Z E S Z Y T Y N A U K O W E UNIWERSYTETU RZESZOWSKIEGO

SERIA FILOLOGICZNA
ZESZYT 47/2007 STUDIA ANGLICA RESOVIENSIA 4

Artur CZAPIGA, Grzegorz A. KLEPARSKI

TOMCAT, KOCUR AND : IN SEARCH OF

METAPHORICAL EXTENSIONS IN THE FIELD CATS IN
ENGLISH, POLISH AND RUSSIAN

The main goal set to this paper is to provide sample contrastive analysis of
metaphorical extensions pertaining to the selected constitutive members of the
semantic field CATS in English, Polish and Russian. In the scope of our interest
the following questions will be addressed:

1) to what extent do the objective facts concerning cats influence the way
people perceive them,
2) are the cultural similarities and differences of English, Polish and
Russian reflected in the linguistic material,
3) what is the linguistic picture of a cat in the three cultures represented by
the three languages taken into account here.

An attempt will be made to provide an answer to the first problem

enumerated above through analysis of the metaphorical extensions and
comparison of the results with data, gathered from various encyclopedias and
other data sources. A comparative study of a picture of the world reflected in the
animal metaphors analyzed shall be applied to resolve the second problem
enumerated above. Finally, the linguistic picture of a cat in the English, Polish
and Russian languages will be constructed on the basis of the most unequivocal
semantic features of the lexemes involved.
It should be emphasized that this survey investigates merely metaphorics of
what a user of English calls cat and a scientist relates to as Felis catus. It has
been shown on numerous occasions (see, for example, Wilkins (1981), Kietyka
(2005a, 2005), Kietyka and Kleparski (2005a, 2005b) and Kleparski (2003)),
the place the animal occupies in peoples hearts and thus in language results
in the existence of rich vocabulary applied to name it. In recent linguistic
literature, metaphorical extensions of meaning have been dealt with in extenso

51
and they still remain at the centre of interest for many students of language, both
synchronic and diachronic (see, among others, Dobrzyska (1994), Bartwicka
(1992), Kleparski (1990, 1997), Lakoff & Johnson (1980)). It is not our
intention to examine the process in detail, but rather our aim is to outline its
most significant points for this survey.
Most frequently, metaphor is viewed as principally a way of conceiving an
object in terms of another and its primary function is understanding. The pattern
of a metaphor can be described in the following manner: x is similar to y in
terms of f (see Polaski 1993:328). In the process of communication, among all
the features of y the recipient of the (spoken or written) text chooses only those
ones which can be applied to x in the particular situation, for example the storm
is similar to a beast in terms of <rapidity> and <danger>. Likewise, John may be
similar to an elephant in terms of <huge size>, therefore the storm may be
metaphorically denoted to as beast and John as elephant. As shown by a number
of recent studies, it is fairly obvious that the most clear and intelligible
metaphors are those denoting human beings, like hedgehog the one that is
regardless of others feelings or donkey a stupid, silly person.
The members of each lexicon of a natural language can be divided into
certain thematic groups. This is described in the theory of field structure
initiated by Triers (1931) concept of linguistic field known to be based on
Saussures (1916) theory of language as a synchronic system of networks held
together by differences, oppositions and distinctive values. According to Trier
(1931), fields are linguistic realities existing between single words and the total
vocabulary. They are parts of a whole and combine words of similar meaning
into higher units. A common concept characterises all semantic fields and the
semantic component common to all the members of a given field is often
referred to as the common denominator of meaning.
Notice that to a certain extent, the idea is based on folk knowledge
(Wierzbicka (1985)). The classifications are not justifiable scientifically, since
they depend on common sense knowledge and everyday experience with a
particular object than its scientific considerations. Berlin et al. (1973:214)
identify five independent and hierarchically organised ethnobiological
categories of living things:

1. unique beginner (e.g. animal, plant),

2. life form (e.g. tree, bird),
3. folk genera (e.g. dog, cat),
4. specific taxa (e.g. spaniel, Siamese cat),
5. varietal (e.g. cocker spaniel).1

