Transcript Metonymy within metaphor: evidence from the Modern Greek

Metonymy within metaphor:
evidence from the Modern
Greek Language
DR PARASKEVI THOMOU
UNIVERSITY OF CRETE
Metaphor
B
is
target domain
A
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
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)
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)
Metaphor and metonymy in comparison
Metaphorical relationship
similarity
(Kӧvecses 2010: 175)
source domain target domain
‘distant’ from each other
source
target
Metonymic relationship
I’m reading Shakespeare
(Kӧvecses 2010: 175)
within the same domain
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)
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)
FOR
FOR
AGENT
POSSESSOR
 Metonymy


ACTION
PROPERTY
source in target
(Ruiz de Mendoza 2000)
Analysis of the data (1/3)
Piretoδis prospaθies γia na perioristi i katastrofi tu perivalondos
Fever(adj) efforts/tries so 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)
Analysis of the data (2/3)
I aretes
efiγan apo tin kinonia mas
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)
Analysis of the data (3/3)
Γemise ta efivika tis xronia
me to orama kapju γaliniu ke triferu
politizmu
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)
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
Discussion (2/3)
A. Metaphoricity
co-occurrences of words: piretoδis (on fever) prospaθies (efforts), aretes
(virtues) efiγan (gone), triferos (tender) politizmos (civilization)
two
domains
is
ABSTRACT: ACTION, PROPERTY
B. Metonymy
ABSTRACT
HUMAN
HUMAN
two domains blended
in one
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)
The end
Thank you!