which consist of tope
(sarong), passapu (head ban), black shirt for men, and for women
wearing black blouse and sarong.

140
 Ammatowa as the customary leader is expected to attend the
ritual since he will lead the ritual performance. But, if Amma Toa
cannot attend it due to a particular reason, he may appoint one of
the customary apparatus. Several things should be done during the
death ritual. One of them, the son of the dead person delivers a
container containing lime and gambir, betel vine, matches and
cigarettes which all bring to a person with magical power called tau
paruru tumate. Magical power mantra are by paruru tumate, and
paruru tumate will also recites mantra for the long flues ( basing)
(Sahib, 2018).

The concept of death to the indigenous communities has a

very significant meaning, since they believe that life on hereafter is
immortal life, and actions during life on earth will be rewarded in
hereafter by Tau Riek Akrakna accordance with the quality of these
acts and deed. Preparing their self well before death becomes the
faith of Ammatoan community. In the eyes of Ammatoan, death
is a journey to enter the eternal life in here after. The lexical
item of “Jammeng” in Pasang (33) means someone who wants to go
sailing to one place. While, the lexical item of “Paklingkaang” in
Pasang (33) is derived from the root of “Lingka” which means
journey. Ammatoan believes that only a good death will travel or
journey to hereater. These two lexical items correspond to this

141
conceptual association of journey as the source domain.

15. THE DIVINE IS “TAU RIEK AKRAKNA”

The word of divine uses to describe something (or someone)

that has the qualities of a God. It also can refer to a supreme being,
or the universal power. Meanwhile Tau Riek Akrakna refers to the
one who have wills. me being, or the universal power. Meanwhile
Tau Riek Akrakna refers to the one who have wills. Tau Riek
Akrakna consists of four words that each word has its own meaning.
“Tau” means person, “Riek” means exist or have, and “akrak”
means the will. While the word “na” is the possession pronouns. So,
Tau Riek Akrakna means the one of the will or the infinite willing
or the Almighty (Katu: 2005:25). The conceptual metaphor THE
DIVINE IS “TAU RIEK AKRAKNA” is describes to the following
Pasang:

Corpus (35) :Tau Riek Akrakna ammantangi ri pangakrakangna

MB : Tau Riek Akrakna/ am-mantang-i/ ri /pang-akrakang-

na
PS : The Almighty /stay /Prep. /POSS.will.
LT : God Almighty /stay / on his wills

142
FT : Almighty God do what he wants and keep his wills as
he wishes.

Corpus (36): Anrek nissei riekna anrekna Tau Riek Akrakna,

nakippalak doang padatokji pole, nitarimana paknganrota’, iya
tojekna.
MB¹ : Anrek /nisse-i/ riek-na/ anrek-na / Tau Riek Akrak-na,/
na-ki palak/

PS¹ : Neg /Know / N.POSS/ Neg/ ACT.1st Sing. MB² : doang/

pada tok-ji /pole,/ ni tarima- na/pak-kanro-ta,/ iya tojek-na.

PS² : only / just /similar/ accept ACT/ wish. POSS /indeed

POSS LT : Do not /know/ the existance /or not existance
of/God /we evoke/only, / just the same/ accepted or not/ your
invocation.
IT : Noone knows for sure about the presence or the absence
of the Almighty, but try to do best asking for invocation
whether it is acceptable or not is a kind of hard works and
effort.

143
Table4.15 Mapping for THE DIVINE IS “TAU RIEK AKRAK
Source: TAU RIEK Target: DIVINE
AKRAKNA
Tau Riek Akrakna (the one - Suprime being
who has wills)
- Final destination for
everything

Pasang has a concept of monotheism, which recognizes only

one God, but to mention Him is Kasipalli (taboo). To call God,
Ammatoan refers to his attribute namely Tau Riek Akrakna (the one
who have will). He is the supreme being. He acts as He wishes. No
one can change or deny his wills. He stays (determines) his wills (35).
No one knows his presence and absence, therefore, no one really
knows whether their panganro (35) (invocations) are granted or not
by Him. Ammatoan believes that Tau Riek Akrakna is the source
and final destination for everything. They believe that all human will
meet Tau Riek Akrakna if they obey his commandments and avoid
his prohibitions.

Lakoff and Johnson (2003:40) state that “the conceptual

systems of cultures and religions are metaphorical in nature”. It
means that metaphor provides humans with the understanding of
religious experiences. Metaphor is important tool to comprehend
partially what cannot be comprehended totally like feelings,

144
experiences, moral practices, and spiritual awareness. Metaphors are
grounded in people‟s every day experiences, and process of
conceptualization involves the moving from concrete to abstract
(Lakoff, 1993: 244 – 245). The conceptual metaphor THE DIVINE
IS TAU “RIEK AKRAKNA” is the ontological mapping process
from the concrete thing of TAU RIEK AKRANA (source domain)
to abstract thing of THE DIVINE (target domain) as found in the
above Pasang (34), (35).

16. EARTH IS MOTHER

The EARTH IS MOTHER conceptual metaphor allows us

to undertand the abstract domain of EARTH by means of the
concrete domain of MOTHER. This is a metaphor with a clear
experiential basis grounded in the fact that the soil or ground (earth)
is the thing that gives us life. Soil or ground gives us food to eat, gives
us a place for shelter. Due to those facts, there is a basic correlation
between mother and earth, since mother is a person who provides
or gives us food to life, and a shelter for comfort. This is the reason
why I postulate a conceptual metaphor EARTH IS MOTHER. The
following Pasang describes how Ammatoan sees soil (earth):

Corpus (37): Rapanginjo nikuaya anrong nikuaya butta

MB : Rapang-injo/ ni-kua- ya/ anrong/ ni- kua- ya/ butta

145
PS : like /PASS.say/mother / PASS.say / soil
LT : Like /it said / mother / is soil

IT : As stated in customary law (Pasang) that soil is

considered as our mother.

Table 4.16 Mapping for EARTH IS MOTHER

Source: MOTHER Target: EARTH

- Soil (earth) provides

Anrong (mother) everything (food, water, shelter)
for life.
- Butta (soil/earth)

In Ammatoan‟s ideology, earth (ground) is considered as their

mother, since soil is a thing which gives them food. They plant their
food on the ground/ soil, they build their houses for shelter on the
ground, ground or soil gives them water for drink, and when they die
they bury the body in the ground, return to their mother (earth).
Since Ammatoans consider earth as their mother, they treat their
land with great care. They never have intention to damaging their
environment, they protect their forests from any descruction caused
by human. All those efforts can be seen in their costomary law so

146
called Pasang. Ammatoans never use footwear when they go for
walk, they always go for walk in bearfoot, because they should not
be ashamed of their mother (ground/earth). They believe by using
footwear (sandals or shoes) means disrespect their mother
(ground/earth) who gives them life. That is the reason why when we
enter their village (ilalalang embaya), we are not allowed to use
footwear (sandals or shoes) because it considered disrespect to their
mother.

According to Perrine (1974: 211) that “a literary symbol is

something that means more that what it is. It is an object, a person,
a situation, an action, or some other item that has a literal meaning
in the story, but suggests or represents other meaning as well”.
Ammatoan symbolizes soil (earth) as their mother based on their
ideology as described above.

17. FIRMNESS IS A FIXED LAW

All metaphors are structured in terms of a mapping of

experience from one cognitive domain onto another. The source
domain of the above conceptuall metaphor is A FIXED LAW and
the target domain is FIRMNESS. We recognize the coherence
between source and target domain from the following Pasang.

147
Corpus (38): Lekbak nutalekbak pau – pau: Anrek nakkulle nipinra
punna anu lekbak, anrek nakulle nigiling, nipinra.
MB¹ : Lekbak /nu- ta- lekbak/ pau – pau: /Anrek/ na-kulle/ ni-
pinra/

PS¹ : done /ready Neg.done /talk /Neg. /ACT able/PASS

change

MB² : punna/ anu / lekbak,/anrek/ na-kulle/ni - giling, / ni-

pinra.
PS² : if /something/ done/ Neg / ACT.able/PASS reserve/
PASS change LT : Done/ undone/ the talk/ can not
/be changed /if /something/ is done, / can not /be
reserved, / and changed.
IT : Something has been said, can not be changed likewise
Pasang ri Kajang (messages from Kajang) can not be
added or reduced its messages.

Corpus (39): Manna anatta punna salai, nipitabai tonji passala.

MB : Manna/ anak ta / punna sala-i,/ ni-pi-taba-i/ tok-ji pak-
sala.
PS : Conj. /son POSS /if. Wrong /ACT.give /PART.
blame/

148
LT : Althought/ our son/if commit violation//will awarded/
punishment
IT : Although our family, we may not defend or protect
them from the punishmen if they commit violation.