1
For details see Apresjan (1974), Berlin (1992), Wierzbicka (1985), Cruse (1986), Martsa
(1999).

52
 This issue seems to be naturally related to the categories of macro- and
microfields, the first being more general (e.g. the semantic field ANIMALS
includes such lexical elements, as tiger, bird, fox, fish, cow, etc), while the latter
tends to be more restricted and more specific (e.g. the semantic field CATS,
contains cat, tomcat, kitten, etc). In short, one may say that a macrofield consists
of a certain number of microfields, however a microfield may become a
macrofield for other, more restricted (micro) fields (MAMMALS CATS,
DOGS, WHALES, etc).
So, on closer inquiry it becomes apparent that the structure of the semantic
field CATS contains similar classes of lexemes in all the languages targeted here,
that is to say the central entity (cat; kot;

), lexemes denoting young animals
of the kind (kitten, pussy; kotek, kociak;

,

, etc), the adult male
animal (tomcat, tom; kocur;
,
), and only in English and Polish the
female animal (queen;2 kocica, kotka). Notice that the Russian material does not
include the corresponding lexeme, as the main unit of the semantic field implies
the semantic feature <feminine>.3 It is easily observable that in English the lexeme
cat is epicene,4 and the metaphorical extensions seem to go in both directions
some are employed to denote a male and some to denote a female.
As mentioned before, within the scope of our interest there is the
comparison of linguistic data linked to the facts stemming from the nature of
extralinguistic reality. This naturally requires, among others, a definition of what
a cat actually is. To meet this need one may say that it is a member of the cat
family (Felines) and it is predatory by nature, it hunts by stealth and catches its
prey with sudden short bursts of speed and foot pads help cats stalk their prey in
silence. When and where the cat was first domesticated is unknown, the
probability is that various small wild felines were tamed in different parts of the
world about 5,000 years ago.5 Sanskrit writings 3,000 years old speak of the cat
as a pet in India, but it was Egypt where the cat was first domesticated. From
Egypt it spread slowly into Europe. It is not mentioned by any ancient European
writers until the first century AD. In Central Europe the cat was actually
unknown before the 13th century; in Poland it replaced the domesticated weasel
(cf. Kopaliski 1998:260).

2
Although this meaning of the lexeme queen a mature female cat kept especially for
breeding is not mentioned in all of the dictionaries analyzed for this survey; compare, for
example, LDELC, LDCE.
3

  (1998) mentions the follownig meanings of the lexeme

 1. a mammal predator
of the felinae family; 2. a domestic animal of the family; 3. female domestic cat (and metaphorical
meanings 4. 6.). But still the word can be used to denote both male and female cat.
4
To name a female cat one can use the term she-cat though no English dictionary consulted
mentions this term.
5
In comparison the dog was domesticated about 14,000 years ago. On this issue see
www.bartleby.com.

53
 Notice that the cat has long played a crucial role in religion Egyptians
deified the cat as Bast, the goddess of moonlight, fertility, wisdom, hunting, and
daylight.6 From the Middle Ages onward the cat has been associated with
sorcery and witchcraft, and the superstitions regarding cats, common in all
countries, are innumerable. Persecutions often took extremely vicious forms,
and throughout the ages cats have been more cruelly treated than any other
animal.7 The spirit of independence, attributable to the solitary nature of the
cats wild ancestors, has remained with the cat through all of its period of
domestication. Other characteristic features of cats are:

1) purring a low continuous humming sound associated with pleasure or

contentment,
2) a playful nature, keen sight and hearing,
3) the ability to land on their feet when they fall or are dropped.

An interesting observation that may be made is that the descriptions of cats

in Egyptian times sound amazingly similar to our modern treatment, with the
fortunate exception of punishment by death for anyone killing a cat. The
following Figure 1 presents all the analyzed lexemes from the field CATS in
English, Polish and Russian.8

English Polish Russian

cat kot


kitten kotek


kitty kociak


pussy koci
puss
tomcat kocur

tom

queen kocica
kotka

Figure 1. CATS data from English, Polish and Russian.

