Exploring the Structural Metaphors in the Daily Conversations of Persian Speakers in Afghanistan

This research paper explores the use of structural metaphors in the daily conversations of Persian speakers and examines how these metaphors reveal deeper human experiences. In this kind of metaphor, a notion from one area is frequently utilized to create another (debate and controversy, which is a subjective idea but has a cultural element), such as war as a physical or cultural phenomena. Persian daily speech is known for using imagery and symbols, and animal metaphors are a significant aspect of this tradition. This paper analyses war metaphors used in the daily conversation of people in Afghanistan and delves into the meaning and symbolism behind each metaphor. The study was conducted using both field research and library research techniques. Each metaphor was analysed in detail, with a focus on the conflict and debate themes, their characteristics, and how they are used to convey deeper meanings. Through this analysis, this paper aims to uncover the use of animal metaphors as a means of revealing a deeper understanding of the metaphors in the Persian context.


Introduction
Cognitive linguistics views metaphor as one of the key components of language, and it is this perspective that sets cognitive linguistics apart from any language theories (Lee, 2015). Metaphor has been widely regarded to be a literary or poetic languagespecific rhetorical device or figure of speech. On the other hand, the cognitive perspective regards metaphor as an essential element of language use in daily life (Lee, 2001). According to this perspective, metaphor is not just used in some discourses like poetry, religion, or science; instead, it is a major part of how we perceive daily life (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980;Taylor, 1995). The cognitive paradigm views metaphor as a tool for conceptualizing more abstract and intangible aspects of experience in the context of widely known and concrete ideas (Taylor, 1995). In other words, metaphor is defined as the conceptualization of one cognitive area using elements more commonly related to another domain.
According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), there are three primary types of metaphors. Structural metaphors rely on the perception of structural similarity to translate a source domain onto a target domain. Ontological metaphors map abstract or difficult ideas onto simpler, more real experiences, and orientational metaphors include projecting physical or geographical orientations onto abstract ideas.
According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), the fundamental component of structural metaphor is the integration of one thought into another conceptual framework. The metaphor "discussion is war" illustrates how we conceptualize and visualize "verbal debate" with the reality of war and conflict in order to make these metaphors clearer. Debate participants dispute on a topic, then defend their positions or refute opposing viewpoints before deciding whether they won or lost (Orfan & Seraj, 2022). We are founded on the structural metaphor "debate is war" in this way. We conceptualize and explain the idea of "discussion". (Lakoff, 2012).
We stated in structural metaphors that: one idea is structurally constructed in the form of another concept, which may be both concepts separately and, in a phrase, for example, in the well-known metaphor "discussion is war," discussion and debate are employed in the form of the notion of war. In this kind of metaphor, a notion from one area is frequently utilized to create another (debate and controversy, which is a subjective idea but has a cultural element), such as war as a physical or cultural phenomena.
This research paper will analyze the use of structural metaphors in the daily conversations of Persian speakers and examine how these metaphors reveal deeper human experiences. By studying these metaphors in detail, this paper aims to present a comprehensive overview of the use and significance of structural verbal dispute metaphors in the daily conversations of Persian-Dari speakers.

Literature Review
Our perspective of the world is greatly shaped by metaphors, which also make daily conversation easier. In everyday discussion, a specific sort of metaphor known as a structural metaphor is widely used to conceive abstract concepts in terms of more concrete contexts (Reinhardt, 2020). The purpose of this literature review is to investigate the usage of structural metaphors in everyday speech and how it affects linguistic comprehension and interpersonal communication.
Structural metaphors, according to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), include projecting the organization and structures of a source domain onto a target domain. For instance, seeing a debate as a battle with attacks, defenses, and winners and losers uses the metaphor of argument as war. These metaphors frequently entail methodical mappings across many domains, forming logical and significant links between notions that are both abstract and concrete.
Structured metaphors help people comprehend difficult concepts by connecting them to everyday physical experiences. By establishing a common understanding between conversation participants, they aid in making abstract subjects easier to understand. People can draw conclusions and make sense of complex subjects using these metaphors, which helps with efficient communication and knowledge transfer (Thibodeau et al., 2019).
As stated by Olza et al. (2021), by easing comprehension and enhancing retention, the employment of structural metaphors in everyday speech has an impact on language understanding. Metaphors, according to research by Gibbs and Matlock (2008), strengthen the connections between concepts in the mind, which improves memory and aids information retrieval. Thus, structural metaphors assist in the more effective processing of information during dialogue.
Depending on the situation and culture, structural metaphors can be used and understood in speaking differently. Varied cultures may use various metaphors and give varied weight to various features of a given metaphorical idea. For instance, in Eastern and Western cultures, the metaphor "love is a journey" may have various meanings and interpretations. Furthermore, the choice and comprehension of metaphors can be influenced by the environment of dialogues (Yong, 2022).
Research on structural metaphors in everyday speech examines how these metaphors influence our thinking, communication, and interpersonal relationships. Researchers look into the numerous applications of these metaphors, how they affect our decisions and behavior, and how they affect social interactions, persuasion, and decision-making (Thibodeau et al., 2019).

