Creative metaphor in three creation myths
Introduction
In this essay I will analyse the creative use of metaphor in three creation myths: Japanese, Chinese and Australian aboriginal creation myths. Before going into the detailed analysis of each creation myth, I will first consider the most appropriate framework by outlining the concept of cognitive metaphor and its uses. I will also draw on historical and cultural background information of each creation myth to provide the context for my analysis. I will then employ the chosen framework to analyse the three creation myths and draw particular attention to the interplay of metaphor and language creativity. Finally, I will evaluate the effectiveness of the chosen framework by considering how far it enables me to interpret creation mythology in context.
Cognitive metaphor theory
Traditional approaches have regarded metaphor mainly as a rhetorical or artistic figure of speech (Johnson, 1989). Cognitive metaphor theory coming more recently has recognised metaphor as a persistent trait in human thoughts. It is based on the foundation that metaphor is not limited to literary texts but is a pervasive feature in all language uses (Jeffries and McIntyre, 2010). Lakoff, Johnson and Turner were the forerunners in establishing cognitive metaphor theory (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Turner, 1987; Lakoff and Turner, 1989). In the classic work Metaphor We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue that metaphor is not merely a matter of language but also a feature of thought. They point that metaphor is the way of seeing and saying the world since we all ‘habitually understand one thing in terms of another’ (Swann, 2006:15). They have developed the notion of conceptualised metaphor and specified it into three prominent types which are conduit, orientational and ontological metaphors.
Johnson (1987) brought a novel insight into cognitive metaphor theory by employing the concept of image schemata. He believes that the bodily experience is the basis of meaning, imagination and reason. The image schema, according to him, is not an image but a method to structure particular experiences schematically, for the purpose of providing order and connectedness to our perceptions and conceptions. Focusing on the metaphorical elaboration of BALANCE schemata, he argues that ‘the recognition of a dimension of metaphorical projection based on image schemata’ is the key to observe creativity (ibid: 98). In addition, Lakoff and Turner (1989) also argue that routine and habitual bodily and social experiences, as forms of life, play a crucial part in our metaphorical understanding of concepts. Furthermore, Lakoff (1993) addresses the significance of the non-metaphorical element of our conceptual system though much of it is metaphorical since metaphorical interpretation is necessarily based on non-metaphorical understanding. He also briefly points out that cultural issues seem to be relevant to metaphorical understanding, as some of the metaphorical mappings are universal, some are widespread and some are culture specific.
Cognitive metaphor theory forcefully demonstrates the cognitive power in the use of metaphorical language. However, this framework has not been free from criticisms. Scholars researching metaphor at work have noted some fundamental questions for it. As Cameron (2006) suggests, Lakoff and Johnson’s work is somewhat generalised across a discourse community and fails to explain the connection between conceptual metaphors and individual minds. Moreover, the significance of the role of culture in the progress of conceptual metaphor is largely neglected (Gibbs, 1999). This framework seems to be ethnocentric ignoring cross-cultural differences. Gibbs further explains that ‘embodied metaphor arises not from within the body alone, and is then represented in the minds of individuals, but emerges from bodily interactions that are to a large extent defined by the cultural world’ (1999: 155). Furthermore, Yu (2008) argues that while the body serves as a source for emerging metaphors, culture functions as a ‘filter’ for emerging metaphors, namely ‘metaphors are grounded in bodily experience but shaped by cultural understanding’ (2008:247).

Creation myths, metaphor and creativity
Sternberg (1999) argues that, creative work is both novel (i.e. original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. adaptive concerning task constraints) (1999:3). Accordingly, language creativity should be seen as including both textual artistry and also the ways in which people use (oral/written) language creatively to understand their physical environment and construct the idea of creation, namely creating through metaphor.
Pope (2005) describes the relation between metaphor and creation myth as follows:
A grasp of the essentially metaphorical nature of language is especially necessary with creation stories. They bring worlds into being through narrative and dramatic means, so they are themselves highly charged acts of wor(l)d-creation. What’s more, they are dealing with matters that can only be realised metaphorically, by talking of one thing in terms of another. (P.139)
It can be seen that metaphor plays a quite central and routine role in the process of constructing creation myth, which is the starting point of wor(l)d creation. All language after creation myth is therefore, fundamentally metaphorical. Physical setting/environment provides resources of imagery and comparison. Metaphor enables our ancestors to understand a far more abstract and also inherently unstructured subject matter (i.e. creation) in terms of some more concrete or previously structured matters (e.g. egg hatching).
Metaphor is undoubtedly a crucial aspect of linguistic creativity (Simpson, 2004). It allows ‘poetic imagination’ and ‘rhetorical flourish’ in language use, which can be considered as extraordinary rather than ordinary (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Moreover, Carter (2004) argues that metaphor as an exceptional property of all people is often the base of creative invention in language. The use of metaphor reflects the myth teller’s thinking process. It is a form of creativity which helps to explain or communicate the idea of creation. Data description
The three creation myths (see appendixes A-C) are selected from different cultural communities in order to gain a broader understanding of the use of conceptual metaphor in creation mythology and also to provide space for potential comparisons. The Japanese creation myth is from the website Meta-religion; the Chinese creation myth is a popular legend derived from A Dictionary of Creation Myths (Leeming and Leeming, 1994); the Australian aboriginal creation is the Dreamtime from the website Magic Tails. My analysis will follow the flow of each text. Conceptual metaphors will be conventionally written in small capitals, as in LIFE IS A DEBT.