6
Egyptians used the same word mau to denote both cat and light (see Bayley 1996: 225).
7
Cats were persecuted possibly because they were associated with the old religion, pre-
Christian polytheism and animism, and therefore with witchcraft. Cats were often solemnly put on
trial, tortured and then burned alive. Public celebrations were often climaxed by the public burning
of closed baskets full of cats. To ensure good luck, it was a custom to seal cats alive in the
foundations of buildings (Kopaliski, Britannica, Americana). With the 20th century cats regained
their position as creatures of affection, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, where it is catered for
by a well-developed cat industry and Cat Clubs.
8
The analysed material has been checked in English, Polish and Russian dictionaries, both
printed and electronic editions.

54
 It is fairly obvious that our folk understanding of what animals are like is
basically metaphorical. Lakoff and Turner (1989: 194) argue that:
Animals act instinctively, and different kinds of animals have different kinds of instinctive
behavior. We comprehend their behavior in terms of human behavior, and we use the language of
human character traits to describe such behavior. Cleverness, loyalty, courage, rudeness,
dependability, and fickleness are human traits, and when we attribute such character traits to
animals we are comprehending the behavior of those animals metaphorically in human terms.

English Polish Russian

cat kot
- a malicious woman - a young soldier
- a player or devotee to
jazz
- a regular guy; fellow,
man
pussy kotek
- the female partner in - form of address for
sexual intercourse somebody you like
- an insulting word for a kociak
man who is weak or not - tenderly about a nice
brave woman
- a person who lives in
anothers house as an
inmate
puss
- a girl or woman
kitten
- a young girl, usually as a
form of address


- a greedy lover of sweets
- a man, who lives on
womens account, a
libertine
kotka
- a young, nice woman, girl
kocica
- a woman whose behavior
provokes men

Figure 2. Metaphorical extensions in the field CATS.

Recent research studies such as, for example Wilkins (1981), Kietyka and
Kleparski (2005a, 2005b and forthcoming), Kleparski (1997, 2002) indicate that

55
most animal metaphors are targeted at the conceptual domain HUMAN BEING.
Therefore, our material has been divided into two groups metaphors that are
applied with reference to human beings classed into one category and another
group of miscellaneous metaphorical extensions.
As a result of our inquiry relating to animal metaphors affecting the domain
HUMAN BEING, it has been found that the metaphorical productivity of this
field differs greatly in the three languages compared. And so, in English four
lexemes seem to be metaphorically productive, yielding altogether 8 metaphors
denoting human beings, in Polish the numbers are 5 and 5 while in Russian the
numbers are 1 and 2 accordingly. The direction of the semantic changes enables
us to formulate some partial conclusions. And so, in English there is apparently
no clear pattern common to all or to the majority of meanings, whereas in Polish
two metaphors activate almost the same semantic properties (kotek, kotka),
whilst the third (kociak) is still very close to them. The meaning of kocica, one
may say, is also closely connected to the meaning of the lexeme kociak.

English Polish Russian

cat kot



- a strong tackle used to - (in plural) dust - a whip of several knotted
hoist an anchor to the - (hunters slang) a rabbit cords fastened to a handle,
cathead of the ship - a small anchor, used on used formely for punishing
boats or for retrieving people
small objects from - a hook with three or more
underwater arms, used on boats or for
retrieving small objects
from underwater
- a kind of metal tooth,
attached to shoes in
rockclimbing
pussy kotek


- a catkin of the pussy - (naut.) part of nautical - a bunny
willow equipment, preserving sail
- the female pudendum from tearing
- sexual intercourse
- (austral.) a rabbit
- (criminals slang) a fur
garment
kotka
- (usually plural) catkin

Figure 3. Metaphorical extensions of CATS-related terms to other domains.