Table 4.17 Mapping for FIRMNESS IS A FIXED LAW

Source: A FIXED Target: FIRMNESS

LAW

Lekba (fixed) “Gattang” (Law enforcement

firmly)

Ammatowa serves as a law enforcement as mentioned in the Pasang,

He executes customary law in everyday practices to all Ammatoans
who live in inner territory (Ilalang embayya) without exception. This
customary law is seen as a fixed law (Lebba) (38), and it is applied
upon any person who has committed a violation. In implementing
the sanction, Ammatowa is requered to be firm (Gattang) to any
cases without any exception or dispensation even to his own child if
he/she committed violation as describes in the above Pasang (439).
The Pasang gives an ilustration like in a cock fighting arena, many
people come to watch and bring their roosters to participate.
Everyone can watch and withnesses whose rooster is winning or

149
losing without any interference from anyone. Even though the
rooster belongs to the king or king‟s relatives, he should not be
defended or be a winner because everybody witnessed it.

18. DESTINY IS SIMPLICITY

The conceptual metaphor above describes in the following Pasang:

Corpus (40): Dodongi kamase-masea, hujuki rikalenna; anrek

nakkulle kaite-itte, anrek nakkulle kalumpa-lumpa, anrek nakkulle
katoli-toli. Kasugihangi anrek nakkulle antama ri butta kamase-
masea.
MB¹ : Dodong-i/ kamase-mase-a,/ hujuk-i/ ri kale-na;/ anrek /

PS¹ : ACT.limp/ simple/weak/Prep.body POSS/Neg/

MB² : na- kulle-ka/ itte-itte,/ anrek/ na-kulle/ ka-lumpa-
lumpa,/ anrek/
PS² : ACT.can/ look /Neg. /ACT. can/ jump /Neg/

MB³ : na-kulle/ ka- toli-toli./ Ka- sugi-hang-i/ anrek/ na- kulle/

PS³ : ACT.can/ hear/ rich / Neg. / ACT. can/

MB⁴ : ang-tamak/ri /butta /kamase mase-a.

PS⁴ : ACT.enter/Prep/ land/ simplicity

150
LT : Limp in/ simplicity,/ weak /in his body:/ do not/ look
around,/ do not/ jumping around,/ do not/ hearing
around,/ rich luxury/ can not/ enter /in the land of
/simplicity.

IT : It is better to live in simplicity, the regulation in butta kamase

– masea is that community members may not follow
something that is not conveyed by Customary law (Pasang ri
Kajang).

Table 4.18 Mapping for DESTINY IS SIMPLICITY

Source: SIMPLICITY Target: DESTINY

- Ammatoan is Predestined to
Kamase- masea (simpilicity)
life in simplicity.
- Life Principle of Ammatoan

Destiny for Ammatoan community is parallel with the teaching of

“kamase-masea” (simplicity). They believe that Tau Rie Akrakna has
predestined simplicity for them. They contrast the “kamase-masea”
with “kalumanyang” (richness/prosperity), in which they have to
avoid. They willingly maintain a life of “kamase-masea,” because it
is a legacy from their ancestors. The above Pasang (39) orders the

151
Ammatoan to hold on to their principle that inherence from their
ancestors. They are ordered to control their sight (itte), jumping
(lumpa), and hearing (toli)) which mean person must control
her/himself in facing temptation. This Pasang insists Ammatoan to
maintain the simple way of life (kamase – masea). Ammatoan
believes that every new things coming to them as dangerous things,
which are considered will destroy their religious teaching or way of
life. Indeed, they can see anything new of what we regard as
„modern‟ equipments or tools, but they always try to avoid
consuming them. In short, they already consider that “kamase-
masea” is their way of life.
Ammatoan considers Pasang as a body of knowledge and
reference in conducting their everyday life. Pasang ri Kajang is a set
of messages inherited from Ammatoan‟s ancestors. It is an oral
discourse which delivered from generation to generation in which
contains messages of guidance, messages of mandate, messages of
counsel, and messages of warning or reminders. It contains many
metaphorical expressions as we can find in the following Pasang:
“Manna pokok kaju aknapasa tongi” ( even the tress are breathing)
and “Dampengangi raung kaju lolo talammengoa” (make the non –
toxic young leafs become your fiancé). Here, the lexical items of
aknapasa (breathing), raung (fiancé) are usually use for human
attributes but they are used in this Pasang in order to give emphasis

152
on the intention of the speaker that trees (forest) are also living things
that should be protected and preserved. Meanwhile, the word of
raung in the above Pasang means that a man as the head of a
family should always provides young leafs (vegetables) or food for
his family. Due to this obligation or responsibility, so he is requested
always to bring home the young leafs (vegetables) or food for his
family. This obligation makes a man should consider young leafs
(vegetables) as his fiancé. The meaning of fiancé in Bahasa
Indonesia is Bertunangan which means two people are engage to be
marriage. They are meant to be always together, it same with a man
in Ammatoan community, he is meant to be together with young
leafs (vegetables) for feding his family. The use of those lexical items
is what we call metaphor. The coherent of those two different
concepts above describes the essence of metaphor, as what Lakoff
and Johnson (1980:5) state that the essence of the metaphor is
“understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of
another”.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) state that a conceptual metaphor
is when we understand one conceptual domain in terms of another
conceptual domain. In conceptual metaphor, there are two semantic
domains which related to each other namely target domain and
source domain. These two domains are systematically
correspondences with a linker so – called “mapping”. Charteris –

153
Black (2004:22) add that “a conceptual metaphor is a statement that
resolves the semantic tension of a set of metaphors by showing them
to be related”. The conceptual metaphor FOREST IS HUMAN is
formed from the two semantic domains, FOREST as the target
domain and HUMAN as the source domain. These two domains
are mapped base on the Pasang (1), (2), (3) which coherent with
them. From those Pasang, the words of aknapasa (breathing), akkiyo
(calling), and kontaki (sucking) have role to describe the target
domain by link the source domain to it. We try to link the source
domain HUMAN with target domain FOREST by using Aknapasa
(breathing) in which trees (forest) are also inhale air for life, akkiyo
(calling) coherent with transpiration process is essentially
evaporation of water from plant leaves, and kontaki (sucking) is
related to roots of trees as absorption of water.
Charteris – Black (2004:35) mention that the identification of
candidate keywords of metaphor should meet at least one of three
metaphorical criterias namely linguistic, pragmatic, and cognitive.
The presence of incongruity of semantic tention of Pasang (1), (2),
(3) meets the linguistic criteria since involving personification aspect.
Personification is the rhetorical figure by which something not
human is given a human identity of qualities. With personification
speakers make the objects or ideas like a person and hence, they
personify it. Aknapasa (breathing), akkiyo (calling), and kontaki

154
(sucking) are the human attributes or identity which used to give a
better understand and a connection with the things which are
describes.
The conceptualization of FOREST IS HERITAGE arises
from the principle of understanding the domain of heritage term of
the domain of forest as Lakoff and Johnson (1980) mention that the
conceptual metaphor is about understanding one conceptual
domain in terms of another conceptual domain. In the other word,
the metaphors can be understood as mappings from the source
domain (HERITAGE) to a target domain (FOREST). In Pasang (4),
(5) which mention that Pusaka (inheritance) and Adaktana
(customary inheritance) describe the target domain FOREST. Here,
Pusaka (inheritance) describes forest as the heritage from the
ancestors. It should be guarded and protected from the desctructive
attemps from human. Adaktana (customary inheritance) describes
the disallowance of cutting tree in the forest. This is the customary
law of Ammatoan community. The presence of incongruity of
semantic tention of Pasang (4), (5) meets the pragmatic criteria, one
of the three criterias states by Charteris – Black (2004:35) as
mentioned above. Pusaka (inheritance) and Adaktana (customary
inheritance) as mention in Pasang (4), (5) have a purpose to reflects
speaker intentions within particular contexts of use. Pusaka
(inheritance) and Adaktana (customary inheritance) are used to

155
describe the speaker (Ammatoan) intentions that the obligation to
protect and preserve forest is the message inheritance from the
ancestors, and it is a customary inheritance that should be maintains.
Pasang (6), (7) as the conceptual correspondences of the conceptual
metaphor FOREST IS SPRINGS describes that tumbusu (springs)
is a metaphor keyword that resolves the semantic tension of the
above mentioned conceptual metaphor by showing them to be
related. As the target domain, FOREST is described by tumbusu
(springs) as the storage of water or as a reservoir since Ammatoan
believes that forest (root of trees) produces springs (tumbusu). The
conceptual metaphor FOREST IS SPRINGS can be categories as
ontological metaphor, more precisely container metaphor. A
container metaphor is an ontological metaphor in which some
concept is represented as having an inside and outside, and capable
of holding something else. Forest is considered as a container since
it has a function as a reservoir or storage of water which capable to
holding water in it. As we can see on Pasang (6) mentions that “narie’
timbusu battu rikajua” (springs exists from trees), this means that
trees (forest) are the causal of the existence of springs ( tumbusu)
because they are store or holding water in the ground.

The conceptual metaphor FOREST IS CUSTOM is

formed from the two semantic domains, CUSTOM as the source

156
domain and FOREST as the target domain. This conceptual
metaphor postulates base on the conceptual correspondences as
found in Pasang (8), (9), (10) which coherent with it. The metaphor
keyword of Adak (custom) describes forest as a place for rituals, and
Kasipalli (taboo/forbidden) describes forest as a very sacral place, it
forbidden to conduct activities except rituals. Ammatoan believes
that forest is the place where their ancestors landed for the first time.
Custom requires them to protect and preserve the forest. Forest is a
restrictive area. It forbids for everyone to perform any activities in
sacred forest (Borong Karama‟) except ritual activities. Any violation
in forest will be granted by a sanction according to the kind of
violation (Pasang 10).

