Metaphor and metonymy
英语修辞学中20种常见修辞格名称双语释义及举例
What does that lawyer do after he dies?——Lie still. 那个律师死后干什么？──躺着仍说鬼话。（注：lie躺， 撒谎；still安静地， 仍然）
E. oxymoron; zeugma ; contrast
Oxymoron（矛盾修辞法）与汉语中的反映辞格类似，都是将相互矛盾的概念和判断巧妙地联系在一起，以便相互映衬，突出事物的特点，表达复杂的思想感情和意味深长的哲理。矛盾修辞手法在英语中常见，但在汉语中很少见。如：sweet sorrow 忧喜参半 （不是甜蜜的悲伤）； proud humility 不卑不亢（不是骄傲的谦卑）
这个项目从一开始就是一个摆脱不了的经济难题。（Albatross是英国诗人柯勒律治的《古舟子咏》中的信天翁，它被忘恩负义的水手杀死后，全船陷入灾难中。）
B. metonymy; transferred epithet Metonymy、synecdoche和_1antonomasia都是不直接说出事物的本来名称，而换用另一个名称或另一个说法。它们大体上相当于汉语的借代（分为旁借和对代两类）。如Crown（王冠）可喻指君主、王权、王国政府等；doll（玩具）可喻指姑娘、宝贝等。再如：
as thick as thieves亲密无间（不是"像贼一样厚"）
as old as the hills古老 （不是"像山一样老"）
The ship plows the sea. 船在乘风破浪地前进。（不是"船在犁海"）
Allusion与汉语的暗引相近似。其特点是不注明来源和出处，一般多引用人们熟知的关键词或词组，将其融合编织在作者的话语中。引用的东西包括典故、谚语、成语、格言和俗语等。英语引用最多的是源出《圣经》故事以及希腊、罗马神话、《伊索寓言》和那些渊源流长的谚语、格言等。例如：
Chapter 3 Conceptual metaphors and metonymies12
New insights into emotion: five points at P142.
Metaphors as a way of thinking: examples from science and politics
1. Metaphors and the description of linguistic phenomena. Two metaphors: Language form is building block; Language is scaffolding. Langacker criticizes the former and consents the latter. P144-145.
Structural mapping between journey and life.
See figure 3.4.
In the mapping from source domain to target domain, the former is more concrete, while the latter is more abstract.
Similarities and distinctions of metaphor and metonymy
See P128.
Combination of metaphors and metonymies
Combination of metaphors and metonymies is possible. Example and analysis, see P129.
Chapter 3 Conceptual metaphors and metonymies
Defining metaphor
英语中有19种修辞手法
英语中有19种修辞手法，它们分别是：Simile明喻、Metaphor 隐喻，暗喻、Metonymy 借喻，转喻、Synecdoche 提喻、Synaesthesia 通感，联觉，移觉、Personification 拟人、Hyperbole 夸张、Parallelism 排比，平行、Euphemism 委婉，婉辞法、Allegory 讽喻，比方、Irony 反语、Pun 双关、Parody 仿拟、Rhetorical question 修辞疑问、Antithesis 对照，对比，对偶、Paradox 隽语、Oxymoron 反意法，逆喻、Climax 渐进法，层进法、Anticlimax 渐降法。
下面和大家分享一下这19种修辞手法的全部解释和例句，快来学习吧！1.Simile 明喻明喻是将具有共性的不同事物作对比。
这种共性存有于人们的心里，而不是事物的自然属性。
标志词常用like, as, seem, as if, as though, similar to, such as等。
例如：1>.He was like a cock who thought the sun had risen to hear him crow。
2>.I wandered lonely as a cloud。
3>.Einstein only had a blanket on, as if he had just walked out of a fairy tale。
2.Metaphor 隐喻，暗喻隐喻是简缩了的明喻，是将某一事物的名称用于另一事物，通过比较形成。
例如：1>.Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper。
2>.Some books are to be tasted, others swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested。
Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads
Book reviewMetaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads:A Cognitive PerspectiveReview of Antonio Barcelona (Ed.);Mouton de Gruyter,Berlin/New York,2000,x+356pages,£98,00Over the past 15years,metonymy has attracted a slow but steady rise of interest in cognitive linguistics.Metonymy’s relation to metaphor,as well as the distinction between the two,has been the topic of articles by Goossens (1990),Croft (1993),Dirven (1993),Langacker (1993),and Kovecses and Radden (1998).After the pub-lication of a collection of chapters by Goossens et al.(1995),recent years have seen the publication of three edited books coming out of this development,one of which is the subject of this review (cf.Panther and Radden,1999;Dirven and Po ring,2002).These books are evidence that metonymy has reached the centre of the stage of the cognitive-linguistic study of figurative language and thought.The book under review is concerned with theoretical as well as empirical and applied issues of the interaction between metaphor and metonymy in cognitive linguistics.It has four contributions from authors also contributing to Panther and Radden (1999),but only one of these (by Turner and Fauconnier)is largely identical with the chapter in the earlier publication.Editor Antonio Barcelona opens the volume with a useful introduction,spelling out three ways in which metaphor and metonymy may be regarded as being at a crossroads.First of all,the cognitive-linguistic theory of metaphor and metonymy is in a stage of renewal,promising new insights about the role of these conceptual operations in language and cognition.Secondly,the interaction between metaphor and metonymy as conceptual operations has become a major new topic in cognitive linguistics,yielding many detailed findings about the operations of figurative lan-guage and cognition.And thirdly,both of these developments have led to the rise of new applications of the study of metaphor and metonymy in various domains of the study of language,discourse,and cognition.Barcelona also formulates a cognitive definition of ‘metony’,with reference to the old structuralist opposition between metaphor and metonymy as based on relations of similarity versus contiguity.He also pays special attention to the question whether metonymy should be seen as merely a referential device.The next chapter is another contribution by Barcelona,who now addresses the question whether it is plausible to argue that all conceptual metaphors have some metonymic motivation.This is the most extreme consequence resulting from the above-mentioned developments,and Barcelona does an admirable job in pulling the theoretical threads together.He presents a number of metonymy-motivatedanalyses Journal of Pragmatics 35(2003)1727–1731/locate/pragma1728Book review/Journal of Pragmatics35(2003)1727–1731of what was formerly presented as being purely metaphorical language,such as loud colour,sweet music,and black mood.He also discusses the relation with the Invari-ance Hypothesis and Grady’s theory of primary metaphors(e.g.Grady,1997).The metonymy-oriented handling of these issues is shown to be compatible with the possibility that all metaphors may be motivated by metonymy.Gu nter Radden explicitly states that not all metaphors are necessarily motivated by metonymy.But he does propose a number of distinctions between the various ways in which contiguity can underlie either metonymy itself,or those metaphors that are motivated by metonymy,or straight metaphors,even.Radden’s distinctions concern conceptual correlation,implicature by means of causality,category struc-ture,and cultural models.The author shows how these phenomena can exhibit contiguous relations between concepts.These are generally useful distinctions regarding the structure of our knowledge,but it is unfortunate that Radden does not include a discussion of the connections among them,To give only one example,the conceptual correlation between‘more’and‘up’can also be seen as part of an implicature based in causality(‘if more then up’).Radden is not the only author who sees a continuum between metaphor and metonymy,for this is also true of Jose Ruiz de Mendoza,who proposes a scale ranging from many-correspondence metaphors through one-correspondence meta-phors and predicative metonymies to referential metonymies.This chapter’s main theoretical proposal is the reduction of all metonymy to two types,called‘‘source-in-target versus target-in-source’’(part for whole versus whole for part).Ruiz de Mendoza then demonstrates how his twofold approach to metonymy is capable of refining the types of interaction between metaphor and metonymy described by Goossens(1990).Turner and Fauconnier provide a lucid and helpful introduction to metaphor and metonymy in blending theory.Their chapter presupposes the cognitive-linguistic work on metaphor,metonymy,and mappings within and between domains,and extends it into the direction of conceptual integration.The authors’main claim is that,in addition to mappings between domains,metaphor and metonymy involve integration processes that build new spaces with emergent structure.This is illu-strated in a captivating fashion with reference to a number of cases,such as the following:‘‘If Clinton were the Titanic,the iceberg would sink’’.There are two more chapters in thefirst(theoretical)part of the book,which appear right after Barcelona’s second chapter.Kurt Feyaerts presents a solid ana-lysis of German expressions for stupidity in terms of the interaction between meta-phor and metonymy,and relates his chapter to the more general issue of conceptual hierarchies between general and particular metaphors and metonymies.Zolt a n Ko vecses develops his theory of the scope of metaphor and emphasises the link with Langacker’s(1987)general theory of‘‘central knowledge’’of entities or events.He illustrates his theoretical proposals with reference to the way in which the concept of ‘fire’can be applied as a source to many