Variation in Metonymy

Cross-linguistic, Historical and Lectal Perspectives

Weiwei Zhang

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9783110453522
• eBook ISBN:
  9783110453652
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

The monograph presents new findings and perspectives in the study of variation in metonymy, both theoretical and methodological. Theoretically, it sheds light on metonymy from an onomasiological perspective, which helps to discover the different conceptual or lexical "pathways" through which a concept or a group of concepts has been designated by going back to the source concepts. In addition, it broadens the perspective of Cognitive Linguistics research on metonymy by looking into how metonymic conceptualization and usage may vary along various dimensions. Three case studies explore significant variation in metonymy across different languages, time periods, genres and social lects. Methodologically, the monograph responds to the call in Cognitive Linguistics to adopt usage-based empirical methodologies. The case studies show that quantification and statistical techniques constitute essential parts of an empirical analysis based on corpus data. The empirical findings demonstrate the essential need to extend research on metonymy in a variationist Cognitive Linguistics direction by studying metonymy's cultural, historical and social-lectal variation.

Part One: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARY

Overview of the theoretical framework

Chapter 1 begins with a review of Conceptual Metonymy Theory, in which major issues in CL metonymy research will be introduced and the working definition and typology of metonymy in the present study will be given. Subsequently, three main perspectives in the previous research on variation in metonymy are reviewed. A summary of previous metonymy research from both semasiological and onomasiological perspectives is then given. Next, the methodological state of the art in contemporary metonymy studies and the advantages and drawbacks of various methods are discussed. Following on from the literature review, the research gaps that remain to be filled will be identified.

Chapter 2 focuses on the demarcation and identification of metonymies in linguistic expressions, especially in Chinese composite expressions. This chapter first compares three different models for analyzing figurative composite expressions, because we need a reliable way to identify metonymic mappings in expressions in the case studies. The prismatic model is then chosen for the present case, and several criteria for identifying metonymic mappings in Chinese expressions will be discussed.

In brief, Part One situates the present book in the broader context of conceptual metonymy research, and explains how the research questions formulated in the Introduction were inspired by previous metonymy studies.

1Demarcation and variability of metonymy

This chapter gives an overview of metonymy research in CL from both theoretical and methodological perspectives. The main aim of this book is to open up an important but underexplored territory in contemporary metonymy studies, namely, how metonymy differs in various dimensions. The chapter clarifies a number of issues in detecting metonymy variation, which are related to the range, typology and conventionalization of metonymy. Section 1.1 summarizes the core notions of Conceptual Metonymy Theory. Section 1.2 reviews the previous research on variation in metonymy. In Section 1.3, two perspectives in semantic studies as well as the relevant metonymy research are sketched. Section 1.4 briefly introduces the methodological state of the art in metonymy research. Finally, Section 1.5 outlines the research gaps.

1.1Conceptual metonymy

In the field of CL, metonymy is regarded as a cognitive phenomenon rather than figures of speech, as in traditional rhetoric (see Arata 2005). While the CL community essentially agrees on both the conceptual/cognitive nature and the fundamental importance of metonymy (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Panther and Radden 1999; Barcelona 2003a; Benczes et al. 2011), a number of disagreements on specific issues remain (Barcelona and Benczes 2011: 1). Two main problems concern the external boundaries and the internal typology of metonymy. The former boils down to the definition of metonymy and how it is demarcated from other cognitive mechanisms like conceptual metaphor, the “active zone” and so forth (see Section 1.1.1); the latter pertains to the classification of metonymic patterns (Section 1.1.2). Another issue relating to conceptual metonymy rests in its conventionalization (Section 1.1.3).

1.1.1Definition/demarcation of metonymy

Although Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) Metaphors We Live By was primarily devoted to metaphor, it contains one chapter on metonymy. This chapter inspired the growing interest in metonymy in CL and established Conceptual Metonymy Theory. So far, CL has largely been concerned with discovering the fundamental importance and the impressive range of metonymy (Panther and Radden 1999; Panther and Thornburg 2003, 2007; Peirsman and Geeraerts 2006b; Benczes et al. 2011; Koch 2011). Four uncontroversial properties have been proposed as the “core elements” of metonymy from the cognitive linguistic view: 1) it has a fundamentally conceptual nature; 2) it has an experiential basis; 3) it can be at the root of certain cognitive models; and 4) it involves experientially and conceptually contiguous elements (Barcelona 2011: 8). These properties are widely acknowledged by cognitive linguists and form the kernel of Conceptual Metonymy Theory. However, other properties of metonymy have not been universally accepted in CL, especially with regard to its definition/ demarcation. Two mainstream views, domain-based and prototype-based, will be discussed below. These two views have different emphases with respect to the “core elements” of metonymy: the domain-based view focuses on the third property, while the prototype-based view shifts attention to the fourth property.

1.1.1.1The domain-based view

In an approach initiated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 36) and Lakoff and Turner (1989: 103), metonymy is often defined in terms of within-domain conceptual mapping. This definition depends to a large extent on the cognitive idea that concepts constitute more complex semantic-conceptual structures, that is, conceptual domains. In the CL literature, other terms such as domain matrix (Croft 2002 [1993]), frame/scenario (Blank 1999; Koch 1999a; Panther and Thornburg 1999), idealized cognitive model (ICM) (Radden and Kövecses 1999), and functional domain (Barcelona 2011) have been proposed to replace domain. Although using different terminologies, all these definitions try to define metonymy in contrast to metaphor by invoking the number of conceptual domains (or domain matrixes, etc.) involved in the conceptualization process: metaphor involves two domains, metonymy only one (Geeraerts 2010d: 215). For instance, if you call a crafty person a fox, you metaphorically map the properties of the animal domain onto the human domain. Conversely, if you call a stupid person a stupid head, you just use the body part of a person to refer to a person, and both the source BODY PART and the target PERSON belong to the same domain of human being.

Croft (2002 [1993]) notes that metonymy sometimes seems to regularly map across domain boundaries. In Proust is tough to read, for instance, the source PROUST belongs to the domain of human being; the target PROUST’S WORK, to that of creative activity. Therefore, Croft (2002 [1993]: 177–179) proposes to replace domain with domain matrix and formulates a more dynamic view of metonymy: a metonymic mapping occurs within a single domain matrix, not across domains (or domain matrices), and metonymy involves “domain highlighting” by making primary a domain that is secondary in the literal meaning. Using the terms frame and scenario (see Fillmore 1975, 1977, 1985), Blank (1999), Koch (1999a) and Panther and Thornburg (1999) point out that in metonymy, target and source concepts are not isolated but parts of greater conceptual networks, that is, frames/scenarios. A more widely accepted definition of metonymy, inspired by Langacker’s (1993) active zone theory2 and Lakoff’s (1987) framework of ICMs, is proposed by Radden and Kövecses (...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Acknowledgement
• List of Symbols
• Contents
• Introduction
• Part One: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARY
• Part Two: CASE STUDIES
• Conclusion
• References
• Appendix
• Index
• Footnote