Results and discussion
Japanese creation myth
There is a common theme amongst various creation myths around the world: before existence comes into being, there is chaos. The creative process behind expressing how this chaos is dispelled or given order will reveal the believed ‘intentions’ of the creator(s). The belief in this entity dictates the ideals and values of different cultural communities. The ‘chaos’ of this particular creation myth is described to be in the form of an ocean. The imagery of water is a creative linguistic device which communicates the lack of physical solidity and draws parallels with the absence of feasible objects, structures and existence.
In Japanese creation myth where ‘Izanami gave birth to the eight islands of Japan’ and ‘began to give birth to the God…’ the conceptual idea CREATION IS BIRTH is salient. The birth of a child as a metaphorical account can be argued as a ‘microcosmic representation of creation’ (Leeming and Leeming, 1994). The BIRTH AS CREATION metaphor is also observed in Chinese creation myth which will be discussed later.
The idolized creator(s) of an ancient culture can be regarded to embody the culture’s ultimate ideals. When exploring this thought, the gender of the god(s) will undoubtedly give a strong impression on a society’s standards towards men and women. The effect of this theory should also be considered when the god is genderless. The Japanese creation myth is championed by a goddess (Izanami) and god (Izanagi) whom are said to ‘curdle’ this chaotic ocean using a jewelled spear to create ‘the first island’. The ancient Japanese people used the conceptual metaphor of curdling to explain the abstract idea of creation and how the formlessness of chaos is given solidity (existence) through the actions of the deities as much as how a liquid (e.g. milk) can be curdled into solid form (e.g. cheese).
The instrument that the deities used to ‘stir’ the ocean was a jewelled spear. The spear is a conceptual metaphor IDEAS AND MEANINGS ARE OBJECTS (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980) for conveying the unquestionable strength, prestige, and union of the two gods. A further metaphorical implication of this weapon is the use of power to subdue and even pierce chaos. Characteristically, the length of the weapon is far-reaching which creatively alludes to the omnipotence of the deities.
‘They built a house on this island, with a central stone pillar that is the backbone of the world. Izanami walked one way around the pillar, and Izanagi walked the other. When they met face to face, they united in marriage’. Drawing parallels to human beings’ bodily experience, the metaphor ‘backbone of the world’ conveys the absolute dependence of the world’s stability of this pillar. Also, the ritualistic nature of the two gods when forming a union/marriage contributions to the reverence of ‘ritual’ in traditional Japanese society. Additionally, their firstborn later became God of fishermen, which can possibly echo the value of fish in Japanese cuisine.
Noticeably, Lakoff (1993) suggests that there is a conceptual mapping ‘EXTERNAL EVENTS ARE LARGE MOVING OBJECTS that can exert a force on you and thereby affect whether you achieve your goals’ (1993:242). It can be observed that in this mythology, Izanami gave birth to Gods of the sea, the land, wind, rain and fire ‘who would fashion and rule the world’. The list seems random, but these are all huge ‘moving objects’ that can ‘exert a force’ on human beings, such as tsunami, earthquake and flooding. For this reason, these gods should really be seen as gods of the external events.

