Theodoros Xioufis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
published in the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Love and Relationship Studies, 6-8 March, 2026
You can see the full video recording of this presentation at the YouTube channel of the International Institute of Love Studies
Introduction
Kövecses (2005) proposes a theoretical account of metaphor variation within Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), focusing on cross-cultural differences in the conceptualization of emotions. Following this research paradigm, many researchers have explored conceptual metaphors of romantic love in many languages, comparing them with those found in English. They found that the cultural factors account for similar yet different conceptualizations of romantic love (e.g., Aksan & Kantar, 2008; Schröder, 2009; Lv & Zhang, 2012; Rajeg, 2016).
In contrast, few researchers have studied the within-culture variation of conceptual metaphors of romantic love. For example, Beger (2011) examines different metaphorical conceptualizations of emotions (anger, love, sadness) between experts and laypersons. Nevertheless, the expertise is not the only factor that contributes to within-culture differences in the use of emotion metaphors. Another factor is the individual dimension of conceptual metaphors (Kovecses, 2005). For example, metaphorical expressions can be more or less unique to a person’s individual style. At the same time, researchers focus on the words that instantiate the conceptual mappings, arguing that the word —together with its connotations— highlights aspects of the emotional experience of the subject in question (Theodoropoulou, 2012). Thus, the aim of the study is to examine metaphorical expressions in order to show how the individual dimension is reflected in speakers’ lexical choices, that is, in the specific words through which conceptual metaphors are instantiated.
Methodology and Methods
The study draws on linguistic data in the form of metaphorical expressions about romantic love from the social networking platform X (formerly Twitter). The units of analysis are individual posts, representing naturally occurring and relatively spontaneous expressions of speakers’ stances toward romantic love. No prompts were given; all contributions are self-generated, reflecting personal experiences and evaluations. The methodological framework combines inductive and deductive approaches to the study of metaphorical language. It employs Metaphor Pattern Analysis (Stefanowitsch, 2006) to identify recurring metaphorical patterns, the notion of “informed intuition” (Deignan, 1999) to guide interpretive judgments, and the Metaphor Identification Procedure MIPVU (Steen et al., 2010) for systematic identification of metaphorical expressions.
Highlights of Results
The analysis of the linguistic data shows that people use different words and linguistic expressions to instantiate the same conceptual metaphors. For example, the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS FOOD/DRINK is instantiated through a wide variety of linguistic expressions, such as ‘Love has the taste of coffee’, ‘Love is a dish that is never good when reheated’, ‘Love is like whisky… Either you drink it and enjoy it, or you drink it and don’t know where you’re standing or where you are’, ‘Love is a cocktail that the more you drink and feel dizzy, the more you want’, ‘Love is like souvlaki. At first you taste it, and then it destroys you’ and ‘Love is like spaghetti with meat sauce; no matter how much you eat, you can’t stop’.
Beyond variation in lexical choice, metaphorical expressions differ in the aspects of romantic love they highlight, such as intensity, pleasure, the uniqueness of the romantic experience, the strong desire for the other person, the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of romantic desire, loss of control, or attempt at control. These variations suggest that metaphor use primarily serves expressive and evaluative purposes, allowing speakers to articulate their subjective experience of romantic love rather than to introduce new conceptual structures.
Discussion and Conclusions
The findings show that within-culture variation is a central feature of metaphorical language, closely linked to the individual dimension. Such variation is evident not only across source domains but also in speakers’ lexical choices, which highlight different aspects of romantic love. The results further indicate that metaphorical meaning is dynamic and context-dependent. Overall, metaphor emerges primarily as an expressive resource, serving the need for expressivity (Foolen, 2012; Theodoropoulou, 2012) and the construction of viewpointed meanings (Dancygier & Sweetser, 2014).
References
Beger, A. (2011). Differences in the use of emotion metaphors in expert-lay communication. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research (pp. 319–347). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dancygier B. & Sweetser, Ε. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, A. (1999). Corpus-based research into metaphor. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 177–199). Cambridge University Press.
Foolen, A. (2012). The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics. In A. Foolen, U. M. Ludtke, T. P. Racine & J. Zlatev (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language (pp. 349–368). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture. Universality and Variation. Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, Μ. (1980). Metaphors we Live by. The University of Chicago Press.
Lv, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Universality and variation of conceptual metaphor of love in Chinese and English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(2), 355–35.
Theodoropoulou, M. (2012). The emotion seeks to be expressed: Thoughts from a linguist’s point of view. In A. Chaniotis (Ed.), Unveiling Emotions. Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World (pp. 433–468). Franz Steiner Verlag.