56
 The general rule is that only the central unit of the semantic field
activates semantic properties clearly different from those, characterising
lexemes mentioned above. It is fairly obvious that the Russian material is
too limited to allow us to formulate any generalizations. Apart from this,
notice that animal metaphors are not merely used with reference to human
beings, but also other domains. Figure 3 (above) presents metaphorical
extensions of this type.
As visualised in Figure 3, both the productivity and directions of
metaphorical changes pertaining to non-human associations show higher degree
of similarity than in the previous group. Although some meanings are specific
for one language only, there are several meaning threads that seem to originate
from the same or very similar metaphorical uses (compare: a rabbit, a catkin,
a whip, nautical equipment).
Also, in the analyzed material one observes a certain number of
metaphorical extensions of verbs linked to the semantic field CATS. It seems
that some revealing conclusions can be drawn from closer analysis of such
such English verbs as to cat to vomit, to tomcat to pursue women for sexual
gratification, to puss to move or act like a cat, silently, to cat/cat around to
search for a sexual mate. It turns out that in all groups of metaphorical
extensions in English the most common semantic feature is connected with
sex, whereas in Polish and Russian this semantic feature is activated only in
two cases, that is kocica and
, nice being the most popular in Polish.
It is fairly evident that some of the semantic features activated are based
merely on a subjective perception of the world. It dos not really matter that
contemporary science refuses the courage of a lion, the slyness of a fox or the
stubborness of a donkey, and it is of no importance that users of a language
realise this fact because those features have become symbolic and have
participated in a number of metaphorical processes. In contrast to objective
characteristics, like the size or colour, the features mentioned above are typical
for a given culture group. Their coexistance in two or more languages is a sign
of a common ancestry of these nations, or interactions between these cultures.
To conclude, one may say that the more similarities, the closer the relationship
of investigated groups.
It seems that the present survey allows us to draw some other partial
conclusions. An attempt has been made to show that the three languages under
investigation reveal certain common characteristics, at least this can be
evidenced on the basis of the metaphorical extensions denoting non-humans.
The influence of cats on peoples minds and languages appears to be the
strongest in English, similarly in Polish while it seems to be much weaker in
Russian. This can be proved by the metaphorical productivity of the field in
question. Not only the number of metaphorical extensions, but also the
appearance of similar semantic features in the semantic structure of figurative

57
meanings seem to place Polish culture closer to English than to Russian. It
seems that the explanation of this state of affairs should be sought for in the
history of the cats conquest of Europe rather than in the history of these three
cultures.
In the case of most of the metaphorical uses of the lexemes investigated here
a clear motivation of such processes can be traced. Let us consider the example
of English cat applied to name a player or a devotee of jazz music which has
probably been derived from the songs of male cats in mating time. Note that
traces of this can also be found in the Polish phrase kocia muzyka used to name
unpleasant sounds. Metaphorical extensions based on the semantic features
nice, playful (like in cases of puss, kitten, kotek or kociak) reflect the cats
predisposition to play, to fawn or soft fur, pleasant to touch. Yet, there remain
several metaphorical meanings that are based on features subjectively attached
to cats.
And, finally, we seem to enter the world of symbols. As Merriam-
Websters Dictionary informs us, cat is a symbol of the female sexual organs,
thus in English we observe the metaphorical meaning of pussy vulva,9 and
probably derived from it the word denoting the female partner in
(homo)sexual intercourse. Apart from this, English cat is also an insulting
word for a man who is weak and not brave, a homosexual. On the other hand,
Polish material shows that cats also play a very important role in sailors
superstitions (see Kopaliski 1990), which might provide some explanation
for nautical metaphors of cat; kot, kotek,

 in the three languages. There
are also quite a few nautical terms, that is collocations with the lexeme cat,
like cat-boat a small masted boat, catwalk the narrow walk-way on a ship
or cat onine tails whippings.
To a large extent, how exactly is the cat perceived in each individual culture
can be clearly seen from the linguistic picture of the world. One may say that the
most frequently activated semantic features and those concerning the strongest
feelings and emotions create a set of characteristics attributed to the cat in a
given society. In English cat is associated with women, usually in terms of
sexuality, a sexual intercourse and the female sexual organs. The semantic
feature <furry>, and thus <attractive>, is also frequently triggered. In Polish the
most powerful associations are <pleasant> and <female>. They usually produce
positive emotions and sometimes association linked to sensuality. On the
contrary, in Russian culture the animal is seen as lazy, greedy and abusive
creature, also a keen climber.

9
Interesting to note, Gnostics claim that a cat is the same in comparison with the dog, as
womens character (tenderness, cunningness, sensuality) in comparison with mens. The unusual
womens fear of small and harmless mice they explain through symbols: cat vulva, mouse
penis (cf. Kopaliski 1990).