We have found that metaphors allow us to undertand one

domain of experience in terms of another (Lakoff and Johnson,
1980). The conceptual metaphor HEREAFTER IS SUFFICIENT
AND ETERNAL LIFE is journey metaphor. According to Lakoff
and Johnson (1980:60), journey metaphor is about traveller, the path
we take, the direction, and destination. Ammatoan believes that life
in this world only for temporary (inne linoa pammari – mariangji).
Life in this world is a journey. Ammatoan which are consider as the
travellers have determined their destinations which are
kalumannyang kaluppepeang (wealthy or sufficient life) and
pammatangngang kara’kang (eternal life) in hereafter, their path of

157
journey is Pasang as their guidance of life. Along this journey, they
reguested to practice good deeds in order they seize Kalumannyang
kaluppepeang (wealthy or sufficient life) and pammatangngang
karakkang (eternal life) in hereafter. Kalumannyang kaluppepeang
(wealthy or sufficient life) and pammatangngang kara’kang (eternal
life) are part of Ammatoan‟s ideology. Wealthy or sufficient life is
not belongs to their community. They prefer to life in simplicity in
this world as taught by their ancestors. This ideology of life can found
in Pasang which mentions “anre kalumanyang – kalupepeang rie
kamase – masea” (there is no wealthy life in the land of Tana Toa).
Kalumannyang kaluppepeang can only be found in hereafter.
Pasang is also tought Ammatoan that life in this world only for
temporary (inne linoa pammari – mariangji), the eternal life or
pammatangngang karakang only in hereafter.
Holyoak and Thagard (1995: 220) mention that a metaphor is
understood by finding an analogy mapping between the target
domain and the source domain. Analogy is a cognitive process of
transferring information or meaning from a particular subject
(source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression
corresponding to such a process. Analogy can also refer to the
relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often
(though not always) a similarities.
The conceptual metaphor AMMA TOA IS A LAW is postulated

158
base on the conceptual correspondent found in Pasang (13) and
(16). Pasang (13) mentions that “ikau ada’a, ikau karaeng” (you are
the rules, you are the king), Ikau refers to Amma Toa as the costum
leader of Ammatoan, while adaa refers to Adat or customary law. In
Indonesian word “adat” is translated as custom or customary law.
Pasang (16) mentions that “Amma mana’ ada’, Amma mana’
karaeng” (Amma Toa gave birth (created) adat, Amma Toa gave
birth (created) king) means that Amma Toa as the customary leader
who creates Ada’ and Karaeng is consider as Law (customary law).
All Ammatoan should obey Amma Toa as their customary leader
since they believe that Amma Toa is the representative of God ( Tu
Rie A’rana) and the one who created Adak (customary law) and
Karaeng (nobels) from the beginning. These Pasang indicate that the
lexical items of Adak and Karaeng are the analogy mapping between
one particular subject (source domain) A LAW to another (target
domain) AMMA TOA as shown in Pasang (13), (16).

Lakoff and Johnson (1980:25) mention that ontological

metaphors allow us to conceive of “things” which are not object as if
they were objects by picking “out of part of our experience and treat
them as (if they were) discrete entities or substances of a uniform
kind”. “Each of us is a container, with a bounding surface and an in
– out orientation (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:30). We project our
own in – out orientation onto other physical objects that are

159
bounded by surfaces.
We use ontological metaphors when we imagine a boundary
around a colletion of things, such as the group of people in a
community or trees in a forest, and conceive them as being a
container (Langacke, 1987: 191 – 197). We can then think of
“things” like a community or forest as if they were a single entity. We
can also understand processes and activities as if they were things
with boundaries. Bounded entity can be human being, rocks, or land
areas (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 31). The conceptual metaphor
AMMA TOA IS A SHELTER is a container metaphor. Amma Toa
who as a protector for his people is considers as a container (shelter)
for the bounded objects namely his people (Ammatoans).
The conceptual metaphor AMMA TOA IS A SHELTER
postulates base on the conceptual correspondent found in Pasang
(18), (19), (20). Pasang mentions that “Amma toa paklalangan ta’
ngasse” (Amma toa is a place for shelter to all). The metaphor
keyword of “paklalangan” means a place for shelter. Amma toa as a
customary leader is consider as a place for shelter for Ammatoan
community. Pasang (20) mentions that “aklalang rikajua lompoa,
akkambian ri cinaguria” (take a shelter to the big tree, be hold to the
cinaguaria plant), “Aklalang” (shelter) describes Amma toa as a man
provides protection, a man appointed by God for shelter for all
ammatoan community. The metaphor keyword of “Kaju lompa” (a

160
big tree) describes that Amma toa as leader considers as a big tree
where people can find a shelter or tuni pa’la’langi (a place for
protection). The word of “cinaguria” is taken from a name of plant
which is vey difficult to uproot, and it refers to Pasang. It suggests
that if someone put or hold (akkambian) Pasang as his/her guidance
of life, he/she will not go astray.
The conceptual metaphor AMMA TOA IS UNIFIER is
postulated base on the Pasang (21) as the conceptual
correspondence which coherent with it. AMMA TOA as the target
domain describes metaphorically by metaphor keywords found in
Pasang (21) namely Akbulo sipappa’ (a bar of bamboo), and Aklemo
sihatu (one lime). The use of these two symbols represent the
harmony of Amma Toa and his people (Ammatoan). Shaw (1981:
367) presents the definition of symbol, “symbols is something used
for, or regarded as, representing something else.” To be more
specific, a symbol is a word, phrase, or other expression having a
complex of associated meaning. In this sense, a symbols is viewed as
having values different from those is being symbolized.
Akbulo sipappa’ (a bar of bamboo) which means a single bar of
bamboo which sustained by its strong roots, it symbolized as the
unity and harmony between the leader (Amma toa) and his
community. Aklemo sihatu (one lime) uses to symbolize the
roundness (firmness) of unity like the round shape of a lime. A lime

161
is consists of several elements such as the peel, the fill, and the taste
varies. The peel is symbolized as Amma Toa which has function or
duty to cover or protect the fill (Ammatoan). The fill itself which has
varied in taste is symbolized as the diversity of traits of Ammatoan.
The metaphor keyword of “Manyu 'siparampe” (drifting remind
each others) means to remind each other to go to the right path when
drifting by new thing. The right path refers to Amma toa.
The conceptual metaphor AMMATOWA IS
BEGINNING is postulated from the conceptual correspondent of
Pasang (22), (23) with the metaphor keywords “simemangana lino”
(the spirit/beginning of the world) and “angkamiki” (guardian). The
target domain AMMATOWA has been described by the source
domain BEGINNING with conceptual correspondent of Pasang
(22), (23). The lexical item of “simemangana lino” describes that
Amma Toa as the spirit or the beginning of the world who came
down from heaven was the first man exists in the world, and pointed
by Tau Riek Akrakna (the Almighty God) to become “angkamiki ”
(guardian) for Tana Towa (Kajang). The lexical item of “tallua”
(three) in Pasang (23) describes that Ammatowa who appointed by
Tau Riek Akrakna (the Almighty God) as the leader in Tana Towa
was ordered to created (appariek) Karaeng Tallua (the three nobles).
These three nobels assist Ammatowa to govern Tana Towa (Kajang).

Pasang (24), (25), (26) as the conceptual correspondences of the

162
conceptual metaphor LIFE IS KAMASE - MASEA describes that
the lexical item of kamase – masea (simplicity/humble life) in Pasang
(24), (26) is the metaphor keyword that resolves the semantic
tension of the conceptual metaphor above by showing them to be
related. LIFE as the target domain is described by source domain
through the conceptual correspondences. The word of Kamase –
masea (simplicity/humble life) describes the Ammatoan‟s way of
life, and the term of “gannak” which refers to the life principle of
Ammatoan that teaches them not looking for more, only things
provided by God. They are required to be thankfull for everything
that already provided, and not to seek other things. They thankful to
God for providing them the food to eat (Angnganre na rie’), clothes
to wear (care-care na riek), money to buy fish (Pammalli juku na
riek), land for garden and/or for rice field (tana koko na galung riek),
and a simple house for live (Bola situju-tuju).
The presence of incongruity of semantic tention in Pasang
(24), (25), (26) meets the cognitive criteria (Charteris – Black, 2004:
21) since it caused by a shift in the conceptual system. The word of
Kamase – masea coherents with the conceptual system of
Ammatoan associate in their principle of life as the inheritance
ideology from their ancestors.
According to Lakoff and Johnson (2003: 35), metonymy allows us
to conceptualize one thing by means of its relation to something else.