different targets in a range of conventional linguistic expressions.These six chapters present a rich,varied,and up-to-date theoretical picture of the complexities of metaphor and metonymy considered as conceptual structures and processes that affect the nature of language and its use.Book review/Journal of Pragmatics35(2003)1727–17311729 Thefirst chapter in the second(empirical)part is by Goossens,who takes up the theme of the historical development of new(epistemic or subjective)meanings for modal auxiliaries.He challenges Sweetser’s(1990)claim that this type of diachronic meaning extension may be explained by metaphorical mappings.instead,Goossens proposes a more refined picture with a chain of steps of‘‘partial sanctioning’’in the sense of Langacker(1987).He emphasises that meanings can also be extended by short-range inferences which,if anything,are based on contiguity more than simi-larity.Goossens shows that corpus research can reveal these intermediary stages of development and sounds a healthy note of criticism regarding the enthusiastic application of metaphor and metonymy as ubiquitous explanatory devices.This warning does not seem to have been heeded by Pe ter Pelyva s in the next chapter on the synchronic analysis of the same modals.This is a dense article which will be hard to follow for the non-initiate.It also criticises the original position of Sweetser,this time with reference to Langacker’s(1987)theory of subjectification, but there is no cross-reference to the fundamentally critical chapter of such an approach by Goossens in the same volume.Following Goossens’contribution is another chapter on language development in the tradition of Sweetser,examining verbs of perception and other semanticfields. Verena Haser begins by offering support for Sweetser’s proposal of a linguistic reflection of a conceptual mind-as-body metaphor.However,the chapter ends in scantily analysed lists of lexico-semantic patterns,without discussion of the under-lying mappings,nor of the different domains and similarities that are presupposed. Susanne Niemeier presents a case study in polysemy,focusing on the use of heart in the language of emotions.Her position is basically the same as Barcelona’s, namely,that emotion metaphors(and possibly all metaphors)may be motivated by underlying metonymic mappings.Moreover,with Goossens,she holds that careful analyses of the connections between different senses may reveal a series of transi-tions which may be metonymic rather than metaphorical.Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda Thornburg discuss how the effect for cause metonymy gives rise to conventionalised meanings in English whereas it does not so in German.English permits the use of stative verbs in constructions requiring action predicates,such as Stand behind the yellow line or Have your documents ready;but German prefers the use of related action verbs,such as stellen(‘put’)or halten (‘hold’).In a fascinating study of the details of these constructions,verbs,and their relation to conceptual metonymies,the authors demonstrate the power of the cog-nitive-linguistic approach in accounting for such diverging language-specificfindings within one encompassing theoretical framework.Moving on from metaphor in language to metaphor in discourse,there isfirst of all an excellent chapter by Margaret Freeman,providing an application of metaphor and blending theory to the interpretation of poetry.Freeman offers a reading of Emily Dickinson’s‘‘My Cocoon tightens’’in terms of analogical mappings,of Dickinson’s ‘‘Loaded Gun’’poem in terms of blending,and of a Dickinson forgery(by Mark Hofmann)in terms of cognitive style.She also discusses the relation of cognitive poetics with three alternative cognitive approaches to literature as discourse,and argues that the type of cognitive poetics derived from cognitive linguistics is compatible1730Book review/Journal of Pragmatics35(2003)1727–1731with all of them.It is unfortunate that the chapter is simply too confident about the theoretical and methodological powers of Freeman’s own version of cognitive poe-tics.For instance,the argumentative demonstration that a reading works for a par-ticular poem(in this case the‘‘Loaded Gun’’poem)does not permit the conclusion that‘‘This is the central—or prototypical—reading of the poem’’(p.264).And the juxtaposition arguing the difference between a number of authentic Dickinson poems and the forgery does not count as a genuine test of the theory.A cognitive approach to literature that pays serious attention to testability is not mentioned by Freeman;but empirical poetics or the empirical study of literature also deserves comparing with cognitive poetics.However,apart from this lack of theoretical and methodological self-criticism—Freeman calls her approach‘‘superior to any other literary theory previously or currently held’’(p.265)—the chapter achieves its goals. Another form of discourse,conversation,is discussed by Diane Ponterotto.She offers a demonstration of the possibility that cognitive metaphor may fulfil a cohe-sive role in spontaneous and scripted dialogue,with reference to a brief excerpt from afilm script and a naturally occurring conversation.However,the conclusion that ‘‘Often it is cognitive metaphor which guarantees the cohesion/coherence necessary for successful communication’’(p.297,my emphases,G.S.)is an overstatement, given the limited data examined and the relatively neglected role of other factors in establishing cohesion and coherence.Esra Sandikcioglu turns to the printed press and its coverage of the First Gulf War.She develops George Lakoff’s(1992)analysis of the use of metaphor as a means to justify the war in the Gulf,and situates it in the broader framework of the study of Orientalism,with reference to Edward Said and Geert Hofstede.Metaphors of Iraq as the rapist of Kuwait are shown to be part of a much more complex ideal-ised cognitive model that the West employs about the East,with an important role for metonymy and literal language next to metaphor.I have my doubts about the alleged metaphorical nature of‘‘Westerners are civilised’’versus‘‘Orientals are barbarians’’,and the classification of some of the linguistic data is open for discus-sion.But on the whole,this is a highly valuable attempt to study the relations between language use,cognition,and culture from a critical perspective. Advertising is the fourth class of discourse that is examined from the perspective of metaphor and metonymy.Friedrich Ungerer presents an excellent analysis of the role of both types of mapping,introducing a grabbing metonymy in which the physiological response of grabbing is taken as a metonymy for the encompassing emotion of desiring a particular object.The grabbing metonymy can explain why many contemporary ads do not include the familiar injunction to buy a particular product that they used to in the early days of advertising.Its interaction with the metaphorical depiction(verbally,visually,or a combination thereof)of the adver-tised object produces a neat conventional basis for the analysis of most advertising discourse.Ungerer then goes on to complicate this picture and presents afine ana-lysis of some interesting examples.On the whole,this is an advanced book that is not for the novice.For cognitive linguists,the book presents many valuable contributions.For a book of this price, however,the quality of the copy-editing is not what it should be.Book review/Journal of Pragmatics35(2003)1727–17311731 ReferencesCroft,William,1993.The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies.Cognitive Linguistics4,335–370.Dirven,Rene,1993.Metaphor and metonymy:different mental strategies of conceptualization.Leuvense Bijdragen82,1–28.Dirven,Rene,Po rings,Ralph(Eds.),2002.Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Mouton de Gruyter,Berlin.Goossens,Louis,1990.Metaphtonymy:the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action.Cognitive Linguistics1,323–340.Goossens,Louis,Pauwels,Paul,Rudzka-Ostyn,Brygida,Simon-Vandenbergen,Anne-Marie,Vanparys, Johan,1995.By Word of Mouth:Metaphor,Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Per-spective.John Benjamins,Amsterdam.Grady,Joseph E.,1997.THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited.Cognitive Linguistics8,267–290. Kovecses,Zolt a n,Radden,Gunter,1998.Metonymy:developing a cognitive linguistic view.Cognitive Linguistics9,37–77.Lakoff,George,1992.Metaphor and war:the metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf.In:Pu tz, Martin(Ed.),Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution:Studies in Honour of Rene Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday.John Benjamins,Amsterdam,pp.463–481.Langacker,Ronald W.,1987.Foundations in Cognitive Grammar,Vol.I:Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press,Stanford.Langacker,Ronald W.,1993.Reference-point constructions.Cognitive Linguistics4,1–38.Panther,Klaus-Uwe,Radden,Gu nter(Eds.),1999.Metonymy in Language and Thought.John Benja-mins,Amsterdam.Sweetser,Eve,1990.From Etymology to Pragmatics:Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Gerard Steen is Lecturer in English Language and Culture at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.His research interests include metaphor,stylistics,discourse analysis,empirical poetics,cognitive poetics,and cognitive linguistics,about which he has published in many international journals.He has written Understanding metaphor in literature(1994),is associate editor of Metaphor and Symbol,and has been guest-editor for several international journals.He has co-edited several volumes,the latest of which is Cognitive poetics in practice(2003,with Joanna Gavins).He is currently working on a book with Ray-mond Gibbs on Finding metaphor in language and thought.Gerard SteenDepartment of English Language and Culture,Vrzje Universiteit,Amsterdam,The NetherlandsE-mail address:gj.steen@let.vu.nl doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00109-7。
Metaphor and Metonymy
Metaphor and Metonymy作者：张艳来源：《科技视界》2015年第35期【Abstract】Much of language is built up by metaphorical correspondences and metonymical analyses from a foundation of cognitive models. Metaphor refers to the substitution of one thing for another. Metonymy is the substitution of the name of one thing for that of another with which it is closely associated.【Key words】Metaphor； Metonymy； Source domain； Target domainMetaphor， as a figure of speech， refers to the substitution of one thing for another， or the identification of two things from different ranges of thought. It is often loosely defined as “an implied comparison”，“a smile without like or as”. Metaphor is considered by many the most important and basic poetic figure and also the commonest and the most beautiful. We do make sentences like this：Boys and girls， tumbling in the streets and playing， were moving jewels. This is a vivid comparison. We are impressed by the beautiful scene， which the lively children are jumping and laughing like jewels spreading over.Language of human being is governed by whole systems of metaphorical thinking organized into hierarchical structures. Metaphorical systems consist of groups of metaphorical expressions that all express some facet of a more general metaphor. For example， if we compare an argument to a building， the following sentences would be expressed as：We’ve got the framework for a solid argument.If you don’t support your argument with solid facts， the whole thing will collapse.Two concepts are necessarily introduced. One is the target domain of the metaphor， which means the thing we are talking about. Another is the source domain， which carries the meaning of our schematic knowledge of buildings. Therefore argument acts as the target domain in the sentence.Linguistic usage is governed by complex， images， gestalts， or configurations and that the cognitions underling the use of metaphorical language might be the same as those used in practical reasoning. Invariance Hypothesis claims that the portion of the source domain structure that is mapped preserves cognitive topology（though of course， not all the cognitive topology of the source domain need be mapped）. However， the metaphorical mapping preserves not only the points of correspondence， but additionally the image-schematic structure or “topography” of the source domain. The cognitive， topology of the source domain constitutes a field of inference. Inferences based upon the source domain， are taken t o apply to the target domain. Let’s look at some examples and analyze the functions.1）Snow clothes the groundThe target domain in the sentence is that snow covers the ground. It’s on the surface of the earth. The source domain turns out to be snow is the clothes wearing by the ground.2）Most Americans remember Mark Twain as the father of Huck Finn’s idyllic cruise through eternal boyhood and Tom Sawyer’s endless summer of freedom and adventure.Mark Twain is not the father of those boys in fact. Instead he is author of that book. It is he who created the well-know figures. So the source domain of father is taken to apply to the target domain of creator.3）From the discouragement of his mining failures， Mark Twain began digging his way to regional fame as a newspaper reporter and humorist.The source domain of digging his way refer to the target domain of working hard. Actually Mark Twain was not doing some specific work on his way. The adoption of the metaphor provided vivid scenery of his making efforts.4）No one， least of all I， anticipated that my case would snowball into one of the most famous trials in U.S. history.Snowball is used metaphorically as a verb. The case was not likely to be a snowball， but it grew or developed rapidly like a snowball，but it grew or developed rapidly like a snowball. It’s very clear that snowball as the source domain is taken to apply to the target domain of growing rapidly.5）He thundered in his sonorous organ tones.Could someone thunder like in a storm？ Of course impossible. The sentence intended to express that he said loudly and angrily in a metaphorical and a bit hyperbolic way. Therefore thunder act as the source domain whereas crying loudly with anger is the target domain.6）Then the court broke into a storm of applause that surpassed that for Bryan.This is what we can commonly see. A storm of applause implicates the loud applause by many people. In a metaphor， one thing stands for another， or a thing is called by a name for something else. We can interpret this way： The new knowledge is likened to the old knowledge. The fitting of new knowledge to a framework of old knowledge is a basic process by which people learn complex subject matter such as “learning to play a piano or learning a language”. For some people like to extend the names for the body parts of humans and animals to refer to the parts of automobiles and pick up trucks. That’s why we say motor vehicles are anim ate things. Furthermore， we draw correspondences between their cognitive models and the cognitive models of animate beings. One complex thing has been seen and described in terms of another.Metonymy is another important figure of speech commonly u sed in language expression. It’s the substitution of the name of one thing for that of another with which it is closely associated. The relationship of one thing is close to another within a single conceptual model or scene. While any kind of association can five rise to metonymy， frequently the part stands for the whole. However，metonymy is often based not on physical relationship， but on the content of scenes. i.e.1）He is too fond of the bottle.It means he is too fond of drinking. The container （wine bottle ） is used as a name for the thing contained （wine）.2）Gray hairs should be respected.The symbol（gray hair）as a name for the persons （old people） symbolized.3）I have never read LiBai.The poet（ LiBai） as a name for the thing made （poems written by LiBai）.4）She heard the piano.Piano stands in for the music it produces.There awaits an exciting program of semantic research to determine just how othercultures organize schemas of physical， psychological， and social forces and incorporate them into patterns of vocabulary and syntax. Our interest in the imagery underlying figurative language has now taken us form the simple appreciation of some interesting expressions to the more profound realization that much of language is built up by metaphorical correspondences and metonymical analyses from a foundation of cognitive models.【References】[1]David Nunan. Second Language Teaching and Learning[M].外语教学研究出版社，2003.[2]Jack C.Richards， John Platt， Herdi platt. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching&Applied Linguistics[M]. 外语教学与研究出版社， 2000.[责任编辑：杨玉洁]。
4.隐喻概念(Teacher 用)
Because of Lakoff‘s aim to uncover deeply embodied conceptual relations in the mind, for him the ideal metaphorical expressions to analyze are not the widely discussed type of examples in (5), but rather those in (6).
