Abstract :

This study explores the polysemous nature of the English verb “consider” and its Vietnamese equivalents through the lens of Cognitive Linguistics, specifically drawing upon conceptual metaphor theory and the image schema framework. While English utilizes “consider” as a versatile “container” verb for various mental processes, Vietnamese requires a more granular lexical system that reflects specific cognitive and physical source domains. By analyzing authentic data from English – Vietnamese corpora and dictionaries, the research identifies several key metaphorical extensions: thinking is seeing (e.g., xem xét), evaluation is weighing (e.g., cân nhắc), and social orientation (e.g., đoái hoài). The findings reveal a significant cognitive divergence: whereas English emphasizes a “Rational-Linear”” model of mental labor, Vietnamese prioritizes an “Embodied-Relational” model. In Vietnamese, the act of “considering” is consistently anchored in physical experience and social harmony, moving from the pragmatic balancing of resources (liệu cơm gắp mắm) to the validation of personal worth through visual recognition (đoái hoài). The study concludes that these linguistic differences are not mere lexical curiosities but are deeply rooted in distinct cultural worldviews. These insights have practical implications for contrastive semantics, translation studies, and second language acquisition (SLA), particularly for Vietnamese learners of English who struggle with the lack of one-to-one equivalence in mental state verbs.

---

Keywords :

cognitive linguistics, Conceptual metaphor, consider, embodied cognition, English-Vietnamese contrastive analysis, polysemy.

---

References :

1. Evans, V. (2007). A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
2. (n.d.). English-Vietnamese parallel corpus. https://glosbe.com/
3. Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
4. Hoàng, P. (Ed.). (2003). Từ điển tiếng Việt. Nhà xuất bản Đà Nẵng.
5. Hoàng, V. V. (2006). Ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu. Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục.
6. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press.
7. Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
8. Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where Metaphors Come From: Recontextualizing Context in Metaphor. Oxford University Press.
9. Laban Dict. (n.d.). English-Vietnamese Dictionary. https://dict.laban.vn/
10. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
11. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.
12. Lakoff, G., & Thompson, H. (1975). Introduction to cognitive grammar. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 295-313
13. McArthur, T., & McArthur, R. (1998). Concise companion to the English language. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511621048
14. McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511981395
15. Ngô, T. P. (2016). Comparison of expression of verbal tense and aspect in English and Vietnamese (Bachelor’s thesis). Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Palackého, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
16. Nguyễn, H. T. (2012). Embodiment and meaning in Vietnamese verbs. Southeast Asian Linguistics Review, 21(3), 89-105.
17. Nguyễn, Đ. T. (2008). Ngôn ngữ học tri nhận: Từ lý thuyết đến thực tiễn. Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội.
18. Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge University Press.
19. Trần, V. C. (2007). Ngôn ngữ học tri nhận: Những nội dung cơ bản. Nhà xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội.
20. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.
21. Viberg, A. (2001). The verbs of perception. In M. Haspelmath et al. (Eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals (pp. 1294-1309). Walter de Gruyter