Napredna pretraga

Pregled bibliografske jedinice broj: 313635

From metaphorical banana skins to metonymic rittbergers: On two types of polysemy


Brdar, Mario; Zlomislić, Jadranka; Šoštarić, Blaženka; Vančura Malbaša, Alma
From metaphorical banana skins to metonymic rittbergers: On two types of polysemy // Cognitive Approache to English: International Conference to Mark 30 Years of English Studies in Osijek. Book of Abstracts / Brdar, Mario ; Omazić Marija ; Pavičić Takač, Višnja (ur.).
Osijek: Filozofski fakultet, 2007. str. 3-4 (predavanje, međunarodna recenzija, sažetak, znanstveni)


Naslov
From metaphorical banana skins to metonymic rittbergers: On two types of polysemy

Autori
Brdar, Mario ; Zlomislić, Jadranka ; Šoštarić, Blaženka ; Vančura Malbaša, Alma

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Sažeci sa skupova, sažetak, znanstveni

Izvornik
Cognitive Approache to English: International Conference to Mark 30 Years of English Studies in Osijek. Book of Abstracts / Brdar, Mario ; Omazić Marija ; Pavičić Takač, Višnja - Osijek : Filozofski fakultet, 2007, 3-4

ISBN
978-953-6456-77-7

Skup
Cognitive Approache to English: International Conference to Mark 30 Years of English Studies in Osijek.

Mjesto i datum
Osijek, Hrvatska, 18.-19.10. 2007

Vrsta sudjelovanja
Predavanje

Vrsta recenzije
Međunarodna recenzija

Ključne riječi
Polysemy; metaphor; metonymy; domain

Sažetak
Within the cognitive linguistic framework, metaphor and metonymy have been contrasted with respect to five central points of difference, although it has been repeatedly claimed that the borderline between the two is blurred (cf. Barcelona 2000a and b, Ruiz de Mendoza 2000, and Radden 2003). Firstly, it is widely accepted that, metonymy is based on contiguity, whereas metaphor is based on similarity (cf. Ullmann 1962: 212, Taylor 1989: 122). Secondly, the two differ in terms of the number of conceptual domains involved. Thirdly, metaphor and metonymy are generally different with respect to the directionality of conceptual mappings involved. Another crucial point of difference between metaphor and metonymy has to do with the number of mappings taking place. Metaphors may work on the basis of a set of correspondences (though some may exploit only one), while metonymic mappings are based on a single correspondence (cf. Ruiz de Mendoza and Pe&ntilde ; a 2002). Finally, metaphor and metonymy are said to have different functions. According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 36f) metaphor is “ principally a way of conceiving of one thing in terms of another, and its primary function is understanding ; ” while metonymy “ has primarily a referential function, that is, it allows us to use one entity to stand for another.” This difference is typically reflected in their realizations. Metaphors often function as predicative expressions (with an explicit or implicit verbal element), whereas metonymies are said to function most frequently as referential nominal expressions, syntactically realized as subjects and objects. In this talk, we show that there are further differences concerning the actual realization of the two, i.e. in the way they get lexicalized. A brief examination of several examples of what dictionaries list as metaphorical expressions (e.g. banana skin, minefield, and avalanche). Authentic usage data, obtained from Google and BNC, indicate that these expressions are rarely used as metaphors in their citation forms. They regularly occur in an extended form, together with some other expression, commonly a prepositional phrase specifying the target domain of metaphorical mappings. Metaphors thus tend to get realized as multi- word lexemes, i.e. as analytic expressions. Metonymies on the other hand, tend to be realized as more compact, synthetic expressions, metonymic mappings apparently needing no such lexical props. This can be considered to be a consequence of the conceptual distance between the source and target meaning, which is larger in the case of metaphors, as they link two more or less conceptually distinct and distant domains, the distance between metonymic source and target, which are both found within a single domain matrix, being smaller. At the same time we note that this correlates with different types of polysemy. Metaphor-induced polysemy tends to be ad-hoc, unsystematic, in the sense that it takes place in, and affects, a single lexical item, while metonymies are often regular in the sense that it is not only a single lexical item in a semantic field that is affected, but many other items in the field, in the more or less same way.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Filologija



POVEZANOST RADA


Projekt / tema
122-1301049-0606 - Kognitivno lingvistički pristup polisemiji u hrvatskome i drugim jezicima (Mario Brdar, )

Ustanove
Filozofski fakultet, Osijek