Chinese creation myth
The huge egg containing Phan Ku is a conceptual metaphor for an inevitable birth which is created from disorder/chaos. This is a natural process of creation. When primitive people saw eggs hatching and the ‘birth’ of baby chicks, they naturally made a comparison with the process of creation. This conceptual metaphor contains a target domain to be described, which is the understanding of birth/creation, and a source domain, which is the huge egg. This metaphor uses ‘birth’ to communicate the emergence of life. When interpreting this metaphor, we can easily map concepts from the source domain onto the target domain, since the image-schema structure of the source domain can be projected onto the target domain. This kind of mapping, as Lakoff (1993) suggests, is not arbitrary but grounded in the body or in everyday experience and knowledge.
Phan Ku is the personified force which leads the creation process to occur. He ‘carved out’ mountains, valleys, rivers, and oceans using a great chisel and giant mallet; this illustrates the belief that there were both intelligence and intention behind creation. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue that personifying physical objects seems to be the most obvious ontological metaphor. By this means, we are able to ‘comprehend a wide variety of experiences with nonhuman entities in terms of human motivations, characteristics, and activities (1980:33)’. Therefore, ancient Chinese were able to make sense of natural/non-human phenomena (mountains, valleys, rivers and oceans) in human terms, on the basis of Phan Ku’s motivation, goal, action and strength. Furthermore, it is worth noticing that geographical features provide a significant source in selecting which OBJECT is to be created or re-created. This is probably why ‘islands’ are core OBJECTS in Japanese creation but are absent from Chinese creation. By contrast, Phan Ku’s body in some versions of Chinese creation myth is believed to become the five great mountains of China, which highlights the influence of inland geographical feature on the creation of OBJECT.
The construction of the notion ‘yin-yang – female-male, passive-active, cold-heat, dark-light, and wet-dry’ is sharply delineated by some of the central concepts in terms of which our bodies function – UP-DOWN, IN-OUT, FRONT-BACK, LIGHT-DARK, WARM-COLD, MALE-FEMALE etc. (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:57). Another prominent example is in:
‘When Phan Ku finally died, his skull became the top of the sky, his breath the wind, his voice thunder, his legs and arms the four directs, his flesh the soil, his blood the rivers…’
Here, the italic parts provide evidence for both orientational and ontological metaphors. By experiencing the world, through sight and touch, human beings can develop concepts such as OBJECT and SUBSTANCE. When experiencing ourselves as being made up of various body parts (substances) – e.g. skull, legs, arms, flesh, blood, we construct the external world (object) as being made up of different kinds of substances also – e.g. the sky, soil, and rivers. Moreover, the abstract sense of direction is metaphorically communicated through concrete OBJECTs such as legs and arms.
In the line ‘Each day for 18,000 years Phan Ku grew ten feet between the sky, which was raised ten feet, and the earth, which grew by ten feet’, the growing metaphor demonstrates a feeling of development and mathematical expansion during the course of creation. The unusual use of measurements in creation mythology reflects the understanding that mathematics plays a fundamental role in the make-up of reality in ancient Chinese culture.
Interestingly, the presence of ‘actual’ numbers such as ’18,000 years’, ’90,000 li’ and ’30,000 miles’ seems to provide non-metaphorical elements to reinforce the creation account. Their use of mathematical measurements attempts to marry religion and reality to the ancient people of China, which deviates from what is schematically expected from creation myths. The lack of total metaphor(s) in this creation myth can therefore be argued as a form of creativity.

Australian aboriginal: The Dreamtime
Poetic thought shares the same mechanisms with everyday thought, but by means of extending, elaborating and combing, it goes beyond the ordinary (Lakoff and Turner, 1989). In this creation myth, the ordinary conceptual metaphor THE STATE OF PRE-CREATION IS SLEEP is extended by including the possibility of dreaming, which leads to the creation.
The geological environment of the aboriginals of Australia is a flatland plain. As their creation myth begins, ‘The earth was a bare plain’, ‘plain’ is a reflection of their place of dwelling. It can be argued that this clause is a conceptual metaphor that Australian aboriginals used to express the origin of their cultural identity and to‘re-create’ the landscape. Their lives have begun here so they naturally associated time to begin from where they originated also.
The creation myth continues that ‘The sun, moon and the stars slept…until at last, they woke themselves out of their own eternity’. The metaphor ‘to sleep’ is different from the conventional use of DEATH IS SLEEP because the re-creation is personified as already ‘living’ through the development of having a dormant state then later awakening. The significance of achieving consciousness after sleep parallels the realization of existence from what began as nothingness. In essence the vague concept of creation is expressed in recognizable and concrete terminology.
‘When the eternal ancestors in the Dreamtime wandered the earth, sometimes in animal form…sometimes in human shape…sometimes as part human and plant.’ The animal forms and animal hybrid forms of the ancestors (i.e. kangaroos, or emus, or lizards and even the plant forms) are richly expressive of the ecology that the aboriginals shared within their natural environment as a highly hunter/gatherer society.
In the line ‘Two of the eternal ancestors, self-created out of nothing…’, the use ‘OUT of nothing’ is a container metaphor. As physical beings, humans are bounded and set off from the world outside. ‘Each of us is a container, with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:29)’. When experiencing the outside world, we project this ‘in-out orientation’ onto other OBJECTS. However, the boundaries of this container (‘nothing’) are blurred just as the state of nothingness, which alludes to the name of the creation myth: Dreamtime. The blurring of dreams and reality as given orally by the teller can aid to give a spiritual experience. Also, the use ‘stone knives’ by the eternal ancestors reflects the aspect of the use of craftsmanship in Australian aboriginal culture.
‘…every man and woman…owes allegiance to the totem of the animal or the plant…’ The word ‘owes’ suggests the underlying conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A DEBT. This also gives the impression that loyalty is highly regarded within tribe structure. The values of respect towards the ecology that they share within nature are also communicated in a relatively explicit sense.
‘…the ancestors went back to sleep.’ This is a traveling metaphor with the underlying perception LIFE IS JOURNEY. In the end, ‘the Dreamtime can come again’ as a cyclic phenomena nods to the eternal and recurring nature of life.

