Introduction: “A Cross-Cultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!” by M. Reza Talebinejad & H. Vahid Dastjerdi
“A Cross-Cultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!” by M. Reza Talebinejad and H. Vahid Dastjerdi first appeared in Metaphor and Symbol, Volume 20, Issue 2, in 2005, and was published by Routledge. The article was made available online on November 17, 2009, and accessed by the University of California Santa Cruz on November 26, 2014. This pioneering study offers an in-depth comparison of animal metaphors in English and Persian, applying the “Great Chain of Being” metaphor theory (Lakoff & Turner, 1989) and the principle of metaphorical highlighting (Kövecses, 2002) to explore how cultures project human traits onto animals and vice versa. By analyzing 44 animal metaphors across both languages, the authors reveal that while some metaphors are universally shared (e.g., lion as brave), others are culturally unique (e.g., owl as wise in English but ominous in Persian). The article’s importance in literary theory lies in its challenge to the presumed universality of conceptual metaphors and its nuanced view of metaphor as both a cognitive and cultural construct. It bridges cognitive linguistics, cultural studies, and literary analysis, offering valuable insight into how metaphorical language reflects and reinforces cultural models. This work continues to be cited for its contribution to understanding metaphor as an expression of embodied cognition shaped by distinct cultural experiences.
Summary of “A Cross-Cultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!” by M. Reza Talebinejad & H. Vahid Dastjerdi
🧠 Main Objectives of the Study
- To examine how animal metaphors are understood in English and Persian.
- To assess the degree of universality vs. cultural specificity in metaphorical expressions.
- Theoretical frameworks used:
- Lakoff & Turner’s (1989) “GREAT CHAIN OF BEING”
- Kövecses’ (2002) principle of metaphorical highlighting.
“The results showed that although animal metaphors in English and Persian are similar to a certain extent, many aspects of them are culture-specific.” (Talebinejad & Dastjerdi, 2005, p. 133)
🧬 Conceptual Framework: The GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
- Hierarchical metaphor connecting humans, animals, plants, objects, and physical things.
- Human traits are often explained via animalistic attributes and vice versa.
“Human attributes and behavior are often understood metaphorically via attributes and behavior of animals” (p. 135).
🌍 Culture and Cognition in Metaphors
- Metaphor is both a cognitive structure and a cultural expression.
- Cultural models shape which traits are emphasized in metaphors.
“Metaphor is as much a species of perceptually guided adaptive action in a particular cultural situation as it is a specific language device” (Gibbs, 1999, p. 162).
“Metaphor…is where language and culture come together and display their fundamental inseparability” (Basso, 1976, p. 93).
🐾 Key Conceptual Metaphors Identified
- The study reinforced Kövecses’ conceptual metaphors:
- “HUMANS ARE ANIMALS”
- “OBJECTIONABLE PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS”
- “SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE WOMEN ARE KITTENS”
- “DIFFICULT-TO-HANDLE THINGS ARE DOGS”
“The only way these meanings can have emerged is that humans attributed human characteristics to animals and then reapplied these characteristics to humans” (Kövecses, 2002, p. 125).
🐯 Examples of Shared and Divergent Animal Metaphors
- Shared/Identical Metaphors:
- “Lion” = courage in both English and Persian.
- “Dog life” = unpleasant living condition in both languages.
- Different Metaphors:
- “Owl” = wise (English) vs. ominous (Persian)
- “Turkey” = stupid (English) vs. hypocrite (Persian)
- “Bee” = busy (English) vs. sharp-tongued (Persian)
“The Persian owl is not wise!” (p. 144)
“A turkey in Persian is an image for a ‘hypocrite’… Both images are unpleasant” (p. 144)
📊 Empirical Methodology
- Compared 44 animal metaphors using native speakers from both cultures.
- Used Lakoff & Johnson’s (1980) metaphorical mapping method.
- Metaphors classified as identical, similar, or different.
“Of the 44 animal metaphors… around 75% were either identical or similar” (p. 143).
🧩 Cultural Models and Ethnobiology
- Animal metaphors are shaped by folk taxonomies and cultural experiences.
- Categorization depends on key traits: behavior, relation to humans, etc.
“Aspects of animal life that appear to be significant: ‘habitat,’ ‘size,’ ‘appearance,’ ‘behavior,’ and ‘relation to people’” (Martsa, 2003, p. 4)
🔄 Universality vs. Cultural Specificity
- While some metaphors are near-universal, many are deeply embedded in local culture.
- Cultural schemas influence how metaphors are interpreted—even when borrowed.
“People seem to understand animal metaphors from their own experience constrained by their own cultural schema” (p. 146)
🧪 Concluding Insights
- Metaphors are both cognitive and cultural constructs.