Methodology
A qualitative study aimed at exploring the use of structural metaphors in the daily conversations of Persian speakers and examining how these metaphors reveal deeper human experiences was designed. The study was conducted using both field research and library research techniques. Each metaphor was analyzed in detail, with a focus on the conflict and debate themes, their characteristics, and how they are used to convey deeper meanings.

Data Collection
The participants were all native Persian-Dari speakers from the Afghan provinces of Kunduz and Takhar, and the majority of them resided in the country's northeastern provinces.

Data Analysis
The basic data for the present study were gathered in the two provinces of Afghanistan over the course of a month. The information was gathered from several talks with Persian-speaking Afghans in daily life. A total of three hours of impromptu recording of native speakers' talks were placed in markets and other public spaces and then transcribed to prepare for the analysis.

Results and Discussion
The use of debate and conflict form in structural metaphors in the daily conversations of Persian speakers in Afghanistan is a significant aspect of the genre. Different speakers use different metaphors when they show disagreement with the listeners. The followings are twenty mostly used Persian structural metaphors used when people are in the mode of disagreement.

1.
Waqtash berasad‫برسد‬ ‫وقتش‬ when it's time (period) come One prominent example of structural metaphors in Persian conversation is the use of the time‫)زمان‬ ) as. In the above example, the speaker warns the listener of the time when he/she take revenge.

2.
Peer mard e bizaban ‫پيرمرد‬ ‫زبان‬ ‫بي‬ the old man without tongue Being an elderly man is a weakness; old men tend to be weak and unable, which the word "tongueless" might be a sign of weakness.

3.
Namidanam kudam gor i rafta‫رفته‬ ‫گوری‬ ‫کدام‬ ‫نمیدانم‬ I don't know which grave he/she went to To express the concept of an "unknown place", he/ she used the metaphor of a grave, which is an objective concept.

4.
Ayanda e farzandat barayat mohim nist ‫نيست‬ ‫مهم‬ ‫برایت‬ ‫فرزن‬ ‫ي‬ ‫آينده‬ Your child's future is not important to you. It refers to the fate that will come in the future and indicates the future of happiness. The word "future" in Persian is mostly referred to the destination that someone will have or face.

5.
Kala kharab ast ‫است‬ ‫خراب‬ ‫کله‬ His/Her head is broken A broken head is like a piece of glass. Which means the person is crazy. Of course, this statement is also examined in ontological kinds, demonstrating the lack of a distinct distinction between these metaphorical categories.

6.
Sangin ast baraem‫برایم‬ ‫است‬ ‫.سنگین‬ It is heavy for me. "Heaviness" here indicates a lack of ability. So it means that I do not have the ability to do this job.

8.
Darsat ra mideham‫میدهم‬ ‫را‬ ‫درست‬ I will teach you. I will punish you next time. It is used when you are angry with someone and want to punish him.

9.
Ba en pul bezan ba zakhm ‫زخم‬ ‫یک‬ ‫به‬ ‫بزن‬ ‫پول‬ ‫این‬ ‫با‬ Hit a wound with this money Money (wealth) is a salve (happiness and health), or in other words, money is an asset to solve problems and diseases. The word wound refers to someone or something in trouble, and this money would solve the problem (trouble).

10.
Man chizi dar zindagi nadaram bebazam ‫چيز‬ ‫من‬ ‫ببازم‬ ‫زندگي‬ ‫در‬ ‫ندارم‬ ‫ي‬ I have nothing to lose in life The metaphor of life is gambling is used. This is the last thing you lose.