Overall discussion
One of the primary purposes of creation myth is to provide an understanding of the ‘truth’ of creation. However, ‘fully objective’, ‘unconditional’, or ‘absolute’ truth is non-existing since human beings rely on a conceptual system which is naturally metaphorical (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Instead, myths offer ways of comprehending experiences and they are necessary for giving order to our lives (ibid).
Mythology reflects the thinking of ancient human beings. The creation myth is their point of view on the ‘beginning’ of the world. Due to the lack of scientific knowledge and technologies, primitive men were only able to give expressions of ‘truth’ by using metaphor driven by cognitive force. They understood the universe by making images of and comparisons with the limit of their image schemata. By means of metaphor thinking, they formed their distinctive concepts of creation. Metaphor is thus not merely an ‘ornamental’ feature of language, but a ‘fundamental scheme by which people conceptualize the world and their own activity’ (Gibbs, 2008).

Limitations
Nevertheless, although my analysis rooted in the framework of cognitive metaphor leads to this interpretation of the three myths, it is undoubted that the framework has some weaknesses. One example is the ambiguity behind the elaboration of the metaphors. In fact, it is the reader rather than the writer elaborating the schema and extending the metaphor in the process of interpretation. Therefore some of the explanations can be overly subjective or culturally biased. This reader-centred approach also gives rise to the issues in defining creativity ownership (writer or reader?).
In addition, the cognitive approach does not help me to decipher a clear understanding of the issue gender in creation mythology. For example, both female and male Gods are presented in the Japanese creation myth while in the Chinese account there is only a male creator – Phan Ku. I can surely assert that there is explicit intentionality behind the bias. The use of Lakoff and Johnson’s framework in this example is not particularly effective for giving me a concrete understanding of the reason for that bias.

Conclusion
This paper has discussed the creative use of metaphor in Japanese, Chinese and Australian aboriginal creation myths. Each has its own thoughts to express and each has its own metaphorical ways of perceiving and conceptualising the world. From a holistic perspective, each creation myth is a metaphorical or symbolical account and has a source and a target domain to be mapped. If all creation myths are strictly re-creation myths, as Pope (2005) suggests, then the use of metaphor is decisive in the process of re-telling or re-presentation. Creative metaphors allow fantastical ideas to be communicated and offer aesthetic forms as well as social functions to re-creation mythologies. They also highlight and give order to certain aspects of ancient people’s experience.
These examples show that the metaphorical concepts allow ancient people to communicate a particular understanding of the creation of the world in their cultural groups. As observed repeatedly, the resources of metaphor, in Pope’ words, are ‘crucial – not incidental – to the processes of myth-making’ (Pope 2005:139). People create metaphors through interacting with physical and cultural environments. Metaphors can therefore be used to creatively shape and reinforce cultural identity across different groups.

References
Cameron, L (2006). ‘Metaphor in everyday language’ in J. Maybin and J. Swann (eds.) The Art of English: Everyday Creativity (pp.46-53). Buckingham: The Open University.

Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.

Gibbs, R. W. (1999). ‘Taking metaphor out of our hands and putting it into the cultural world’ in R. Gibbs & G. Steen (eds.) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 145-166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gibbs, R. W. (2008). ‘Metaphor and thought: The state of the art’ in R. Gibbs (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp.3-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jeffries, L. and McIntyre, D. (2010). Stylistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G and Johnson, M (1980). Metaphor We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G and Turner, M (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to the Poetic Metaphor. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff. G. (1993). ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’ in A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. (pp.202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leeming, D. A and Leeming, M. A. (1994). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simpson, P. (2004). Stylistics: a resource book for students. London: Routledge.