- Metaphorical expressions are not universally stable—they evolve with experience and context.
“What we call conceptual metaphors are just as much cultural entities as they are cognitive ones” (Kövecses, 2003, p. 319)
“Metaphor is not only cognitive but also culturally motivated” (p. 145)
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “A Cross-Cultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!” by M. Reza Talebinejad & H. Vahid Dastjerdi
| Theoretical Term / Concept | Definition / Origin | Usage in the Article |
| Metaphor | A cognitive and linguistic process where one concept is understood in terms of another (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). | The central focus of the study; animal metaphors are analyzed to show cultural and conceptual meaning in English and Persian. |
| Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) | Theory that metaphors structure thought, not just language (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). | Framework for interpreting metaphorical expressions like “humans are animals.” |
| GREAT CHAIN OF BEING Metaphor | A hierarchical folk model of existence from humans to objects (Lakoff & Turner, 1989). | Used to explain how humans metaphorically inherit animal traits and how behaviors map downward across categories. |
| Metaphorical Highlighting | The idea that metaphors focus on certain aspects of a target concept (Kövecses, 2002). | Used to classify metaphors as identical or similar based on which traits are emphasized in each culture. |
| Cultural Models / Schemas | Internalized, socially-shaped mental representations (Shore, 1996). | Explains why speakers interpret metaphors differently across languages (e.g., owl as wise vs. ominous). |
| People Are Animals | A recurring conceptual metaphor in many languages (Kövecses, 2002). | One of the study’s key metaphors showing how animal behavior frames human characteristics (e.g., “He’s a lion”). |
| Ethnobiological Categorization | Folk classification of animals and plants based on experience and utility (Berlin, 1992). | Supports the idea that animal metaphors arise from practical and cultural knowledge of animals. |
| Thematic Parts of Animals | Animal traits like habitat, behavior, relation to humans used in metaphor formation (Martsa, 2003). | Used to explain how speakers choose metaphorical traits (e.g., lion’s bravery, pig’s gluttony). |
| Metaphor vs. Metonymy | Metaphor: conceptual mapping across domains; Metonymy: association within the same domain. | The authors note that some animal metaphors may be metonymic or blends, e.g., “ostrich” as laziness may derive from behavior. |
| Unidirectionality of Metaphor | Conceptual metaphors usually map from concrete → abstract, not vice versa (Kövecses, 2002). | Observed in mappings like “noisy crow” (animal → human), but not the reverse. |
| Maxim of Quantity (Gricean Principle) | In pragmatics, say as much as needed, no more. | Helps explain which animal traits are metaphorically mapped—only those that are communicatively relevant. |
| Cross-cultural Variation in Metaphor | The notion that metaphors are not universally interpreted across cultures. | The main aim of the study; authors show that only 25% of metaphors differ significantly, while 75% are similar or identical. |
| Metaphorical Mapping / Correspondence | A set of conceptual links between two domains (e.g., lion ↔ courage). | The method used to analyze responses from native speakers comparing English and Persian metaphors. |
Contribution of “A Cross-Cultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!” by M. Reza Talebinejad & H. Vahid Dastjerdi to Literary Theory/Theories
🧠 1. Contribution to Cognitive Literary Theory
- Theory Focus: Literature reflects mental processes, especially metaphor as a tool of conceptualization.
- Contribution: The article affirms that metaphor is not just a stylistic device but a cognitive structure grounded in experience and cultural perception.
“Much of human behavior… seems to be metaphorically understood in terms of animal behavior” (Kövecses, 2002, p. 124).
- Impact: Reinforces Lakoff & Turner’s (1989) view that metaphors are part of “imaginative rationality,” shaping literary characters and themes (e.g., lion = bravery).
“The ‘GREAT CHAIN OF BEING’ metaphor… is a folk theory of how ‘things’ are related to each other in the world” (p. 134).
🌍 2. Contribution to Cultural Poetics / New Historicism
- Theory Focus: Literature must be understood within its cultural and historical context.
- Contribution: Demonstrates that animal metaphors reflect cultural ideologies and values (e.g., owls symbolize wisdom in English but inauspiciousness in Persian).
“The Persian owl is not wise!” (p. 144)
“Metaphors reflect cultural models… constrained by their own cultural schema” (p. 146).
- Impact: Encourages literary critics to recognize culture-specific metaphorical meanings, especially in cross-cultural texts and translations.
🔎 3. Contribution to Structuralism / Semiotics
- Theory Focus: Language and meaning operate through structures of signs and oppositions.
- Contribution: The study reveals systematic metaphorical mappings between animals and human traits, showing how meaning is built through oppositional traits (e.g., lion ↔ courage vs. goat ↔ cowardice).