163
Like the conceptual metaphor RELIGION IS “TAREKAT”,
religion (or practicing religion) and tarekat are considered as the
same concept, since Ammatoan believes that religion (Islam) is the
same thing with their ancestral teaching so – called tarekat. By
practicing tarekat, they believe that they are practicing religion
(Islam). This perception found in Pasang (28), (29), (30), (31). The
lexical items of jekne talluka (unbroken ablution) and Pakabaji
tekaknu (fix your intention/behavior) explains that religion (Islamic
law) applies base on the comprehension of tarekat. Tarekat is the
part of Patuntung. It is a belief system of Ammatoan which believes
that Tau Riek Akrakna is the God Almighty, Ammatowa is
customary leader, Pasang is way of life, hereafter is the eternal life,
and they believe in fate. And according to the tarekat, Pakabaji
tekaknu (fix your intention/behavior) explains that religion is to do
good things. They believe that religion is a matter of doing good
things to the fellow humans, environment, and others. By having
good intention/behavior, they believe they are performing religion
(Islamic law) and jekne talluka (unbroken ablution) means that never
stop perform good deeds, and by performing good deed is
considered perfoming sholat (prayers).
The conceptualization of FAITH IS PATUNTUNG arises
from the principle of understanding the source domain
PATUNTUNG in term of the source target FAITH as Lakoff and

164
Johnson (1980) mention that the conceptual metaphor is about
understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another
conceptual domain. In the other word, the metaphors can be
understood as mappings from the source domain PATUNTUNG
to a target domain FAITH. Conceptual metaphor FAITH IS
PATUNTUNG postulates base on the conceptual correspondence
of Pasang (32). This Pasang is the reality in Ammatoan community.
They believe that Patuntung is a faith system which is taken from
their ancestral teaching. Patuntung as the faith system is found in
Ammatoan‟s self – identification as Muslim (Ammatowa: 2017).
The Ammatoan who believe in Islam should embrace Patuntung in
himself/herself, vise versa if he/she puts Patuntung as his/her faith,
he/she should embraces Islam as their religion. Thus, having faith in
Patuntung means embrace Islam as the religion as decribes in above
Pasang (32).
Conceptual metaphor DEATH IS A JOURNEY is raised
from the principle of understanding the domain of Death in terms
of the domain of Journey. The act of dying corresponds to the act of
leaving (Jammeng and Lingka), the destination corresponds to an
encounter with Tau Riek Akrakna (God Almighty) in hereafter
(ahera), and the death person (matea) corresponds to a traveller.
The lexical item of Jammeng (sailing) describes a death person
(matea) is sailing (travelling/journey) to the particular place

165
(hereafter), while the lexical item of Palingkaang which derived from
the root of Lingka explained that the death person is entering eternal
life in hereafter. But Pasang (34) specifically describes that only a
good death (soul) will travel to the hereafter, since the Ammatoan
believes that only good soul will be rewarded with Karakkang
(eternal life) and Kalumannyang kaluppepeang (extraordinary
wealth) in hereafter (ahera).
The conceptual metaphor THE DIVINE IS TAU RIEK
AKRAKNA is postulated from the conceptual correspondent of
Pasang (36), (37) with the metaphor keyword “Tau Riek Akrakna”
(the one who have wills) explains that he/it as the one who have wills
is a surprime being, and the final destination for everything. In this
metaphor, divine is understood in terms of Tau Riek Akrakna as
decribes in Pasang (36) “Tau Riek Akrakna ammantangngi ri
pangakrakangna” (the One who have will stays on his will). Tau Riek
Akrakna is the supreme being, he acts as he wishes and he stays or
determines (ammantangngi) his wills (pangakrakangna).
Metaphorical expression in Pasang (38) explains that soil or earth
(butta) is symbolized as mother (anrong) by Ammatoan. They
consider that the soil or earth as their mother, since they both have
similar functions or similar idea. Butta (soil/earth) provides them
plant for food, a springs (timbusu) for their need of water, and
provides them a place or land for construct their houses or shelters.

166
Anrong (mother) is a person who also provides food for her
children, provides water for her children when they get thirsty,
provides a place or a house to stay. These two different concepts
interact to each other. Richards (1936:93) argues that metaphor is
“an interaction between two thought of different things active
together and supported by a single word or phrase”. The interaction
between Butta (soil/earth) and Anrong (mother) mapp in our
conceptual system, then we postulate the conceptual metaphor
EARTH IS MOTHER. Therefore, we understand the domain of
Earth in terms of the domain of Mother. The lexical item of butta
(soil/earth) which considers as anrong (mother) describes that earth
(soil) provides everything (food, water, shelter) for life as a mother
provides for her children.
According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:19) that metaphors
are grounded or embedded in our physical experience. Kovecses
(2006:246) also argues that our understanding and conceptualization
of the world are based on our physical environment. The conceptual
metaphor FIRMNESS IS A FIXED LAW is postulated from the
conceptual correspondent of Pasang (39), (40) with the metaphor
keyword Lekba (fixed). The word of Lek\ba (fixed) is embedded in
everyday life of Ammatoans. In the eyes of Ammatoans that
everything which already fixed (Lekba) cannot be reversed (nigiling)
and changed (nipinra). According to them the customary law is a

167
fixed thing, cannot be changed, and cannot be reversed. Everyone
committes a violation should be punished without any exception,
even for the relative or family of Amma Toa himself. Amma Toa is
required to be firm (Gattang) in in law enforcement.
The conceptual metaphor DESTINI IS SIMPLICITY is
raised from the conceptual correspondent of Pasang (41) with the
metaphor keyword “Kamase - mase” (simplicity). The target domain
DESTINY has been described by the source domain
SIMPLICITY. The lexical item of “Kamase - mase” describes that
Ammatoan is predestines to life in simplicity. Kamase – mase is
their life principle of Ammatoan that inherence from their ancestors.
Kamase - masea is essentially a commitment to live in modesty, self
– fulfillment, self – reliance, and sufficiency. They require to keep
their sight (ite) from anything that bring bad influences for the
community, they are not suppose to jumping around or too exciting
(lumpa-lumpa) about anything, and to keep their hearing from
something not good for their community. In the other words, they
have to control themselves from any temptation.

168
 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

This book discussed numbers of conceptual metaphors that

postulated based on the contain of Pasang ri Kajang. They are
postulated based on the metaphorical expressions or the conceptual
correspondences found in Pasang. Then, they are explained using
the linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive criterias (Charteris – Black,
2003: 21). This explaination involve of identifying the social agency
which implied in metaphors production and their social role as
contained.
In order to reveal the cognitive, ideologies, and socio –
culture of Kajang people (Ammatoans), the approach of critical
metaphor analysis has been employeed. The postulation refers to
the theory of Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 2003) which mention that
the substance of metaphor is “understanding and experiencing one
kind of things in term of another” (Lakoff and Johnson,1980:5).
Based upon the research finding and discussion as mentioned in
previous chapter, the researcher draws some conclusion as following
below:

169
1. The Postulation of Pasang ri Kajang into conceptual
metaphors.

This book is successfully postulated the contain of Pasang ri Kajang

into several groups of conceptual metaphors, as follow:

a. Conceptual Metaphors relate to Enviroment

Some conceptual metaphors that relate to environment have been
successfully postulated such as FOREST IS HUMAN, FOREST IS
HERITAGE, FOREST IS A SPRINGS, and FOREST IS A
CUSTOM.

b. Conceptual Metaphors relate to Customary Leadership

The conceptual metaphors that relate to customary leadership are
AMMA TOA IS A LAW, AMMA TOA IS A SHELTER, AMMA
TOA IS UNIFIER, and AMMA TOA IS THE BEGINNING.

c. Conceptual Metaphor relates to Law

The conceptual metaphor that relate to law is FIRMNESS IS A
FIXED LAW.

d. Conceptual Metaphors relate to Religion and Faith

The conceptual metaphors that relate to religion and faith are

170
RELIGION IS “TAREKAT”, FAITH IS “PATUNTUNG”, THE
DIVINE IS TAU RIEK AKRAKNA, and DESTINY IS
SIMPLICITY.

e. Conceptual Metaphors relate to the World and Hereafter

The conceptual metaphors that successfully postulated are EARTH
IS MOTHER, LIFE IS “KAMASE – MASEA and HEREAFTER
IS SUFFICENT AND ETERNAL LIFE.

f. Conceptual Metaphors relate to Death and Rituals

The conceptual metaphors that relate to death and rituals are
DEATH IS A JOURNEY, and LIFE IS RITUALS.