Sternberg, R. J. (ed.) (1999) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swann, J. (2006). ‘Metaphor and Cognition’ in J. Maybin and J. Swann (eds.) The Art of English: Everyday Creativity (pp.14-21). Buckingham: The Open University.
Yu, N. (2008). ‘Metaphor from body and culture’ in R. Gibbs (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp.247-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Links to creations myths

Japanese creation http://meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Asia/japanese_creation_myth.htm#.UPSaTuQj6So [14th, January, 2013]

Chinese creation: A Dictionary of Creation Myths (Leeming and Leeming, 1994) http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195102758.001.0001/acref-9780195102758 Australian Aboriginal: The Dreamtime http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/miranda.htm#AUS [14th, January, 2013].

Appendix A: Japanese Creation Myth
In the beginning, heaven and earth were not divided. Then, from the ocean of chaos, a reed arose, and that was the eternal land ruler, Kunitokotatchi.
Then came the female God, Izanami, and the male, Izanagi. They stood on the floating bridge of heaven and stirred the ocean with a jewelled spear until it curdled, and so created the first island, Onokoro. They built a house on this island, with a central stone pillar that is the backbone of the world. Izanami walked one way around the pillar, and Izanagi walked the other. When they met face to face, they united in marriage.
Their first child was named Hiruko, but he did not thrive, so when he was three, they placed him in a reed boat and set him adrift, he became Ebisu, God of fishermen.
Then Izanami gave birth to the eight islands of Japan. And finally Izanami began to give birth to the Gods who would fashion and rule the world -- Gods of the sea and Gods of the land, Gods of wind and rain. But when Izanami gave birth to the God of fire, she was badly burned and died.

Appendix B: Chinese Creation Myth
In the beginning was a huge egg containing chaos, a mixture of yin‐yang—female‐male, passive‐active, cold‐heat, dark‐light, and wet‐dry. Within this yin‐yang was Phan Ku, that which was not yet anything but which broke forth from the egg as the giant who separated chaos into the many opposites, including earth and sky. Each day for 18,000 years Phan Ku grew ten feet between the sky, which was raised ten feet, and the earth, which grew by ten feet. So it is that heaven and earth are now separated by 90,000 li, or 30,000 miles.
Phan Ku was covered with hair; horns sprang from his head and tusks from his mouth. With a great chisel and a huge mallet, he carved out the mountains, valleys, rivers, and oceans. During his 18,000 years he also made the sun, moon, and stars. He taught the people what they know. All was suffused by the great primal principles of the original chaos, yin and yang.
When Phan Ku finally died, his skull became the top of the sky, his breath the wind, his voice thunder, his legs and arms the four directions, his flesh the soil, his blood the rivers, and so forth. The people say that the fleas in his hair became human beings. Everything that is is Phan Ku, and everything that Phan Ku is is yin‐yang. With Phan Ku's death a vacuum was created, and within this vacuum pain and sin were able to flourish.

Appendix C: Australian Aboriginal: The Dreamtime
In the beginning the earth was a bare plain. All was dark. There was no life, no death. The sun, the moon, and the stars slept beneath the earth. All the eternal ancestors slept there, too, until at last they woke themselves out of their own eternity and broke through to the surface.
When the eternal ancestors arose, in the Dreamtime, they wandered the earth, sometimes in animal form -- as kangaroos, or emus, or lizards -- sometimes in human shape, sometimes part animal and human, sometimes as part human and plant.
Two such beings, self-created out of nothing, were the Ungambikula. Wandering the world, they found half-made human beings. They were made of animals and plants, but were shapeless bundles, lying higgledy-piggledy, near where water holes and salt lakes could be created. The people were all doubled over into balls, vague and unfinished, without limbs or features.
With their great stone knives, the Ungambikula carved heads, bodies, legs, and arms out of the bundles. They made the faces, and the hands and feet. At last the human beings were finished.
Thus every man and woman was transformed from nature and owes allegiance to the totem of the animal or the plant that made the bundle they were created from -- such as the plum tree, the grass seed, the large and small lizards, the parakeet, or the rat.
This work done, the ancestors went back to sleep. Some of them returned to underground homes, others became rocks and trees. The trails the ancestors walked in the Dreamtime are holy trails. Everywhere the ancestors went, they left sacred traces of their presence -- a rock, a waterhole, a tree.
For the Dreamtime does not merely lie in the distant past, the Dreamtime is the eternal Now. Between heartbeat and heartbeat, the Dreamtime can come again.