什么是隐喻？认知隐喻是研究新隐喻还是 常规隐喻？ 如何理解两域之间的映射？它们之间的映 射是对称的吗？ 如何理解“隐喻是一种概念现象”？概念 系统的基础是什么？ 什么是意象图式？ 隐喻的工作机制是什么？
为什么说隐喻不仅是一种语言现象，而且是一种 认知手段？ 如何评价下面两句话？ “Metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action‖ (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) ―The metaphor is not just a matter of language, but of thought and reason.‖ (Lakoff, 1993: 208)
An essential property of a metaphorical expression is deviance. Anomalousness is a necessary feature of a metaphorical expression. If a literal interpretation of an utterance is anomalous, that is normally a signal that we need to apply a different interpretive strategy. (Croft & Cruse, 2004: 206)
metaphor_metonymy_synecdoche
Periodical sentence
A periodic sentence (also called a period) is a sentence that is not grammatically complete until its end. Periodicity is accomplished by the use of parallel phrases or clauses at the opening or by the use of dependent clauses preceding the independent clause; that is, the kernel of thought contained in the subject/verb group appears at the end of a succession of modifiers. It is the opposite of a nuclear.
Metaphorical Adjective
His father has a stony heart. 他的父亲铁石心肠。 This is a lame excuse. 这理由站不住脚。
Metaphorical Verbs
We stop to drink in the beautiful scenery. 我们停下来观赏美景。 The town was stormed in a long siege, 小城在围攻中被狂轰烂炸。
Metaphor or Metonymy?
Metaphor example: That man is a pig
(using pig instead of unhygienic person. An unhygienic person is like a pig, but there is no contiguity between the two).
metonymy and metaphor
Details: Search for Metaphor
• • Match “relevant” fact from base with some fact in target. E.g. “My car drinks gasoline” – “drink” prefers an animal as agent, so:
Processing Metonymy and Metaphor
Dan Fass, as summarized/(mis-)interpreted by Peter Clark
Metonymy and Metaphor
• Really part of the bigger problem of “non-literal language” • What exactly is “non-literal”? – Departs from truth conditions – Violates “standard” use of language
- whether something is a metaphor depends on what you/the computer understands by that word, I.e. metaphor is relative to the underlying representation.
4 Views of how to Process Metaphor
• Comparison view: – Compare & match features between base and target
Car person Use drink Gasoline water But: any two things are similar in some respect; doesn’t account for what is important about the metaphor
隐喻(metaphor)与转喻(metonymy)界面研究
研修计划题目：隐喻（metaphor）与转喻（metonymy）界面研究概要：转喻和隐喻实际上代表了基于相同认知机制所从体现的不同认知形式。
因此，如何从一个合理的思维角度处理两者的接口问题，对于认知语言学的诸多问题的解决是一个颇为重要的论题。
本文拟立足于转喻和隐喻之关系的起因、传统划界,从认知科学角度对两者接口做系统分析,从认知科学的角度将隐喻和转喻的界面研究扩展到整个人类的认知交流过程中。
本研究对隐喻和转喻的划界的研究有助于澄清语言哲学中的许多相关论题，丰富语言研究的认知科学转向，对于揭示语言活动的认知实质具有重要的科学价值和方法论意义。
文献综述：虽然隐喻和转喻的互动关系已经得到论证,但是我们依然能够很容易地区分两个不同认知过程的影响,而且它们之间的类属性互不包容。
但尽管如此,在隐喻和转喻之间还是存在一种真实的不确定性.转喻是一个认知域向另一个认知域的概念映射,两个认知域都包含在同一个理想认知模型内,源域提供通往目标域的心理通道。
Ｒadden同时提出了以转喻为基础的隐喻这一中间概念,并认为传统定义下的转喻和隐喻可以视为位于转喻—隐喻连续体轴上两端的原型范畴,以转喻为基础的隐喻占据连续体轴上的中间模糊地带,它们体现了转喻和隐喻之间的互动关系,可以随不同的观察视角更靠近某一端。
而且,转喻和隐喻之间的区别不是离散的,而是标量的。
Ｒadden认为, 转喻—隐喻连续体的建立机制可以从经验基础、语用含义、范畴结构和文化模式四个方面加以分析。
以转喻为基础的隐喻包括四种情况,即两个概念域具有共同的经验基础,概念域由语用含义联系,概念域涉及范畴结构,概念域由文化模式互相联系,这四种隐喻可能同时发生在某个特定情形中。
转喻和隐喻共有的经验基础首先为连续体的建立提供来源,例如,Lakoff概念隐喻MORE IS UP中垂直高度与数量之间的关系就是基于经验基础的转喻关系。
范畴结构也为隐喻的转喻基础提供了来源,范畴结构的范畴(整体)与范畴成员(部分)之间的相互指代关系本身就是转喻关系,因此,基本上所有的范畴都具有转喻系,转喻和隐喻是范畴语义拓展的两个基本途径,转喻甚至比隐喻更基本。
The Relationship between Metaphor and Metonymy
- 201 -校园英语 / 语言文化The Relationship between Metaphor and Metonymy中国石油大学(北京)外国语学院/张苗苗【Abstract 】Metaphor and metonymy has been widely discussed in cognitive linguistics. However, there are also some problems concerning their relationship. Some linguists deem that metaphor is more basic than metonymy. While others claim metonymy is the foundation for metaphor, In this paper, so as to solve these uncertainties about their relationship and to present an overview of metaphor and metonymy, the paper will analyze the characteristic of metaphor and metonymy and then delineate their differences, hence reaching the relationship of metaphor and metonymy.【Key words 】metaphor; metonymy; continuum1. IntroductionPeople are familiar with the concepts of metaphor and metonymy. However, about their relationships, there are some uncertainties. Conceptual metaphor is firstly proposed by Lakoff and Johnson in Metaphors We Live by. They claim that metaphor is not just a device of rhetoric, but a way of thinking. So the research of metaphor is wider than that of metonymy. In other words, metonymy has somewhat ignored by researchers. Later, linguists began to study metonymy. Then some linguists propose that metonymy are more basic than metaphor; metonymy is the foundation for metaphor. Their evidence is as follows. Joseph Grady (1997) proposes that primary metaphor are motivated by experiential correlation; Radden (2003) has pointed out that correlation is fundamentally metonymic in nature. So the motivation of metaphor is metonymic in nature. That is, these linguists claim that metaphor has its root in metonymy. On the contrary, some linguists have affirmed that there is not a clear boundary between metaphor and metonymy; some expression can be interpreted in both aspects, which is depended on the context of situation.From the analysis of the above paragraph, it can be gained that linguists are in disagreement about the relationship between metaphor and metonymy. In this paper, the working hypothesis is that metaphor and metonymy are in continuum relationship. That is, there is not a clear cut between them; they are related with each other and metonymy is more basic than metaphor. In the following section. The characteristic and differences between them will be analyzed. Then the continuum relationship will be tested from some examples.2. Characteristic2.1 Characteristics of MetaphorFor over 2000 years, metaphors are studied within the discipline known as rhetoric. (Evans,V. & Green.,M. 2006). That is, metaphor is regarded as tropes. However, in Metaphor We Live by, Lakoff and Johnson delineates metaphor from a different perspective: they reckon conceptual metaphor is a way of thinking, which means that our thought are metaphorical, from where the research about metaphor has been growing vigorously.2.1.1 DescriptiveThe function of metaphor is descriptive. To put it another way, we utilize metaphor to describe something that we are not familiar with. For example, people can not understand the nature of MARRIAGE. Then we can utilize the metaphor MARRIAGE IS A JOURNEY to help people to understand. The traveler is in correspondence with the couple. The road of journey is equivalent to the process of matrimony. The uneven part of the journey, such as the rocks in the road, symbolizes the obstacles in marriage life. For example, we can say that MY MARRIAGE IS ON THE ROCK.From the above analysis, it is safe to say that the function of metaphor is to describe something that is abstract.2.1.2 UnidirectionalMetaphor is the mapping between source domain and target domain.. Unidirectionality means that metaphors can only map structure from the source domain to the target domain. For example, LIFE IS A JOURNRY. In this metaphor, we conceptualize LIFE in terms of JOURNEY. That is , in this metaphor, in order to understand the abstract notion of LOVE, by using a simple and structured notion: JOURNEY , the items in the concrete