58
 References

Dictionaries
Bako, M. (ed.). 2000. Inny sownik j zyka polskiego. Vol.1. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN.
Bayley, H. 1996. The Lost Language of Symbolism. Vol.1. The Origins of Symbols, Mythologies
and Folklore. London: Bracken Books.
Doroszewski, W. (ed.). 19641968. Sownik j zyka polskiego. Vol. 3. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe PWN.
a, . . (P.). 19811984.   
 
. Vol.2.  :  .
Gove, P.B. (Corporate Author), Merriam-Webster (ed.). Webster's Third New International
Dictionary. (www.m-w.com).
Murray, et al. (eds). 1971. The Oxford English Dictionary. (Vol. 1, 2). Oxford. (CD-ROM
edition).
, .., . .. 1998. 
   
 
.  :
 .
Polaski, K. (ed.). 1993. Encyklopedia j zykoznawstwa oglnego. Wrocaw: Ossolineum.
, . . (P.). 1998. 
 
  .  . (www.slovari.ru)
, .. (P.). 2001. 
    
 
. 


  .  :  ! " !.
Summers, E. (ed.). 1995. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Barcelona: Longman.
Summers, E. (ed.). 1992. Longman Doctionary of English Languae and Culture. Barcelona:
Longman.
Szymczak, M. (ed.). Sownik j zyka polskiego. 19781981 Warszawa. (www.pwn.pl).

Other works
Apresjan, J.D. 1967. Eksperimentalnoe issledovanie semantiki russkogo glagola. Moskva:
 .
Bartwicka, H. 1992 Metafory zwierz ce w j zyku polskim i rosyjskim [in:] Lexicographica
Slavica, Toru.
Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove and P.H. Raven. 1973. General Principles of Classification and
Nomenclature in Folk Biology [in:] American Anthropologist 75.
Berlin, B. 1992. Etnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and
Animals in Traditional Societes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cruse, D.A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dobrzyska, T. 1994. Mwi!c przeno"nie. Warszawa: IBL.
Kietyka, R. 2005a. The axiological-cognitive analysis of the evaluative developments in the
domain of EQUIDAE: A pilot study [in:] Studia Anglica Resoviensia 3, 5975.
Kietyka, R. 2005b. Zoosemic terms denoting FEMALE HUMAN BEINGS: Semantic derogation
of women revisited [in:] Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 41, 167186.
Kietyka, R. and G.A. Kleparski. 2005a. The scope of English zoosemy: The case of
DOMESTICATED ANIMALS [in:] Studia Anglica Resoviensia 3, 7687.
Kietyka, R. and G.A. Kleparski. 2005b. The ups and downs of the Great Chain of Being: The
case of canine zoosemy in the history of English [in:] SKASE Journal of Theoretical
Linguistics 2, 2241.
Kietyka, R. and G.A. Kleparski. (forthcoming) On cognitively motivated semantic change: The
case of Middle English and Early Modern English canine zoosemy. To appear [in:] P.

59
 Stalmaszczyk (ed.), PASE PAPERS. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Polish
Association for the Study of English. d#, 47 April 2005.
Kleparski, G.A. 1990. Semantic Change in English: A Study of Evaluative Developments in the
Domain of HUMANS. Lublin.
Kleparski, G.A. 1997. The Theory and Practice of Historical Semantics: The Case of Mid.E. and
E.Mod.E. Synonyms of GIRL/YOUNG WOMAN. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL.
Kleparski, G.A. 2002. Lusta mint a diszno: A hunt for correlative zoosemy in Hungarian and
English [in:] Studia Anglica Resoviensia 1. pp. 932.
Kopaliski, W. 1998. Opowie"ci o rzeczach powszednich. Warszawa: Rytm.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and M. Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Martsa, S. 1999. On Exploring the Conceptual Structure of Folk Knowledge. The Case of Animal
Terms [in:] Linguistica e Filologia, Estrato 9. Bergamo.
Polaski, K. (ed.) 1993. Encyklopedia j zykoznawstwa oglnego. Wrocaw: Ossolineum.
Saussure de, F. 2002. Kurs j zykoznawstwa oglnego. (transl.) K. Kasprzyk. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Trier, J. 1931. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Bezirk des Verstandes. Die Geschichte eines
Sprachlichten Feldes. Heidelberg.
Wierzbicka, A. 1985. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Wilkins, D.P. 1981. Towards A Theory of Semantic Change. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ann Arbour
University.

60