1 / 14

Metonymy within metaphor: evidence from the Modern Greek Language

Metonymy within metaphor: evidence from the Modern Greek Language. Dr Paraskevi thomou University of crete. Metaphor. B is A target domain source domain ( Lakoff 1993, Croft and Cruse 2004, Grady 2007, Kӧvecses 2010)

xenos
Download Presentation

Metonymy within metaphor: evidence from the Modern Greek Language

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Metonymy within metaphor: evidence from the Modern Greek Language Dr Paraskevithomou University of crete

  2. Metaphor B is A target domain source domain (Lakoff 1993, Croft and Cruse 2004, Grady 2007, Kӧvecses 2010) THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) Your theory needs support Foundation of the theory

  3. Metonymy (1/2) B FOR A (in the same domain) (Croft 1993, Ruiz de Mendoza 2000, Panther & Thornburg 2007, Barcelona 2010, Kӧvecses 2010) I noticed several new faces tonight face (source) for person (target) “part for the whole” type of metonymy (Croft & Cruse 2004)

  4. Metonymy (2/2) Usual metonymic mappings part for whole, whole for part, part for part? 1. source in target metonymy The ham sandwich is waiting for his check 2. the target is in the source I broke the window (Ruiz de Mendoza 2000 in Panther & Thornburg 2007, Ruiz de Mendoza & Galera-Masegosa 2011)

  5. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison source target similarity source domain target domain ‘distant’ from each other within the same domain Metaphorical relationship (Kӧvecses 2010: 175) Metonymic relationship I’m reading Shakespeare (Kӧvecses 2010: 175)

  6. Metaphor and metonymy in interaction • Metaphtonymy(Goossens 1995) Metaphor and metonymy can be intertwined • 4 types of metaphtonymy Metonymy within metaphor: bite one’s tongue off • types of metaphor-metonymy interaction • metonymy is subsidiary to metaphor (Ruiz de Mendoza & Galera-Masegosa 2011)

  7. Metaphor and metonymy interaction in Modern Greek actual language data: • ‘regular’ linguistic metaphors, not idioms, fixed expressions • realizations of a metaphorical schema + metonymic schema • lexical co-occurrences • Metaphor • ABSTRACT IS HUMAN (personification: Kӧvecses 2010) • Metonymy • ACTION FOR AGENT source in target • PROPERTY FOR POSSESSOR (Ruiz de Mendoza 2000)

  8. Analysis of the data (1/3) Piretoδis prospaθiesγianaperioristiikatastrofituperivalondos Fever(adj) efforts/triesso that restricted the destroy of environment(noun gen.) Fevered efforts so that the destroy of environment is restricted • Metaphorical schema/pattern ABSTRACT IS HUMAN Efforts/tries are on fever Persons are on fever • Metonymy within metaphorical pattern ACTION FOR AGENT Efforts is the agent (person who makes the effort)

  9. Analysis of the data (2/3) I aretesefiγan apo tin kinoniamas The virtues gone from the society ours (pronoun) Moral virtues are gone from our society. • Metaphorical schema/pattern ABSTRACT IS HUMAN Virtues are gone Persons are gone • Metonymy within metaphorical pattern PROPERTY FOR POSSESSOR Virtues are the possessor (person who owns them)

  10. Analysis of the data (3/3) γemisetaefivikatisxronia me to oramakapjuγaliniuketriferupolitizmu Filled the teenage(adj) her years with the vision a quiet and tender civilization (gen.) (A world) filled her teenage years with the vision of a quiet and tender civilization • Metaphorical schema/pattern ABSTRACT IS HUMAN Civilization is quiet and tender Persons are quiet and tender • Metonymy within metaphorical pattern PROPERTY FOR POSSESSOR Civilization is the possessor (persons who have/own the civilization)

  11. Discussion (1/3) • Two interaction schemata: • ABSTRACT IS HUMAN + ACTION FOR AGENT • ABSTRACT IS HUMAN + PROPERTY FOR POSSESSOR Resemble the ‘metonymy within metaphor’ type (Goossens 1995): Metaphors with a built-in metonymy Two main differences: • The metonymy involved is not a built-in metonymy • The MG language data do not form fixed expressions

  12. Discussion (2/3) A. Metaphoricity co-occurrences of words: piretoδis (on fever) prospaθies (efforts), aretes (virtues) efiγan (gone), triferos (tender) politizmos (civilization) two is domains ABSTRACT: ACTION, PROPERTY HUMAN B. Metonymy two domains blended in one HUMAN ABSTRACT

  13. Discussion (3/3) • Fusion or blending of two cognitive processes: • Metaphor and metonymy interact simultaneously • Same domains interact in a metaphorical schema and a metonymic schema • Metonymic schema: two domains blended in one: the human being Interaction: fusion of processes + fusion of domains The borderline between metaphor and metonymy is blurred (in Panther & Thornburg 2007)

  14. The endThank you!

More Related