source domain JOURNEY can be mapped to the abstract target domain LIFE. However; it cannot be reversed, in other words, from LIFE to JOURNEY , which is wrong.2.1.3 Motivation2.1.3.1 Embodiment with the outside worldEmbodiment philosophy, as the theoretical cornerstone of cognitive linguistics, is very effective in explaining cognitive problems. People interact with the world, during which people gain a variety of experiences. Metaphors are grounded in the everyday interaction with the world. Only by interacting with the outside world, can we gain experiences. From these experiences, what can be gained the concrete images for the source domain.2.1.3.2 ResemblanceAs Kovecses (2002:20) puts it, “target domains are abstract, diffuse and lack clear delineation; as a result they ‘cry out ’ for metaphorical conceptualization.” which means, people need the concrete source to understand the abstract notion. However, the relationship between them are not built at will. It is based on the resemblances between them. Take the following example:LIFE IS A JOURNEYTable 1 the mapping of LIFE and JOURNEY- 202-校园英语 / 语言文化From the above table, it can be found that LIFE and JOURNEY has the similar structure. Baaed on this resemblance, we have the metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. That is, the source domain and the target domain are in somewhat related. We can not have the metaphor LIFE IS A DOG, or LIFE IS A RIVER, for they have no resemblance. So the motivation for metaphor includes embodiment with the outside world and the resemblance of these two domains.There are other characteristic of metaphor, such as, invariance principle, the hiding and highlighting. While these parts are easy to understand, so the paper does not pay much attention to them.2.2 Characteristic of metonymy 2.2.1 ReferentialThe function of metonymy is referential. Just as Vyvyan Evans & Melanie Green put it (2006:311), ‘linguistic metonymy is referential in nature: in relates to the use of expression to “pinpoint ” entities in order to talk about them. For example, WE ARE SHORT OF HAND NOW. We use HAND to refer to people. That is, part of the person can activate the whole person, so metonymy is referential in nature.2.2.2 MotivationMetonymy is motivated by casual or physical associations, which is called contiguity. That is, the motivation for metonymy depends on the context of situation. For example, if a man goes to the restaurant and orders a hamburger, then he waits his hamburger to be delivered. A waiter may say this sentence to urge his colleague to be quick: “THE HAMBURGER IS WAITING HIS FOOD. Please hurry up!” In this metonymy, the waiter uses HAMBURGER to refer to THE MAN who just ordered one. If THE MAN ordered a sandwich just now, maybe the waiter will say: THE SANDWISH IS WAITING HIS FOOD.From the above analysis, First, we can not deny that the production of metonymy are somewhat related with human experiences with the world. Second, the production of metonymy might be casual, which is totally different from metaphor.2.2.3 domain matrixThis term is very important in the field of metonymy. In metaphor, it has two domains, however, in metonymy, it has only one domain. In the understanding of domain matrix, we should alert that a concept has domain matrix. Sometimes, we just highlight one domain of this concept ’s domain matrix. For example. SHAKESPEARE IS HARD TO READ. In this metonymy, we apply SHAKESPEARE to stand for the book written by him. That is, in the domain matrix of Shakespeare, we can talk about everything related to him, such as his habits, actions, his life and so on. However, in this metonymy, we just talk about his book. So we just highlight one domain of the Shakespearean domain matrix.3. Similarities and Differences between metaphor and metonymy 3.1 Similarities between metaphor and metonymyFirst, the motivation of them involves the experiences with the world; both of them have a experiential basis, which can be explained from the perspective of embodiment philosophy. Second, our thoughts are metaphorical and metonymic. We think in a metaphorical andmetonymic way. Metonymy lay foundation for metaphor.3.2 Differences between metaphor and metonymyFrom the analysis, we can know there are many differences between them. About the differences, it can be gained from table 2Table 2 the differences between metaphor and metonymyfunctio-n Motiva-tion Domai-ndirecti-onalityMetap-hor Descriptive resemblance two unidirection Meton-ymy referential contiguity onebidirection4. The relationship between metaphor and metonymySome linguists have put forward the relationship of these two. For example, Goossens (1990) presents a way in which metaphor and metonymy interact with each other, which includes metaphor from metonymy and metaphor within metonymy. Other linguists, such as Barcelona(2003) and Taylor(2003), they deem that metonymy is an operation that is more fundamental in the comparison with metaphor. So metonymy is the basis for metaphor. In my part, I claim that the relationship between them is a continuum. One side of the continuum is metonymy, the other side of the continuum is metaphor. The intermediate zone is the transition from metonymy to metaphor.In my opinion, I claim that metonymy is more basic than metaphor. For example, we utilize “Tom ” to refer to the boy, that is, tha name of the boy is metonymic in nature. Take another example, in Chinese, we can say “我打车回家”(I go home by taxi.). In this sentence. The verb “打” refer to the whole process of taking a taxi, such as, hailing a taxi, open the door of the taxi, closing the door of the taxi,telling the taxi where you go and so on. That is , “打”can generalize the whole process of taking a taxi. In conclusion, our life is filled with metonymy.5. ConclusionFrom the above analysis, the obscure theory of metaphor and metonymy might be more conspicuous. Metaphor and metonymy are closely related, they are both human ’s way of thinking. And metonymy is more basic than metaphor. So we should not ignore metonymy anymore.References:[1]Grady,J.‘Theories are building revisited ’,Cognitive Linguistics.2001.[2]Radden,G.‘How metonymic are metaphors?’,in A.Barcelona(ed.),Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads.Berlin:Mounton de Gruyter.2003:93-108.[3]Evans.V.& Green.M.Cognitive Linguistics An Introduction.[M].Edinburgh University Press.2006:293,311.[4]Kovecses,Z.Metaphor:A Practical Introduction[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.2002:20.[5]Goossens,L.‘Metaptonymy:the interaction metaphor and metonymy in expression for linguistic action ’,Cognitive Linguistics,1990;1,3,323-40.[6]Barcelona,A.Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroad:A Cognitive Perspective.[M].Berlin:Mounton de Gruyter.2003.作者简介：张苗苗(1992-)，河北衡水人，硕士研究生，主要研究方向为认知语言学、功能语言学。
英语修辞手法及副词的讲解
11) Pun: (双关语）
• It is a play on words, or rather a play on the form and meaning of words. 双关语（pun）是以一个词或词组，用 巧妙的办法同时把互不关联的两种含义结合起来，以取得 一种诙谐有趣的效果。 • Napoleon was astonished.”Either you are mad, or I am,”he declared. “Both，sir!”cried the Swede proudly. “Both”一词一语双关，既指拿破仑和这位士兵 都是疯子，又指这位战士参加过拿破仑指挥的两次战役。 • For instance, a cannon-ball took off his legs, so he laid down his arms. (Here "arms" has two meanings: a person's body; weapons carried by a soldier.)