11.
Shoma hazarid ora talaq bedehid?‫بدي؟‬ ‫طلاق‬ ‫را‬ ‫او‬ ‫حاضري‬ ‫شما‬ Are you present to divorce her? The word "present" has been used to express the concept of "desire to do something", and it has not been used in the concept of physical presence.

12.
Man zindagi am ra bakhtam ‫باختم‬ ‫زندگيمو‬ ‫......من‬ I lost my life... Life is a gamble; in this case, it can be won and lost. The word life is most often used when you have nothing but the last thing.

13.
‫بگو؟‬ ‫راستشو‬ ‫وکیلی‬ ‫خدا‬ For God, tell the truth! God is "lawyer". Here, it means that everything must be right with no mistakes. The word "God" is a sign of truth and almighty. Thus, bringing Him into the conversation is like swearing and the extreme way of delivering a speech.
Here, the phrase "pull up someone's dog" refers to a human temperament which is like a dog. In addition to the structural type, this example of metaphor also has the characteristics of ontological metaphor. 15.
Ki tura enja kashanda? ‫کشانده؟‬ ‫اینجا‬ ‫ترا‬ ‫کی‬ Who dragged you here? Drag means to bring. A human being is like an object that can be pulled and pulled this way and that way.

16.
Adam wari harf bezan ‫بزن‬ ‫حرف‬ ‫واری‬ ‫آدم‬ Speak like a human In this example, similes such as "like" are used, but the word "Adam" actually does not have the real meaning of Adam, but in the form of this word, the concept of "accurate and complete" is meant.

17.
Pur roye nakun ‫نکن‬ ‫رویی‬ ‫پر‬ ‫اینقدر‬ Don't make such faceful acts Here, the phrase "faceful acting" refers to being cheeky or saucy, which is a metaphor for war when someone is rude or disrespectful, especially on purpose, in a way that is amusing.

18.
Har roz enja gadwadi ast ‫است‬ ‫گدودی‬ ‫اینجا‬ ‫روز‬ ‫هر‬ There's mixing up here everyday. In this example, "mix up" refers to disorder and chaotic situation. This conceptual metaphor is widely used in the Persian-Dari dialect of Afghan Persian speakers.

19.
Gandagi sar -e-gandagi ‫گندگی‬ ‫سر‬ ‫گندگی‬ Dirt on dirt In the example above, the word "dirt" here refers to some terrible situation and is used when there is no opportunity for betterment and is considered a total disorder.

20.
Kala puchi nakun ‫نکن‬ ‫پوچی‬ ‫کله‬ Don't act a hollow head. Here, the example above is used when someone does not know what to do or what to say and is regarded as silly. Hence, it is better translated as "Don't be silly".

21.
bezan susak kunim ‫کنیم‬ ‫سوسک‬ ‫بزن‬ Do your best to make them beetles In this phrase, the speaker wants to convey the phrase that by attacking the opposing team, we attack it like a cockroach since it is gentle.

22.
taklif roshan ast ‫است‬ ‫روشن‬ ‫تکلیفت‬ Your duty is clear. In the above example, the metaphor "duty" refers to "situation" Usually, it is used negatively when there no other ways for your except for one.

Conclusion
Everyday talks rely heavily on structural metaphors to aid in language comprehension and shape social interactions. They help us construct shared realities and promote knowledge transfer by allowing us to explain difficult ideas in more understandable terms. To interpret something carefully, one must be aware of cultural, contextual, and personal distinctions as well as the limitations and difficulties of using metaphorical language. As seen above, Persian speakers use different types of metaphors to show their experience of everyday conversation. Persian daily speech is known for using imagery and symbols, and animal metaphors are a significant aspect of this tradition. As the results reveal, there are different types of conceptual structural metaphors of war in the daily speech of Persian speakers of Afghanistan. This study does not contain the whole number of war metaphors in Persian daily speech and does reveal a large number of the structural metaphors of war among Persian speakers in Afghanistan. Therefore, further studies may need to be conducted on the topic. Funding: Please add: "This research received no external funding." Conflicts of Interest: "The authors declare no conflict of interest." Publisher's Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-7784