“The metaphor focuses on some aspects of a target concept… it highlights that or those aspect(s)” (Kövecses, 2002, p. 79).
- Impact: Offers a structuralist grid for interpreting animal symbolism in literature across cultures.
💬 4. Contribution to Postcolonial Theory
- Theory Focus: Analyzes how cultural identity, language, and metaphors are shaped by colonial or local knowledge systems.
- Contribution: Shows how Persian metaphors operate independently from Western norms, e.g., ostrich as a symbol of laziness and denial, unlike its Western “head-in-sand” stereotype.
“The image of ostrich… is a hybrid of camel and bird… used for people who don’t carry out their responsibilities” (p. 143).
- Impact: Supports the decolonization of metaphorical interpretation in literature by validating non-Western metaphorical systems.
📚 5. Contribution to Reader-Response Theory
- Theory Focus: Meaning arises in the interaction between reader and text, influenced by personal and cultural schema.
- Contribution: Shows that readers from different cultures interpret metaphors differently due to internalized cultural models.
“Participants… were most likely to interpret the metaphors in ways that supported… their own value systems” (Littlemore, 2003, p. 282).
- Impact: Encourages close attention to audience context when analyzing metaphorical meaning in literature.
🧬 6. Contribution to Comparative Literature
- Theory Focus: Cross-cultural literary analysis to trace thematic and symbolic variation.
- Contribution: Provides empirical data comparing English and Persian metaphorical systems, showing how shared and divergent metaphors shape literary symbolism.
“Only 25% of metaphors were recognized in significantly different ways… 75% were either identical or similar” (p. 143).
- Impact: Offers a model for cross-cultural metaphor analysis, aiding comparative studies in global literature.
✅ Summary of Theoretical Contributions
| Literary Theory | Key Contribution from the Article |
| Cognitive Literary Theory | Metaphors reflect mental models and are culturally grounded. |
| Cultural Poetics | Animal metaphors carry culture-specific ideologies. |
| Structuralism | Reveals binary oppositions and systematic mappings in metaphor. |
| Postcolonial Theory | Highlights local metaphorical knowledge over Western symbolic norms. |
| Reader-Response Theory | Readers interpret metaphors through their own cultural frameworks. |
| Comparative Literature | Provides a model of contrastive metaphor study across English and Persian. |
Examples of Critiques Through “A Cross-Cultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!” by M. Reza Talebinejad & H. Vahid Dastjerdi
| Literary Work | Animal Metaphor(s) in the Text | Reinterpretation via Talebinejad & Dastjerdi’s Framework | Critical Insight |
| George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) | Pigs = Power, Greed; Dogs = Brutality | In Persian culture, pig metaphors are rarely used due to religious taboo. Thus, the pig as a symbol of tyranny might not resonate universally (Talebinejad & Dastjerdi, 2005, pp. 137–138). | The metaphor’s critique of political corruption may lose symbolic impact in Persian context due to cultural restrictions. |
| Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (c. 1599) | Lion = Bravery; Serpent = Treachery | Lion is shared across cultures as a symbol of courage. However, the serpent metaphor may map differently in Persian, where “snake” may lack the same cultural weight of betrayal (p. 145). | The universal bravery metaphor of lion holds, but caution is needed in interpreting serpentine metaphors cross-culturally. |
| Kate Chopin’s The Awakening (1899) | Birds (parrots, mockingbirds) = Freedom, entrapment | In Persian, birds such as doves or sparrows evoke emotional or sacred meanings (pp. 144–145). The parrot might symbolize loyalty or mimicry, not confinement. | Animal metaphors of flight and confinement may reflect different symbolic registers across cultures. |
| Attar’s The Conference of the Birds (12th c.) | Hoopoe = Wisdom; Owl = Isolation | Owl in Persian is not wise but ominous (p. 144). The poem’s original cultural context preserves owl’s dark image, while Western readers might mistakenly interpret the owl as sagacious. | Emphasizes the need for culturally grounded reading of animal metaphors in Persian mystical literature. |
🔍 Notes:
- Western symbolic norms may mislead cross-cultural readers, especially when interpreting texts from non-Western traditions.
- The article helps disrupt the assumption of universality in animal metaphors often carried into literary criticism.
- Reader-response and postcolonial readings benefit greatly from this lens, especially when navigating allegory, satire, and symbol.