12) Syllepsis: (一语双叙）
• It has two connotations. In the first case, it is a figure by which a word, or a particular form or inflection of a word, refers to two or more words in the same sentence, while properly applying to or agreeing with only on of them in grammar or syntax(句法). • For example, He addressed you and me, and desired us to follow him. (Here us is used to refer to you and me.) In the second case, it is a word may refer to two or more words in the same sentence. For example, while he was fighting , and losing limb and mind, and dying, others stayed behind to pursue education and career. (Here to losing one's limbs in literal; to lose one's mind is figurative, and means to go mad.)
浅析隐喻(Metaphor)和换喻(Metonymy)的区别与联系
浅析隐喻（Metaphor）和换喻（Metonymy）的区别与联系作者：郑雅楠来源：《人间》2016年第32期（哈尔滨师范大学，黑龙江哈尔滨 150025）摘要：传统的修辞理论把隐喻和换喻作为两个并列的修辞格。
许多隐喻理论常常把换喻作为隐喻的一个种类。
本文从概念、结构、功能和运作机制等角度对隐喻和换喻进行分析两者之间的区别与联系。
关键词：隐喻；换喻；认知功能；运作机制；区别中图分类号：H05 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1671-864X（2016）11-0257-01一、隐喻与换喻的概念（一）隐喻的概念。
隐喻通常是指两个不同领域事物之间的联系，一般用于通过A事物理解或解释B事物，涉及到两个概念的映射。
（二）换喻的概念。
换喻着重的是事物本身的特点或它与其他事物之间的特殊关系，基本上是利用A事物的某一显著特征来指认该事物，基本不涉及事物特征的转移。
二、隐喻与换喻的结构（一）隐喻的结构。
从结构上来看，隐喻由“本体”，“喻体”和“喻底”三部分组成。
如：她纯洁得永远像春天像蝴蝶。
其中，“她”是本体，“春天’夕、“蝴蝶”是喻体，而“纯洁”是喻底。
需要注意的是只有符合“通过一事物来理解另一事物”才能被称为隐喻。
因此，就隐喻的本质来说，隐喻是通过某一事物来理解另外一事物。
喻体与本体之问的关系是差异中的相似。
所谓差异，指的是本体和喻体两者属于小同的领域，这是构成隐喻的基础，例如：百科全书是一座金矿。
“百科全书”与“金矿”为小同的事物，分属小同的领域。
但在这两者之问却存在着某方面的相似。
例如在上例中，说“百科全书”是“一座金矿”因为两者都“值得挖掘”，因此这就构成了一个隐喻。
（二）换喻的结构。
换喻也可以看作由三个部分组成：本体、喻体和喻底。
但与隐喻小同的是，在换喻中，本体从不出现，喻体就是喻底。
本体和喻体是以隐含的方式在起作用的。
本体和喻体之问是一种替代的关系。
而这两个事物之问并小存在一种相似的关系，喻体之所以可以替代本体，因为它代表了本体的某一特征。
The Relationship between Metaphor and Metonymy-8页文档资料
The Relationship between Metaphor and Metonymy 【Abstract】Metaphor and metonymy has been widely discussed in cognitive linguistics. However， there are also some problems concerning their relationship. Some linguists deem that metaphor is more basic than metonymy. While others claim metonymy is the foundation for metaphor， In this paper， so as to solve these uncertainties about their relationship and to present an overview of metaphor and metonymy， the paper will analyze the characteristic of metaphor and metonymy and then delineate their differences，hence reaching the relationship of metaphor and metonymy.1. IntroductionPeople are familiar with the concepts of metaphor and metonymy. However， about their relationships， there are some uncertainties. Conceptual metaphor is firstly proposed by Lakoff and Johnson in Metaphors We Live by. They claim that metaphor is not just a device of rhetoric， but a way of thinking. So the research of metaphor is wider than that of metonymy. In other words， metonymy has somewhat ignored by researchers. Later， linguists began to study metonymy. Then some linguists propose that metonymy are more basic than metaphor； metonymy is the foundation for metaphor. Their evidence is as follows. Joseph Grady （1997） proposes that primary metaphor are motivated by experiential correlation； Radden （2003）has pointed out that correlation is fundamentally metonymic in nature. So the motivation of metaphor is metonymic in nature. That is， these linguists claim that metaphor has its root in metonymy. On the contrary， some linguists have affirmed that there is not a clear boundary between metaphor and metonymy； some expression can be interpreted in both aspects， which is depended on the context of situation.From the analysis of the above paragraph， it can be gained that linguists are in disagreement about the relationship between metaphor and metonymy. In this paper， the working hypothesis is that metaphor and metonymy are in continuum relationship. That is，there is not a clear cut between them； they are related with each other and metonymy is more basic than metaphor. In the following section. The characteristic and differences between them will be analyzed. Then the continuum relationship will be tested from some examples.2. Characteristic2.1 Characteristics of MetaphorFor over 2000 years， metaphors are studied within the discipline known as rhetoric. （Evans，V. & Green.，M. 2006）. That is， metaphor is regarded as tropes. However， in Metaphor We Live by， Lakoff and Johnson delineates metaphor from a differentperspective： they reckon conceptual metaphor is a way of thinking，which means that our thought are metaphorical， from where the research about metaphor has been growing vigorously. 2.1.1 DescriptiveThe function of metaphor is descriptive. To put it another way，we utilize metaphor to describe something that we are not familiar with. For example， people can not understand the nature of MARRIAGE. Then we can utilize the metaphor MARRIAGE IS A JOURNEY to help people to understand. The traveler is in correspondence with the couple. The road of journey is equivalent to the process of matrimony. The uneven part of the journey， such as the rocks in the road，symbolizes the obstacles in marriage life. For example， we can say that MY MARRIAGE IS ON THE ROCK.2.1.2 Unidirectional2.1.3 Motivation2.1.3.1 Embodiment with the outside worldEmbodiment philosophy， as the theoretical cornerstone of cognitive linguistics， is very effective in explaining cognitive problems. People interact with the world， during which people gain a variety of experiences. Metaphors are grounded in the everyday interaction with the world. Only by interacting with the outside world， can we gain experiences. From these experiences， what canbe gained the concrete images for the source domain.2.1.3.2 ResemblanceLIFE IS A JOURNEYTable 1 the mapping of LIFE and JOURNEYFrom the above table， it can be found that LIFE and JOURNEY has the similar structure. Baaed on this resemblance， we have the metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. That is， the source domain and the target domain are in somewhat related. We can not have the metaphor LIFE IS A DOG， or LIFE IS A RIVER， for they have no resemblance. So the motivation for metaphor includes embodiment with the outside world and the resemblance of these two domains. There are other characteristic of metaphor， such as， invariance principle，the hiding and highlighting. While these parts are easy to understand， so the paper does not pay much attention to them.2.2 Characteristic of metonymy2.2.1 ReferentialThe function of metonymy is referential. Just as Vyvyan Evans & Melanie Green put it （2006：311），‘linguistic metonymy is referential in nature： in relates to the use of expression to “pinpoint” entities in order to talk about them. For example，WE ARE SHORT OF HAND NOW. We use HAND to refer to people. That is，part of the person can activate the whole person， so metonymy isreferential in nature.2.2.2 MotivationMetonymy is motivated by casual or physical associations， which is called contiguity. That is， the motivation for metonymy depends on the context of situation. For example， if a man goes to the restaurant and orders a hamburger， then he waits his hamburger to be delivered. A waiter may say this sentence to urge his colleague to be quick：“THE HAMBURGER IS WAITING HIS FOOD. Please hurry up！” In this metonymy， the waiter uses HAMBURGER to refer to THE MAN who just ordered one. If THE MAN ordered a sandwich just now， maybe the waiter will say： THE SANDWISH IS WAITING HIS FOOD.From the above analysis， First， we can not deny that the production of metonymy are somewhat related with human experiences with the world. Second， the production of metonymy might be casual，which is totally different from metaphor.2.2.3 domain matrixThis term is very important in the field of metonymy. In metaphor， it has two domains， however， in metonymy， it has only one domain. In the understanding of domain matrix， we should alert that a concept has domain matrix. Sometimes， we just highlight one domain of this concept’s domain matrix. For example. SHAKESPEARE IS HARD TO READ. In this metonymy， we apply SHAKESPEARE to standfor the book written by him. That is， in the domain matrix of Shakespeare， we can talk about everything related to him， such as his habits， actions， his life and so on. However， in this metonymy， we just talk about his book. So we just highlight one domain of the Shakespearean domain matrix.3. Similarities and Differences between metaphor and metonymy3.1 Similarities between metaphor and metonymyFirst， the motivation of them involves the experiences with the world； both of them have a experiential basis， which can be explained from the perspective of embodiment philosophy. Second，our thoughts are metaphorical and metonymic. We think in a metaphorical and metonymic way. Metonymy lay foundation for metaphor. 