2. The Revelation of the cognition, ideologies, and socio –

culture of ethnic Kajang
The conceptual metaphors that relate to the environment such as
FOREST IS HUMAN, FOREST IS HERITAGE, FOREST IS A
SPRINGS, and FOREST IS A CUSTOM reveal the cognition and
ideologies of ethnic Kajang (Ammatoans). The Ammatoans believe
that Forest considers as human, heritage, springs, and custom since
they believe that forest is the source of life, it brings life for them. It
provides supply of water for their daily needs and for the plant. They

171
believe that forest (roots of trees) produces spring, leaves brings the
rain for them. They believe that forest is a customary inheritage from
their ancestors that has to be preserved; they also believe that forest
is a part of their custom (ada‟) because mostly their daily activities
related to forest especially to rituals.
The conceptual metaphors relate to customary leadship such
as AMMATOWA IS A LAW, AMMATOWA IS A SHELTER,
AMMATOWA IS UNIFIER, and AMMATOWA IS THE
BEGINNING reveal that Ammatoan is required to obey their
leader (Ammatowa), because they believe that Ammatowa is the
representative of God in the world. In their ideology, Pasang and
Ammatowa are considered very significant and determining in life of
Ammatoan. Ammatowa as a customary leader also consider as
shelter and the unifier. These ideologies mentioned in Pasang
“Amma toa paklalangan ta’ ngasse” (Ammatowa is a place for shelter
to all). Also, Ammatowa as a customary leader is always strives to
maintain the unity and togetherness of Kajang community both in
inner territory (Ilalang embaya) and in outer territory (ipantarang
embaya) which both still have genealogical and cultural relationship
to each other. Ammatowa is considered as the first human being in
earth by Ammatoans. Tau – manurung or the first Ammatowa was
the first in the family tree of the Tu – Kentarang in Kajang.
The conceptual metaphor of FIRMNESS IS A FIXED

172
LAW reveals that the customary law is seen as a fixed law ( Lebba).
In implementing the law, Ammatowa is required to be firm (Gattang)
to any cases without any exception or dispensation even to his child
if he/she committed violation, he/she should be punished.

The conceptual metaphors relate to religion and faith

namely RELIGION IS “TAREKAT”, FAITH IS
“PATUNTUNG”, THE DIVINE IS TAU RIEK AKRAKNA, and
DESTINY IS SIMPLICITY reveal that the comprehension of
religion (Islam) among Ammatoan is not based on the
understanding of Islam law, but is based on activities related to the
“tarekat”. The princip of “tarekat” is by doing the good things to
fellow human beings is considered performing sholat (prayers) and
other religious activities in accordance with Islam shari‟a (syariat
Islam). The Ammatoan has a dualistic belief, namely Islam as a
recognized religion of the state and the belief of Patuntung as a
mandatory ancestral teaching. Patuntung as a belief system of society
are inherited from their ancestors. The formal recognition as a
follower of Patuntung is found in Ammatoan in their self -
identification as a moslem.
Ammatoan recognizes only one God. In Ammatoan‟s
culture, mentioning God‟s name is considered as taboo (Kasipalli).
In mention God‟s name, Ammatoan refers to his attribute namely
Tau Riek Akrakna (the one who have will). He is a supreme being.

173
He acts as He wishes. Ammatoan belives that if they obey his
commandments and avoid all his prohibitions, they will meet Tau
Riek Akrakna in hereafter.
Destiny for Ammatoan community is parallel with the
teaching of “kamase-masea” (simplicity). They believe that Tau Riek
Akrakna has predestined simplicity for them. They contrast the
“kamase-masea” with “kalumanyang” (richness/prosperity), in which they
have to avoid. They willingly maintain a life of simplicity or humble life
(kamase- masea), because it is a legacy from their ancestors.
The conceptual metaphors relate to the world and hereafter such as
EARTH IS MOTHER, LIFE IS “KAMASE – MASEA and
HEREAFTER IS SUFFICENT AND ETERNAL LIFE reveal that
in Ammatoans‟ ideology, earth (soil) is considered as their mother
(anrong), since earth or soil is a thing which gives them food and
water, it gives them space to build their houses for shelter, and when
they pass away, they bury the body in the ground, return to their
mother (earth). Ammatoan treats their soil with great care. They
never have intention to damaging their environment. Ammatoan
never use footwear when they go for walk, they always go for walk in
bearfoot, because they should not be ashamed of their mother
(soil/earth). They believe by using footwear (sandals or shoes) means
disrespect their mother (soil/earth) who gives them life. That the
reason when we enter their village (ilalalang embaya), we are

174
forbidden to use footwear (sandals or shoes) because it considers
disrespect their mother.
Kamase – masea is a life style undertaken by Ammatoan in
carrying out their life in simplicity or humble ways. This is the way
of Ammatoan applies their ancestors‟ ideology to live in simplicity
or humble way. It requires them to receive whatever already
provided by the Tau Riek Akrakna (the God Almighty) without
having desire of looking for others things to runs their lives. In
practicing kamase – masea, there is one ideology that related to it so
called “gannak” (fulfilled, enough).
The essence of human life for Ammatoan is how to live
based on what is mentioned in Pasang. Ammatoan believes that a
sufficient life or wealthy is only provided later on in hereafter by God
Almighty. They also believe that in the hereafter, everyone will be
provided with a luxury house in the heaven that does not exist in the
world (bola tepu anre’ rapanna ri lino) by Tu Rie A’rana.
The conceptual metaphors relate to death and rituals like
DEATH IS A JOURNEY, and LIFE IS RITUALS reveal that the
concept of death to Ammatoans has a very significant meaning. They
believe that life on earth is mortal life, and actions during life on
earth will be rewarded in hereafter by Tau Riek Akrakna accordance
with the quality of these acts and deed. Preparing their self well
before death becomes the faith of Ammatoan community. They

175
consider life in the world is a process of journey to enter the eternal
life in hereafter.
Ammatoan considers rituals are inseparably related to
everyday life. Rituals emerge in every aspects of life. In every circle
of life has its own ritual, as well as in every activity conduct by the
Ammatoan such as akkalomba (life safe of a child), akkattere
(haircut), pakbottingang (weddings), pametengang (funerals), naik ri
bola (moving into a new house), duppa ulang (welcoming Ramadan),
pallappasak ulang (farewell of Ramadan), shukkuruk (thanksgiving),
abbattasa jerak (cleaning graves), many others.
Despite the extensive studies on conceptual metaphors and
Pasang ri Kajang during the last decades, but this research is the first
time that Pasang ri Kajang was analyzed in the context of Conceptual
Metaphor theories. It is the first time that Pasang ri Kajang was
researched by incorporating both cognitive and critical metaphor
analysis to study the cognition, ideologies and socio - culture of
Kajang people. This book postulated several conceptual metaphors
that not been postulated before by any scholar who studied
conceptual metaphors such as EARTH IS MOTHER, FOREST IS
HUMAN, FOREST IS HERITAGE, DEVINE IS SIMPLICITY,
LIFE IS RITUALS.

This book is a metaphors study of Pasang ri Kajang with aims

176
to reveal the cognitive, ideologies, and socio – culture of Kajang
people especially who life in inner territory (ilallang embaya). But
the corpus of this book was only analyzed a small piece of the overall
of Pasang. Although the corpus was relatively small, but the results
provided a good view into how to comprehend the cognition,
ideologies, and socio –culture of Kajang people that contain in any
Pasang that analyzed in this research.
The writer realized that this book contains a limitation, thus
he would like to recommend a suggestion for the future writer or
scholars who intent to study Pasang ri Kajang with focus in
conceptual metaphor study: whoever intends to study linguistic
aspect of Pasang ri Kajang, it is suggested to consider the conceptual
metaphor analysis with extended corpus then the previous study,
because this area of study is still relatively small.

177
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adhan, S. (2007). Islam dan Patuntung di Tanah Toa Kajang:

Pergulatan tiada akhir. In H. Budiman (Ed.), Hak
minoritas: Dilema multikulturalisme di Indonesia (pp. 257-
341). Jakarta: Interseksi Foundation.

Ahmad, A. K. (1989). Komunitas Ammatoa di Kajang Bulukumba:

Studi tentang kepercayaan dan pelestarian lingkungan.
(Unpublished MA Thesis). Universitas Hasanuddin,
Makassar.

Akhmady, S. (2007). The Ammatoa of South Sulawesi, Indonesia:

A Photo Essay. Special Edition: Islam in Southeast Asia,
7(2), 65-67.

Akib, Y. (2003). Potret manusia Kajang. Makassar: Pustaka

Refleksi.

-----------. (2008). Ammatoa, Komunitas Berbaju Hitam. Makassar:

Pustaka Refleksi.

Al-Rawali, A. (2008). Interaksi Masyarakat Adat Kajang Dengan

Lingkungannya. Suara Forum KTI, 16.

Allan, K. (2008). Metaphor and Metonymy a Diachronic

Approach.
Chicjester, West Sussex, U.K; Malden, MA: Wiliey – Blackwell.

Aminah, S. (1989). Nilai-nilai Luhur Budaya Spiritual Masyarakat

178
 Amma Toa Kajang. Ujung Pandang: Kanwil Depdikbud
Propinsi Sulawesi Selatan.

Anastasia, Trena T. (2008). Analysis of Metaphors Used in Women

College Presidents Inaugural Addresses at Coed
Institutions. Dissertation. Colorado: Colorado State
University.

Gising, Basrah. (2010). Kearifan Ekologis Tu‟ Kajang dalam

Pengelolaan Hutan Adat Lestari di Wilayah Adat Kajang
Kabupaten Bulukumba. Disertasi. Universitas
Hasanuddin. Unpublished.

Bell, Catherine. (1992). Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphor (Ithaca, New York:

Cornell University Press.

---------------- . (1993). More About Metaphor. In a. Ortony (ed),

Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: CUP,
1993), pp. 19 – 41.

Charteris, Black, Jonathan. (2004).