Criticism Against “A Cross-Cultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!” by M. Reza Talebinejad & H. Vahid Dastjerdi
- 🔬 Limited Sample Size
The study relies on input from only 20 participants (10 native English and 10 Persian language teachers), which restricts the generalizability of the findings across broader linguistic communities. - 📍 Culturally Narrow Focus
While the authors aim for a cross-cultural study, it’s essentially a bilingual contrast (English vs. Persian). Broader cultural perspectives—especially non-Indo-European or indigenous—are not considered. - 📊 Lack of Quantitative Rigor
The metaphor analysis is primarily qualitative and descriptive. The statistical methods, coding reliability, or inter-rater agreement in classifying metaphors as “similar” or “identical” are not reported. - 🧩 Metaphor vs. Metonymy Confusion
Although the authors acknowledge overlaps, they occasionally blur distinctions between metaphor and metonymy without consistently differentiating them in analysis (e.g., ostrich example, p. 143–144). - 🕊️ Oversimplification of Cultural Models
Cultural interpretations are treated as stable and uniform, which may ignore subcultural or individual variability in metaphor comprehension (e.g., rural vs. urban speakers or generational divides). - 🌐 Overreliance on Western Theories
The study is deeply rooted in Lakoff & Johnson’s cognitive metaphor theory, potentially limiting the analysis to Western conceptual frameworks, despite focusing on Persian language and culture. - 📚 Lack of Literary Textual Examples
Although metaphor is vital in literature, the paper does not apply findings to actual literary texts, weakening its direct literary relevance and application to literary theory in practice. - 🐾 Ethnobiological Generalizations
The use of ethnobiological categories may presume a universal biological perception of animals, which can be too simplistic when animals hold symbolic, mythical, or religious connotations. - 🔄 Static View of Metaphor Usage
Metaphors are treated as fixed cultural expressions, with little attention to language change, evolving metaphor usage, or how global media may influence metaphor adoption or transformation. - 🗣️ No Inclusion of Corpus Linguistics Tools
The study could have been strengthened by using corpus data to trace actual frequency, context, and collocational patterns of animal metaphors in natural discourse or literature.
Representative Quotations from “A Cross-Cultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!” by M. Reza Talebinejad & H. Vahid Dastjerdi with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Much of human behavior… seems to be metaphorically understood in terms of animal behavior.” (Kövecses, 2002, p. 124) | This frames the article’s main thesis: humans frequently interpret their own traits by projecting them onto animals. This cognitive process underpins widespread metaphorical usage. |
| “The metaphor is not only cognitive but also culturally motivated.” (Kövecses, 2003, p. 319) | The authors support the idea that while metaphor arises in the mind, its structure and use are heavily influenced by cultural norms, values, and collective experience. |
| “The Persian owl is not wise!” (Talebinejad & Dastjerdi, 2005, p. 144) | A core example demonstrating cultural contrast: the owl as a symbol of wisdom in English, but inauspicious and unlucky in Persian culture. |
| “In many cases, animal metaphors do reflect cultural models…” (p. 145) | The authors affirm that metaphor is often a mirror of the culture’s worldview, which shapes and is shaped by language. |
| “Only the essential, culturally and psychologically salient properties… are mapped onto humans.” (Martsa, 2003, p. 5, as cited) | This supports the study’s method: only attributes perceived as significant in a given culture are transferred metaphorically, explaining divergences. |
| “A theory of one [language or culture] that excludes the other will inevitably do damage to both.” (Basso, 1976, p. 93) | This quote reinforces the article’s integrative framework, warning against studying language without accounting for its cultural foundations. |
| *“He lives a dog life.” / “Zendegim mesle sag boud.” | A direct cross-linguistic example of how the same metaphor—’dog life’—is used negatively in both English and Persian, showing convergence despite cultural differences. |
| “Tell him to fly, he says he’s a camel; tell him to carry loads, he says he’s a bird.” (Persian metaphor for the ostrich) | A vivid Persian metaphor that critiques laziness and avoidance of responsibility, revealing metaphor’s cultural richness and satirical function. |
Suggested Readings: “A Cross-Cultural Study of Animal Metaphors: When Owls Are Not Wise!” by M. Reza Talebinejad & H. Vahid Dastjerdi
- Abdussalam, Ahmad Shehu, and Ahmed Shahu Abdussalam. “Teaching Arabic Metaphors for Cross-Cultural Interaction.” Al-’Arabiyya, vol. 38/39, 2005, pp. 75–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43192864. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
- Zhang, Yehong, and Gerhard Lauer. “Introduction: Cross-Cultural Reading.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 54, no. 4, 2017, pp. 693–701. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/complitstudies.54.4.0693. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
- Richardson, Joseph E. “Religious Metaphor and Cross-Cultural Communication: Transforming National and International Identities.” Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 50, no. 4, 2011, pp. 61–74. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43044890. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
- Wolfe, Cary. “Human, All Too Human: ‘Animal Studies’ and the Humanities.” PMLA, vol. 124, no. 2, 2009, pp. 564–75. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614299. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.