3.2 Differences between metaphor and metonymy From the analysis， we can know there are many differences between them. About the differences， it can be gained from table 24. The relationship between metaphor and metonymySome linguists have put forward the relationship of these two. For example， Goossens （1990） presents a way in which metaphor and metonymy interact with each other， which includes metaphor from metonymy and metaphor within metonymy. Other linguists， such as Barcelona（2003） and Taylor（2003）， they deem that metonymy isan operation that is more fundamental in the comparison with metaphor. So metonymy is the basis for metaphor. In my part， I claim that the relationship between them is a continuum. One side of the continuum is metonymy， the other side of the continuum is metaphor. The intermediate zone is the transition from metonymy to metaphor.In my opinion， I claim that metonymy is more basic than metaphor. For example，we utilize “Tom” to refer to the boy， that is，tha name of the boy is metonymic in nature. Take another example，in Chinese，we can say “我打车回家”（I go home by taxi.）. In this sentence. The verb “打” refer to the whole process of taking a taxi， such as， hailing a taxi， open the door of the taxi， closing the door of the taxi，telling the taxi where you go and so on. That is ，“打”can generalize the whole process of taking a t axi. In conclusion， our life is filled with metonymy.5. ConclusionFrom the above analysis， the obscure theory of metaphor and metonymy might be more conspicuous. Metaphor and metonymy are closely related，they are both human’s way of thinking. And metonymy is more basic than metaphor. So we should not ignore metonymy anymore.References：[1]Grady，J.‘Theories are building revisited’，CognitiveLinguistics.2001.[2]Radden，G.‘How metonymic are metaphors？’，in A.Barcelona （ed.），Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads.Berlin：Mounton de Gruyter.2003：93-108.[3]Evans.V.& Green.M.Cognitive Linguistics AnIntroduction.[M].Edinburgh University Press.2006：293，311.[4]Kovecses，Z.Metaphor：A Practical Introduction[M].Oxford：Oxford University Press.2002：20.[5]Goossens，L.‘Metaptonymy：the interaction metaphor and metonymy in expression for linguistic action’，Cognitive Linguistics，1990；1，3，323-40.[6]Barcelona，A.Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroad：A Cognitive Perspective.[M].Berlin：Mounton de Gruyter.2003.希望以上资料对你有所帮助，附励志名言3条：1、常自认为是福薄的人，任何不好的事情发生都合情合理，有这样平常心态，将会战胜很多困难。
语言学导论复习资料
语言学导论复习资料一：名词解释(4个）ngue & Parole（语言与言语）Langue is the linguistic competence of the speaker,which is relatively stable and systematic and also the rule that the speaker should follow.Parole is the actual phenomena or data of linguistics, which is subject to personal and situational constraints and always a naturally occurring event.2.Phonetics & Phonology （语音学与音位学）Phonetics is the study of speech sounds, including three main areas: articulatory phonetics (发音语音学), acoustic phonetics(声学语音学), auditory Phonetics(听觉语音学).Phonology is the study of sound systems—the invention of distinctive speech sounds that occur in a language and the patterns.3.Open-class word & Closed-class word（开放类词与封闭类词）Open-class words: whose membership is in principle infinite or unlimited.e.g. n. v. adj. adv.E.g. regarding / with regard to ; throughout, in spite ofClosed words : their membership is fixed or limited.E.g. pro. prep. conj. art. etc.4. Immediate Constituent Analysis（直接成分分析法）The relation between a sentence and its component elements is a Construction（结构体）and its Constituents（成分）. To analyze their relations is IC.5. Sense & Reference（意义与所指）Sense: The literal meaning of a word or an expression, independence of situational context. Reference: The relation between words and the things, actions, events and qualities they stand for.6. Metaphor & Metonymy （隐喻与转喻）Metaphor involves the comparison of two concepts in that one is construed in terms of the other.E.g. All the world is a stage.Metonymy : in the cognitive literature, is defined as a cognitive process in which the vehicle provides mental access to the target within the same domain.E.g. the crown can stand for a king, and the White House for the American government.7. Performatives & Constatives（施为句与表述句）Performatives: In speech act theory an utterance which performs an act, such as Watch out. Constatives: An utterance which asserts something that is either true or false. E.g. Chicago is in the United States.二：问答题（3个）1.What are the designed features of Language？“Design features”here refer to the defining properties of human language that tell the difference between human language and any system of animal communication, including:1. Arbitrariness refers to the fact that the forms of linguistic signs bear no natural relationship to their meanings.2. duality refers to the property of having two levels of structures.3. creativity means that language is resourceful because of its duality and recursiveness.(递归性）4. displacement means that human languages enable their users to symbolize objects, events and concepts which are not present at the moment of communication.5. Cultural Transmission means that language is not biologically transmitted from generation to generation, but that the details of the linguistic system must be learned by each speaker.2.What is Iconicity（句法像似性）？How to analyze some language phenomena with Iconicity?In functional-cognitive linguistics, as well as in semiotics, iconicity is the conceived similarity or analogy between the form of a sign and its meaning, as opposed to arbitrariness.We can analyze some language phenomena with the Iconic principles.①Proximity principle: conceptual distance tends to match with linguistic distance, e.g. “give sb sth” and “give sth to sb”②Quantity principle: conceptual complexity corresponds to formal complexity, e.g. “apple, tree”, “apple tree” and “apple trees”.③Sequential order principle: the sequential order of events described is mirrored in the speech chain, e.g. “I came, I saw, I conquered”.3.What is prototype theory（原形范畴）? How to analyze some language phenomena with prototype theory?Prototype theory is a mode of graded categorization in cognitive science, where some members of a category are more central than others. For example, when asked to give an example of the concept furniture, chair is more frequently cited than, say, stool.We can analyze some language phenomena with its three levels in categories.①basic level: This is the level where we perceive the most differences between “objects” in the word. E.g, all categories of dogs are different, but they still share enough to be distinguished from cats, birds, snakes,etc.②superordinate level: Superordinate categories are the most general ones. E.g, if someone asks you to think of a plant, you might think of a tree or a flower.③subordinate level: They have clearly identifiable gestalts(完形）and lots of individual specific features. At this level we perceive the differences between members od the basic level categories, like rain coat,apple juice and wheel chair.4.What is figure and ground theory? How to analyze some language phenomena with figure and ground theory?The figure within a scene is a substructure perceived as "standing out" from the remainder(the ground) and accorded special prominence as the pivotal(关键的）entity around which the scene is organized and for which it provides a setting. For example, you see words on a printed paper as the "figure" and the white sheet as the "background".It is believed that the selection and arrangement of the information in syntactic structure are decided by the degrees of salience of it. For example, “The car crashed into the tree” and “The tree was hit by the car”, in these two sentences, the meanings are the same, but by arranging the positions of the subject and object differently, the focus and prominence are different.5.How to analyze some language phenomena with Metaphor and Metonymy? We can analyze some language phenomena with metaphor through its three categories.1.Ontological metaphor: e.g inflation is backing us to conner.In this sentence, regarding inflation as an entity allows human beings to refer to it, identify it, treat it as a case.2.Structural metaphor imply how one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another. For example, “Argument is war”leads to an English expression like “Your claims are indefensible”.3.Orientional metaphor gives a concept a spatial orientation.For example, “I’m feeling up” shows erect posture is related with a positive state, and vise versa.6. What is Speech Act theory? What is Illocutionary Act? What is Cooperative Principle?The speech act theory was originated with John Austin. A speech act is an utterance that has performative function in language and communication. Speech acts are commonly taken to include such acts as promising, ordering, greeting, warning, etc.Illocutionary act means when we speak, we not only produce some units of language with certain meanings, but also make clear our purpose in producing them, the way we intend them to be understood, or they also have certain forces.Cooperative Principle refers to the “co-operation” between speakers in using the maxims during the conversation. There are four conversational maxims: the maxim of quantity, the maxim of quality, the maxim of relation, the maxim of manner.