Corpus Approaches to
Critical Metaphor Analysis. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
---------------------------------. (2005). Politicans and Rhetoric: The
Persuasive Power of Metaphor. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Cheng, Xiaojing. (2009). Chinese Metaphors in Political Discourse:

179
 How the Government of the People’s Republic of China
Criticizes the Independence of Taiwan. Dissertation.
Indiana: Ball State University.
Deignan, A. (2003). Metaphorical Expressions and Culture: An
Indirect Link.„ Metaphor and Symbol 18(4): 255-271

--------------- . (2005). Metaphors and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins

Emanatian, M. (1999). Metaphor and The Txpression of Rmotion.

Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (3), 163-182.

Evans V & Green M (2006). Cognitive Linguistics (An

Introduction). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical

Study of Language. Harlow: Longman Group Limited.
Fernando, C. (1996). Idioms and
Idiomaticity.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fitriani, A. (2003). Eksisensi Tanah Hak Ulayat Masyarakat Hukum
Adat Kajang an Pengelolaannya di Kabupaten Bulukumba,
Sulawesi Selatan. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Universitas
Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta.

Friberg, B. (1993). Konjo Kinship. In M. Gregerson (Ed.), Ritual,

Belief, and Kinship in Sulawesi (pp. 183-194). Dallas:
International Museum of Cultures.

180
Friberg, T. (1995). Konjo: Introduction and Wordlist. In D. T.
Tryon (Ed.), Comparative Austronesian Dictionary: An
Introduction to Austronesian Studies (Vol. 1, pp. 563-571).
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyte.
Friberg, T., & Friberg, B. (1991). Notes on Konjo Phonology. In J.
N. Sneddon (Ed.), Studies in Sulawesi Linguistics (Vol. 2,
pp. 71-115). Jakarta: Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma
Jaya.

Fromilhague, C. (1995). The Figures of Style. Paris: Nathan.

Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative

though, language, and understanding. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

------------------------- . (1997). Taking Metaphor Out of Our Heads and

Putting It Into the Cultural World. In.R.W. Gibss, Jr. and
G.J. Steen (Eds), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics.
Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
----------------------. (2004). (eds). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics.
Amsterdam – Philadelphia: Benjamins.

------------------------- . (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor

and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

------------------------- . (2006a). Embodiment and Cognitive Science.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

181
------------------------ . (2006b). Metaphor
Interpretation As
Embodied Simulation. Mind
& Language, 21, 434-458.

Gibbs, R.W., Jr.; Beitel, D.A.; Harrington, M. and Sanders, P.

(2004). Taking a Stand on the Meanings of Stand: Bodily
Experience as Motivation for Polysemy. Journal of
Semantics 11 (4): 231–251.
Gibbs, R., & Wilson,N.(2002). Bodily action and metaphor
comprehension.
Style, 36, 524-540.

Gising. (2010). Kearifan Ekologis Tu‟ Kajang dalam Pengelolaan

Hutan Adat Lestari di Wilayah Adat Kajang Kabupaten
Bulukumba. Disertasi. Universitas Hasanuddin.
Unpublished.

Gorman, G.E. & Clayton, P. (1997). Qualitative Research for the

Information Professional: A Practical Handbook. London:
Library Association Publishing
Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s Wrong With Ethnography?
London: Routledge.

Holyoak, K.J. & Thagard, P. (1995) Mental Leaps – Analogy in

Creative Thought. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
USA.

Lakoff, George (1988). Cognitive Semantics. Bloomington, Indiana:

Indiana University Press.

182
--------------------- (1992). The Contemporary Theory of Metophor..
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-------------------- (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In
A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. (2nd ed.). (pp.
202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--------------------- (2008). The Neural Theory of Metophor. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphor We Live by.

Chicago: Chicago University Press.
------------------------------------------ (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The
Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New
York: Basic Books.

------------------------------- . (2003). Metaphor We Live By. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.

-------------------------------------------- . (1993). The Contemporary Theory

of Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
-------------------------------------------- . (1999). The Philosophy in The
Flesh. New York: Basic Book.

Lakoff & Turner (1989). The Great Chain Metaphor. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. 1. Stanford
University Press.

Lee, M (2015). Critical Metaphor Analysis of Citizenship Education

Discourse. Public Relation Inquiry, 4(1), 99 –

183
 123.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2046147X14559934.
Li, Wei (2016). Rethinking Critical Metaphor Analysis.
International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol 6. No.2;
2016 ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703.
Levinson, C Stephen. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press
Lopez, A. & Orts Llopos, M. (2010). Metaphorical Pattern Analysis
in Financial Texts: Framing the Crisis in Positive or
Negative Metaphorical Terms. Journal of Pragmatics,
42(12) 3300 – 3313.
http://dxdoi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.201006.001.

Katu, Mas Alim. (2005). Tasawuf Kajang. Makassar: Pustaka

Refleksi

-------------------. (2000). Pasang Ri Kajang: Kajian Tentang Akomodasi

Islam Dengan Budaya Lokal di Sulawesi . Makassar: IAIN
Alauddin Makassar.

. 2008. Kearifan Manusia Kajang. Makassar: Pustaka

Refleksi.

Kövecses, Zoltán. (2000). Metaphor and Emotion: Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

184
-------------------. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction: Oxford::
Cambridge University Press.
-------------------. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and
Variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Maarif, S. (2003). Religious Freedom in Indonesia: The Ammatoa

of Sulawesi, Indonesia. (Unplished master thesis).
University of Gadjah Mada, Jogjakarta, Indonesia.

--------------- (2005). Indigenous Strategy For Religio-Cultural Survival:

The Ammatoa of Sulawesi Indonesia. Florida International
University, Miami.

MacCormac, E.R.A. (1985). A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor.

London. MIT Press.

McKanzie, C. (1999). Origins of Resistance: The Construction And

Continuity of Identity in Tana Towa (Bulukumba, South
Sulawesi, Indonesia). (Unpublished MA Thesis).
Australian National University, Sydney.

Mohamed, M.T. (2014). The Metaphor of Nature in the Holy

Quran: a Critical Metaphor Analysis. Journal of Arabic and
Human Sciences, 7(3), 83 – 100.. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.

Ortony, Andrew. (1993). Metaphor, Language, and Thought. (2nd

ed.). New York: Cambridge University Company.

185
---------------------, (1975), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Parawansah, A. S. P. (2006). Penguasaan dan Pemanfaatan Hak
Ulayat oleh Masyarakat Adat Kajang. (Unpublished
Bachelor thesis). Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar.

Pelenkahu, R. A., Basang, D., Saeha, A. M., & Yatim, N. (Eds.).

(1971). Dialek Konjo di Sulawesi Selatan: Suatu Laporan
Penelitian Lembaga Bahasa Nasional Tjabang. Udjung
Pandang: Lembaga Bahasa Nasional Tjabang III.

Pelras, C. (1993). Religion, Tradition and The Dynamics of

Islamization in South Sulawesi. Indonesia,. 57, Archipel.
(Apr., 1993), 133-154.

Penard, W. A. (1913). 'De Patuntung' of South Sulawesi, Malakaji.

Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 55, 515-
543.
Perrine L. (1974). Literature 1. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc. Radden, G. and Z., Kövecses (1999).
Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In K.U. Panther and G.
Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought .
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17-59.

Radden, G. & R. Dirven (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. J.

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Retová, Dana. (2008). Analysis of Conceptual Metaphors of

Selected Emotions in Slovak Language. Dissertation.

186
 Bratislava: Univerzita Komenskeho v Bratislave.

Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford

University Press: New York and London.

Ross, William D. (1952). The Works of Aristotle. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Rössler, M. (1990). Striving For Modesty: Fundamentals of the

Religion and Socialorganization of the Makassarese
Patuntung. Bijdragen tot de Taal-,Landen Volkenkunde,
146(2-3), 289-324

Sahib, Harlinah. (2017). Entextualization and Genre

Transformation of Kajang Death Ritual Speech. Disertasi.
Universitas Hasanuddin. Perpustakaan FIB UNHAS.
Makassar.

Sallatang, M. A. (1965). Pendjasadan Pasang Dalam Masyarakat

Kadjang. (Unpublished BA Thesis). Universitas
Hasanuddin, Makassar.

Salle, K. (1999). Kebijakan Lingkungan Menurut Pasang: Sebuah

Kajian Hukum Lingkungan Adat Pada Masyarakat
Ammatoa Kecamatan Kajang Kabupaten Daerah Tingkat
II Bulukumba (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar.

Sapir, Edward. (1977). Grading: A Study in Semantics. Philosophy

of Science 11:93–116.

187
Searle, John R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

------------------ . (1970). Speech Acts. An Essay in The Philosophy of

Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

---------------------. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Sinohadji, E. (2004). Kearifan Masyarakat Adat Kajang Dalam

Pengelolaan Hutan: Studi Kasus Desa Tanatoa Kajang
Kabupaten Bulukumba Sulawesi Selatan. (Unpublished
MA thesis). Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar.

Sirajuddin, M. (2002). Mencermati Makna Pesan di Kajang.

Surabaya: Citra Adi Bangsa.

