Visual Sovereignty over Poetics: Deconstructing the Resistance to Metaphor in the Linguistic Cognition of Boang Speakers
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research explores the cognitive structure of the Boang language in Aceh Singkil, a mother tongue which is now facing the threat of extinction due to language shift and lack of scientific documentation. In the midst of the dominance of conceptual metaphor theory which considers abstraction to be universal, Boang language actually presents an anomaly in the form of extreme attachment to physical reality. The main aim of this research is to deconstruct lexical mechanisms that indicate the speaker's empirical honesty through three main domains: vertical kinematics, control thermodynamics, and scale-based taxonomy. This study employed a qualitative ethnosemantic approach supported by the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) framework. Data were collected from native Boang speakers through observation and in-depth lexical elicitation. The analysis focused on several key lexical items, including Leneng, Milas, Hangat, and Kedek, to examine how meanings are structured and categorized within the Boang cognitive system. The findings indicate that these lexical items tend to prioritize concrete physical parameters, such as direction of movement, source of energy, and physical size, rather than subjective intentions or abstract conceptual associations. Based on these patterns, this study proposes the analytical concept of Semantic Monolithism, referring to a semantic tendency in which lexical categorization is predominantly organized around stable and directly observable physical features. Rather than suggesting a complete absence of metaphorical thinking, the findings highlight an alternative semantic orientation that emphasizes empirical categorization within the examined lexical domains. The study contributes to cognitive linguistics by providing evidence of semantic variation in an under-documented language and highlights the importance of documenting local linguistic knowledge before it is affected by ongoing language assimilation.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Daftar Pustaka
Asy Syahid, M. (2020). Etnolinguistik: Kajian teoretis dan praktis. Deepublish.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Danesi, M. (2004). Poetic logic: The role of metaphor in thought, language, and culture. University of Toronto Press.
Danesi, M. (2019). Linguistic anthropology: A brief introduction. Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2018). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315846422
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.
Geeraerts, D. (2016). The structuralist era in semantic theory. Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.
Goddard, C. (2008). Cross-linguistic semantics. John Benjamins Publishing.
Goddard, C. (2018). Ten lectures on natural semantic metalanguage: Exploring language, thought and culture. Brill.
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. Oxford University Press.
Hamzah, Z. A. Z. (2018). Bahasa dalam realiti kehidupan dan realiti kehidupan dalam bahasa. Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Haser, V. (2005). Metaphor, metonymy, and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics. Mouton de Gruyter.
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0014
Jonteng, S. E., et al. (2021). Imej perlambangan “tangan” dalam simpulan bahasa Melayu: Analisis semantik inkuisitif. Jurnal Melayu, 20(1), 45–60.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Mahsun. (2014). Metode penelitian bahasa: Tahapan strategi, metode, dan tekniknya. Rajawali Pers.
Mbete, A. M. (2010). Pedoman penelitian etnolinguistik. Universitas Udayana.
Moleong, L. J. (2017). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. University of Texas Press.
Peeters, B. (Ed.). (2006). Semantic primes and universal grammar: Empirical evidence from the Romance languages. John Benjamins Publishing.
Pinnacle, S., & Taylor, J. R. (2021). The Oxford handbook of the mental lexicon. Oxford University Press.
Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing.
Suharyanto. (2013). Leksikon ekologi Bahasa Singkil. Ranah: Jurnal Kajian Bahasa, 2(1), 44–58.
Suparsa, I. N., et al. (2009). Fonologi Bahasa Rongga: Sebuah kajian transformasi generatif. Udayana University Press.
Underhill, J. W. (2012). Ethnolinguistics and cultural concepts: Truth, love, hate and spirit. Cambridge University Press.
Wahyudi, A. (2014). Metode penelitian kebahasaan. Pustaka Pelajar.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and culture. Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2021). "Universal human concepts" and their role in intercultural communication. Oxford University Press.
Yu, N. (2009). The relationship between view of body and view of mind: A cognitive-cultural study. Mouton de Gruyter.
Zlatev, J. (2016). Cognitive semiotics: An emerging field for the transdisciplinary study of meaning. The Public Journal of Semiotics, 7(1), 1–24.