三．语言学家及其理论、作品配对1.Saussure: Course in General Linguistics 结构主义历时研究diachronic study2.Boas: discovered the framework of descriptive linguistics Handbook of American Indian languages3.Sapir: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Language4.Bloomfield: stimulus-response theory Language(1993)5.Malinowski: context of situationCoral Gardens and Their Magic6.Trubetzkoy: Principles of Phonlogy7.Austin: speech act theory How to do things with words8.Grice: the cooperative principle Logic and conversation9.Halliday: systemic-functional grammarthe theory of metafunctions of language(元语言功能理论）10.Chomsky: language acquisition device(LAD) generative grammar Syntactic Structureskoff: cognitive linguistics Metaphors We Lived By12.Leech: 7 types of meaning in his Semantics13.Ogden & Richards: Semantic Triangle四．选择题，判断题重点1. Language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for human communication.2. 语言的起源：the bow-wow theory, the pooh-pooh theory, the yo-he-yo theory.3. 语言的功能:interpersonal function(人际功能），performative function(行事），emotive，expressive，phatic communication(寒暄），recreational，metalingual.4. 语言学的主要分支：phonetics[articulatory, acoustic(physical properties), auditory], phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics.5. 语音属于言语，音位属于语言,音位（phoneme)是最小的语音单位，语素（morpheme)是语法意义中最小的语言单位，单词（word）是语言最小的自由单位。
【VIP专享】Chapter 3 Conceptual metaphors and metonymies
Basic emotion words
Two blocks at P137. Basic emotion words serve as reference points to describe nonbasic emotion words.
Linguistic reflection of basic vs. non-basic in terms of emotion
New insights into emotion: five points at P142.
Metaphors as a way of thinking: examples from science and politics
1. Metaphors and the description of linguistic phenomena. Two metaphors: Language form is building block; Language is scaffolding. Langacker criticizes the former and consents the latter. P144-145.
E.g. see Figure 3.2 at P117.
Four types of the most frequent conventionalized metaphors.
Conceptual metaphor and Metonymy
• John Barnden’s Metaphor-of-Mind database
Current trends in metaphor research
Corpus-based approaches • Automatic detection of conventionalized metaphors by comparing texts from different domains
Metonymy: definition
• Example: The White House said… • A phrase P is a metonymic reference to an object X if
P refers to some object Y (in P’s literal reading) Y has a salient connection to X in the given context “White House” metonymically refers to the U.S. government. Salient connection: place -> people located at place
• Conceptual blend
Situation of a car running over a dog Situation where one religious or philosophical notion supplants another
Conceptual integration: An example
IDEAS ARE OBJECTS
It construes one object as another
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
e.g. Try to pack more thoughts into fewer words Let me know if you find any good ideas in the essay
(systematic analogy between sending/receiving parcels and communication)
Advantage of theory: both types of metaphor (the imaginative and the „dead‟ type) can be analysed along these lines. Example 2: THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS – He has constructed a theory (conventional);
-- His theory has thousands of little rooms and long, winding corridors (imaginative)
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 53).
Important: degree of conventionalisation („figurativeness‟); cline; continuum distinction between basic conceptual metaphors (cognitive) and linguistic expressions of these!
Inflation has attacked the foundation of our economy.
Conceptual
metaphors are culture-bound
FOCUS ON STRUCTURAL METAPHORS (HENCEFORTH: CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS)
ontological
metaphors = „ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc., as entities and substances.” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 25) e.g. INFLATION IS AN ENTITY:
CONSTRUCTIVISM VS. NON-CONSTRUCTIVISM
Constructivism (or cognitive approach): metaphor as
essential characteristic of creativity of language;
undermines distinction between metaphorical and literal: all meaning has to be „construed‟: “When a reader gives a highly unusual or idiosyncratic construal of a poem, he is sometimes accused of “reading meanings into” the poem that are not “really there.” But, because of the nature of language, all reading is reading in… All reading involves construal.” (Lakoff & Turner: 109)
More examples: ARGUMENT IS WAR: mapping of ARGUMENT in terms of WAR; target model ARGUMENT “inherits” some of the cognitive structures of the source model WAR.
Aristotle: metaphors are implicit comparisons: comparison theory
Richards’s components of metaphor
Richards‟s components of metaphor: tenor, vehicle (what the tenor resembles) and ground = „tensive view‟, emphasizing conceptual incompatibility (tension) between tenor and vehicle The sun (tenor) is a red balloon (vehicle)
SOME LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS:
Initial positions of the opponents
They drew up their battle lines. I braced myself for the onslaught.
Attack
She attacked every weak point in my argument. He shot down all my arguments. They defended their position ferociously She produced several illustrations to buttress her argument.
Victory/defeat/ truce
OTHER METAPHORS FOR ARGUMENT:
AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY:
We have to set out to prove that bats are birds
We have arrived at a disturbing conclusion AN ARGUMENT IS A CONTAINER:
just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.” (Lakoff & Johnson: 3)
Defence
Retreat
He withdrew his offensive remarks
Counterattack
I hit back at his criticism O.K., you win. He had to succumb to the force of her arguments Let’s call it a truce. .
(1980): much of our everyday talk (a and much of our reality) is structured
metaphorically: “metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not
TYPES OF CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS:
structural metaphors = the organisation of one concept in terms of another e.g. TIME IS MONEY, orientational metaphors = the (mostly organisation of a whole range of concepts e.g. HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN: I’m feeling low. This is getting me down. Everyone was in high spirits. A bit of exercise will help lift his spirits. spatial)
Conventionalized metaphors (a dull sound) = „dead‟ metaphors disregarded
CL APPROACH
CL approach: such metaphors play large role in language,
reject notion of „dead‟ metaphors. Lakoff & Johnson
What does it mean: “our conceptual system … is fundamentally metaphorical”? Abstract categories are organised cognitively by structures borrowed from more concrete categories. Notion of conceptual metaphor: „a mapping of the structure of a source model onto a target model.‟ (Ungerer and Schmid 1996: 120). These are realised linguistically. Example 1: TIME IS MONEY – You’re wasting my time, This gadget will save you hours, Is that worth your while, He’s living on borrowed time etc (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 7-8).
THE CONDUIT METAPHOR (REDDY 1993):
ideas are objects which are put into containers (= words) by a sender and sent to a receiver who takes the objects (=ideas) out of their containers (= words):