Syam, A. S. I. (2005). Sistem Nilai dan Norma Dalam Pengelolaan

Hutan Adat Pada Komunitas Adat Ammatoa di Desa Tana
Toa Kecamatan Kajang, Kabupaten Bulukumba.
(Unpublished BA thesis). Universitas Hasanuddin,
Makassar.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Shaw, H. (1981). Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York:

McGrawHill, Inc. Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology
to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CPU.

188
Tajalli, G. (2003). Idioms and Metaphorical Expressions in
Translation.

Tehran: Samt.

Turner, V. (1969). Dramas. Fields, and Metaphor: Symbolic

Action in Human Sociely.

Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. J. (1996): An Introduction to Cognitive

Linguistics,London & New York: Longman.

Usop, K. M. (1978). Pasang ri Kajang: Kajian Sistem Nilai di

"Benteng Hitam" Ammatoa. Ujung Pandang, Indonesia:
Pusat Latihan Penelitian Ilmu - Ilmu Sosial, UNHAS.

Va Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach.

London: Sage Publications.

Wolf, H. G., & Polzenhagen, F. (2003), Conceptual Metaphor as

Ideologiecal Stylistic Means: An exemplary analysis. In R.
Dirven, R. Frank & M. Putz (Eds.), Cognitive models in
language and thought: Ideology, Metaphor and Meaning
(pp. 247-275). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

189
 APPENDIX 1.

PASANG RI KAJANG

NO PASANG
1 Corpus (1): Manna pokok kaju aknapasa tokji.

LT : Even / tree / wood / breaths /too

IT. : The Kajang people believe that the trees in forest act
like human – they breathe and live.
2. Corpus (2): iamintu borong akkiyok bosi anggenna ereya

nipake aklamung pare, bakdo appakrie timbusu.

LT : It is/ a forest/ calls / rain, /until/ the water/ uses/ to

plant/ rice,/ corn,/ produces / springs.

IT. : The rainforest brings a lot of water which people use

to grow rice and corn and which also ensures that water
remains available in spring.

190
NO PASANG
3. Corpus (3): Injo boronga ia kontaki bosiya nasaba kunnimae

panggairanga iaminjo boronga nikuwa pangairang

LT : That / forest / absord / rain / because / here/

irrigation / is / forest / which / called / irrigation.
IT. : Rainwater from the rainforest is considered to be a
natural irrigation system by the villagers.

4 Corpus (4): Iya minjo boronga kunni pusakayya, injo boronga

angkontai bosiya, akakna akpakalompai timbusu.
LT : It‟s / that / forest / here/ the heritance /, it‟s / forest/
absorbes /rain that / enlarge / the springs.
IT. : Here, forest is considered to be an inheritance from
the
ancestors which supplies water feeding the springs.
5. Corpus (5): injo jamanna Ammatowa nalarangi annakbang
kaju ri boronga iyaminjo nikua ada’ tana.
LT : It‟s /the job /of Ammatowa /forbids /cut /wood /in
/the forest/, it‟s /said /by /customary law.
IT. : It is the duty of Ammatowa to forbid people to cut
down the
trees in the forest because forest is considered a customary
inheritance as states in customary law.

191
NO PASANG
6 Corpus (6): Nariek kaloro battu ri boronga, nariek timbusu
battu rikajua
LT : There / river/ come/ from/ forest/, there/
springs/come/ from/ trees.
IT. : The existence of river was due to the existence of
the forest, and the existence of springs is due to the existence
of trees because the forest and trees bring water to the
river and supply water for the spring.
7 Corpus (7): Punna nitakbang kajua ri boronga
nunipappiurangiang ri Tau Riek Akrakna angngurangi bosi
patanre timbusu. Nibicara Pasang ri turioloa.
LT : If / you /cut down /wood /in/forest,/wish (pray) / to/
God / not reduce /rain,/ eliminate / spring / said the costumary
law/ since long time ago.
IT. : The ancestors state in customary law (Pasang) that if
we cut down the trees in the forest, then we should pray to the
God Almighty not to reduce the rainfall and get rid of water in
springs.

192
NO PASANG
8 Corpus (8): injo nattahang ri boronga nasabak Pasang. Riettoi
tanayya rettoi adaa.
LT : That / preserve / in / forest / because / customary
law./ there „s/ a soil /,There‟s / a custom.
IT : Forest is sustainable because it is quarded by
customary law (Pasang). If we destroy the land that means we
destroy
the custom.
9 Corpus (9): Nikasipalliangi ammanrak – manraki borong.
LT : Forbidden / destroy / forest.
IT. : It is forbidden or taboo to destroy the forest.
10 Corpus (10): injo atoranna adaa punna riek palanggarang nihaju
ri boronga takbage tallui iamintu pokok babala, tangnga
babbala, cappa babbalak.
LT : that / the rules of /custom / if / there‟s / violation / in
/ forest / divided / into / three / namely / main / whip /
medium / whip
/light / whip.
IT. : According to the the rule of custom, if someone
violates the law regarding forest management, he/she will be
punished base on whether his/her violation such as serious
violation,

193
NO PASANG
medium violation, or light violation.

11 Corpus (11): Inni linoa pammari – marianji, ahera

pammatangang karakrakkang
LT : This/World/ is/temporary /only,/hereafter /is
stay/permanent place.
IT. : Living in the world is temporary, the hereafter is for
eternity.
Therefore we should obey the God‟s wills by leading a simple
life.
12 Corpus (12): Kalumanynyang kalupepeang ri allo ri bokona
Tu Riek Akrakna.
LT : Rich / extraordinary / in/ the day /in / hereafter / of /
God.
IT : We are ordered to live in simplicity, because the
extraordinary wealth will only be provided in the hereafter by
Almighty God

194
NO PASANG
13 Corpus (13): Ikau adaka, ikau karaenga. Lambusu bukrungko,
paklalanganga angkuayaa.
LT : You /are / custom, /you / are /king./ Straight /
firmness,
/Ammatowa / said.
IT. : You are the Ammatowa, you are the ruler and the
king, therefore you are required to be honest to your people,
and maintain firmness, as you have been ordered by God
Almighty.
14 Corpus (14): Sallukriajowa ammulu ri adahang, anraik – raik
pamarentata anraik tokki kalak – kalauka pamarentata kalauk
tokki.
LT : Follow /the tool/ to cultivate/ the soil,/ /government/ go to/
west /we / go to/ west /too, /east /government / go /we /go to /
east / too.
IT. : Obey the leader by carrying out his orders and do not
violate his prohibition.

195
NO PASANG
15 Corpus (15): Amma ammana adak, Amma ammanak karaeng
LT : Ammatowa / gives birth / custom, /Ammatowa/ gives
birth
/nobles.
IT : Ammatowa is the one who created custom (Adat),
and he appointed the nobles as well.
16 Corpus (16): Ikau Karaenga siurang adaka, pakahajii jari –
jarinu nasabak punna salai jari – jarinu iyareka riek pauawanna
anjari pamarenta, ammanraki tau takbala, tanna kajariangi erang
pole.
LT : You /are / king, / be friends /custom,/ take care
/your fingers,/ if /wrong /your fingers /or /your words, /then /
they / become /official /damaging /people, /not /become
/anything/ too.
IT : You are the king who acts and speaks on behalf of
custom, be careful with your commands and your words since
when you deliver a command, it become an official statement
of the government. And if you treat your people improperly,
they will yield nothing but disaster.

196
NO PASANG
17 Corpus (17): Ammatowa paklaklanganta ngasek.
LT : Ammatowa / shelter/ for / all of us
IT : Ammatowa is a place where we can find shelter
for all of us.
18 Corpus (18): Kunni – kunnina, Aklaklangngasek mako ri

nakke, nasabak nakke najokjok pangellai ri Turiek

Akrakna.

LT : Now / take /a shelter / you all /at / me /.because /

I /was appointed /by /the God Almighty.
IT : I have been appointed by the God Almighty to be

responsible for sheltering you all, and you all come under

my responsibility.
19 Corpus (19): Aklalang rikaju lompoa, akkambiang
ricinaguria.
LT : take in/into /the big tree,/ and /to hold /on /the
cinaguaria

IT : We have been ordered to take shelter in

Ammatowa as our leader, and to firmly hold to the

customary law (Pasang).

197
NO PASANG
20 Corpus (20): Akbulo sipappak, aklemo sibatu, tallang sipahua,
manyuk siparampe, lingu sipakainga, sipalatautang sipakasirik.
LT : A bunch of /bamboo, /one /lime, /drowning /help
/each other,/ drifting / help / each other,/ lost / remind /each
other,/ telling /each other /embarrass / each other.
IT : We must be strong in unity like a bunch of bamboo
which sticks in the ground strongly. We have to unite in
diversity under the proctection of Ammatowa, and when bad
things occur, we should reunite in the spirit, and when we
lulled by new circumstances which go against custom we should
remind one another, not embarrass one to another.

198
22 Corpus (22): Riek sakra battu ri Tau Riek Akrakna: ikau
tokmintu Ammatowa, na ikau tokmintu appakriek anutallu, na
ikau tokmintu angkamuai tanatowa.
LT : There‟s / a voice / from /the creator:/ you / are
/Ammatowa,/ and /you /are /also /creator /the three /, and /you
/also/know/ tanatowa.
IT : There is one voice came from the God Almighty
mentioned that you are the leader, you are the one who should
create the three nobles who will assist you to govern the land,
and you are also the one who should guard the old land
(Kajang).
23 Corpus (23): Anrek kalumanyanyang kalupepeang riek
kamase – masea.
LT : None / rich / extraordinary, / only / simplicity.

FT : The state of prosperity or extraordinary wealth does

not exist in this land (Kajang), only simplicity of life.

199
NO PASANG
24 Corpus (24): Angnganre nariek, care-care nariek, pammalli
juku nariek, tana koko galung nariek, Bola situju-tuju
LT : Food / Available,/ clothing,/ available/ money to
buy / fish,/ available / land /, farm, /rice / available/ a simple
house .

IT : Our encestors taught and demand us to live in

simple life, simple life is when food is available, clothes are

available, money to buy fish (dishes) available, fields for

growing rice and other plants available and also a simple

house to live

in, nothing more.

200
NO PASANG
25 Corpus (25): Amentengko nukamase – mase, acidongko
nukamase

– mase, akdakkako nukamase – mase, akmiakko nu kamase

– mase.

LT : Stand /you are /humble, / sit /you are/ humble,/

walk /you are humble,/ talk /you are/ humble.

IT : Humble life principles should be practiced or

carried out in everyday life, even when you stand, sit, and

talk. It teaches

you to care for each other, and respect other‟s belonging.

26 Corpus (26). Napaccidommi adak lima Karaeng tallu

LT : Presenting / five / customary devices/ three /

nobles.

IT : Kajang people in performing rituals, they should

invite/present the five costumary devices and three nobles in

every ritual. If they are not attending the ritual, it is

considered illegitimate or illegal ritual.

201
NO PASANG
27 Corpus (27). Tau Riek Akrakna ammantangi ri
pangaraknna, Anrek niissei riek na anrekna Tau Akrana,
nakipalakdoang.
LT : God /lives /in /his wish,/ not /known /exist /or
/not/, God /we
/ask (pray) /only.
IT : Almighty God does everything as He wishes, no
one knows his existence. Human being only pray in him
to ask everything but all depend on God, whether he
fulfills our
wishes or not.
28 Corpus (28). Sitte makinjo punna nigaukangi
passuroanna, naliliang pappisangkanna.
LT : We/ consider /meet/ him/ if/ we /do/his
order/and /avoid/ his prohibition.

IT : We have been told that when we do what

God‟s told us to do, and avoid his prohibition, then we

consider already meet

the Almighty God.

202
NO PASANG
29 Corpus (29). Jeknek takluka, sambayang tamatappuk.

LT : unbroken /ablution / praying / never stop.

IT : The customary law (Pasang) told us not to stop

doing good

to others, if you apply this in every day practices then you

are consider performing sholat (praying).

30 Corpus (30). Pakahajik atekaknu iyamintu agama,

naiyantu sambayangnga jaman – jamanji.

LT : Fix / your behavior/, that /religion, /and /praying

/easy to do IT : Always be good on your behavior that

what religion teaches

us, and by always perform good deeds means you

perform

religion and perform sholat (praying). They both do not

so hard to do

203
NO PASANG
31 Corpus (31): Guru sarak tangattappak ri patuntunga
kaguruanna, guru patuntung tangattappa ri guru saraka
kapatuntunganna.
LT : Religion /teacher/does not believe/ patuntung
/his knowledge is useless/ patuntung /teacher/ does not
believe in/ religion/ his patuntung is useless.
IT : Islamic teachings and mandatory ancestral
teachings (patuntung) are two in one concept. Therefore,
Islamic teacher who does not believe in patuntung, his
knowledge is invalid, and patuntung teacher who does not
believe in
Islamic knowledge, his patuntung knowledge is invalid.
32
Corpus (32): Hajik tojeki matea paklingkaanga rianja

rakjingi rolo nampa lumbak balasakna.

LT : Good /indeed / death /is journey /to hereafter,/

difficult /first/ then/ easy/ on its reward/.

IT : Kajang people believe that only the death of

good people

deserve to have a journey to hereafter.

204
NO PASANG
33
Corpus (33): Tala jammengi matea aklikanaja ri anja iyaji
jammeng nungtaklea ri jampea.
LT : None/the soul / of death/ journey /to
hereafter/only/the soul/not found /in /grave

IT : Death is a process of separating soul or spirit

from the physical body. The soul of death will never be

travel to

hereafter if the soul still remain in the grave.

34
Corpus (34): Lino pammari – pariangji, ahera

pammantangngang Karakrakkang.

LT : World /temporary only/, hereafter/ is place to

stay/ forever FT : Life in the world is only for

temporary, hereafter is a place

to live forever.

205
NO PASANG
35 Corpus (35):Tau Riek Akrakna ammantangi ri
pangakrakangna

LT : God Almighty /stay / on his wills

FT : Almighty God do what he wants and keep his

wills as he wishes.
36 Corpus (36): Anrek nissei riekna anrekna Tau Riek
Akrakna, nakippalak doang padatokji pole, nitarimana
paknganrota’, iya tojekna.
LT : Do not /know/ the existance /or not existance
of/God /we evoke/ only,/ just the same/ accepted or not/
your invocation.
IT : Noone knows for sure about the presence or
the absence of

the Almighty, but try to do best asking for invocation

whether it is acceptable or not is a kind of hard works and

efforts.
37 Corpus (37): Rapanginjo nikuaya anrong nikuaya butta

LT : Like /it said / mother / is soil

IT : As stated in customary law (Pasang) that soil is

considered as our mother.

206
NO PASANG
38 Corpus (38): Lekbak nutalekbak pau – pau: Anrek
nakkulle nipinra punna anu lekbak, anrek nakulle
nigiling, nipinra.
LT : Done/ undone/ the talk/ can not /be changed /if

/something/ is done,/ can not /be reserved,/ and changed.

IT : Something has been said, can not be changed

likewise

Pasang ri Kajang (messages from Kajang) can not be

added or reduced its messages.

39 Corpus (39): Manna anatta punna salai, nipitabai tonji
passala.

LT : Althought/ our son/if commit violation//will

awarded/ punishment

IT : Although our family, we may not defend or

protect them

from the Punishmen if they commit violation.

207
NO PASANG
40 Corpus (40): Dodongi kamase-masea, hujuki rikalenna;

anrek nakkulle kaite-itte, anrek nakkulle kalumpa-lumpa,

anrek nakkulle katoli-toli. Kasugihangi anrek nakkulle

antama ri butta kamase- masea.

LT : Limp in/ simplicity,/ weak /in his body:/ do not/ look

around,/ do not/ jumping around,/ do not/ hearing

around,/ rich luxury/ can not/ enter /in the land of

/simplicity.

IT : It is better to live in simplicity, the regulation in

butta kamase – masea is that community members may

not follow something that is not conveyed by Customary

law (Pasang ri Kajang).

208
 Image 1:
Conducting Interview with Informant at Dusun
Benteng.

Image 1:
In front of Inner territory’s gate with informant

209
 Image 2:

Entering Illalang Embaya (inner territory) Village to meet

Ammatowa and other Informants

210
 Image 3:

Conducting Interview with Informant (The former Head

of Dusun Benteng) at Mansur Embas’ House

Image 4

In front of Informant’s house after conducted Interview.

211
 Image 5:

Rechecking the Corpus by Mansur Embas (Culturalist

of Kajang)

212
 Image 6:

Some Images of field research at Kajang.

213
 Image 7:

Recently Finished interview with Ammatowa at

Tanatowa Village (Inner territory)

Image 8:

In front of House of Council at Inner territory (Kajang

Dalam)

214
 Image 9:

At Inner territory (Kajang Dalam)

Image 10:

Entering Inner territory (Kajang Dalam) with other

researcher to meet informant.

215
 Image 11:

Entering Inner territory (Kajang Dalam) to meet

informant.

216
 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CMA ...................................................... Critical Metaphor Analysis

CMT ................................................. Conceptual Metaphor Theory
CIT ................................................. Conceptual Integration Theory
MB ...................................................................... Morpheme Break
PS ............................................................................. Part of Speech
LT....................................................................... Literal Translation
IT................................................................... Idiomatic Translation
Adv. ................................................................................ Adverb(ial)
Prep. .............................................................................. Preposition
NEG. .................................................................................. Negative
Conj. ............................................................................. Conjunction
ACT........................................................................................ Active
Adj. .................................................................................... Adjective
DEM......................................................................... Demonstrative
Pro. ...................................................................... Personal Pronoun
POSS ............................................................................... Possessive
PREP. ............................................................................ Preposition
Obj......................................................................................... Object
3rd . ........................................................................................ Third
2nd........................................................................................ Second
1st ..............................................................................................First
Sing./SG ............................................................................... Singular
Fec/FRAC ....................................................... Fractional (Numeral)
PASS..................................................................................... Passive
PLU/PL .................................................................................. Plural
FOC........................................................................................ Focus
AUX .................................................................................. Auxiliary
NOM ............................................................................. Nominative
PART/PARTF..................................................................... Partitive

217

View publication stats