S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
34
CONCEPTUAL INTERACTION BETWEEN METAPHOR
AND METONYMY IN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
HEYDAR GULIYEV
PhD, Azerbaijan University of Languages
Abstract. There is no clear distinction between metonymy and metaphor. Specifying metaphor-metonymy
interaction is a difficult task, particularly differentiating the two cognitive mechanisms from each other. There are a
wide variety of opinion. In this paper we look mainly at two important issue, (i) what causes this interaction between
metaphor and metonymy and (ii) how these two distinctly different processes blend. In Cognitive Linguistics
metaphor and metonymy have both been explicitly recognized as central to a theory of knowledge organization.
Metaphor and metonymy have both been described by Lakoff and his co-workers as mappings between
conceptual domains. By means of metaphor we understand and reason about one conceptual domain in terms
of another. Metonymy is a multilevel cognitive mechanism that can operate at the grammatical, lexical, syntactic,
phonological, and discursive levels. According to cognitive linguists, metonymy is not merely a figure of speech; it is
also a way of thinking and conceptualizing. Cognitive linguists, distinguish between metaphor and metonymy in
terms of the number of domains involved. If the source and target belong to the same superordinate domain, we have
a metonymy. If the source and target belong to two different superordinate domains, then we have a metaphor.
Keywords and expressions: metonymy, metaphor, conceptual interaction, metaphor-metonymy
interaction, domain expansion, domain reduction, idealised cognitive models.
Аннотация. Метонимия ва метафора ўртасида аниқ фарқ йўқ. Метафора ва метонимиянинг
ўзаро таъсирини аниқлаш қийин вазифадир, айниқса, агар иккита когнитив механизмни бир -биридан
ажратса. Жуда хилма -хил фикрлар мавжуд. Ушбу мақолада биз асосан иккита муҳим масалани
кўриб чиқамиз: (и) метафора ва метонимия ўртасидаги ўзаро таъсирга нима сабаб бўлади ва бу икки
хил жараён қандай бирлаштирилади. Когнитив тилшуносликда метафора ва метонимия билимларни
ташкил этиш назариясининг марказий қисми сифатида аниқ тан олинган. Метафора ҳам,
метонимия ҳам Лакофф ва унинг ҳамкорлари томонидан контсептуал соҳаларни таққослаш
сифатида тасвирланган. Метафора ёрдамида биз бир контсептуал соҳани тушунамиз ва бошқа
нуқтаи назардан гаплашамиз. Метонимия-кўп даражали билиш механизми бўлиб, у грамматик,
лексик, синтактик, фонологик ва дискурсив даражада ишлай олади. Когнитив тилшуносларнинг
фикрига кўра, метонимия шунчаки нутқ фигураси эмас; бу ҳам фикрлаш ва фикрлаш усулидир.
Когнитив тилшунослар метафора ва метонимияни иштирок этадиган соҳалар сонига қараб
фарқлайдилар. Агар манба ва мақсад бир хил юқори доменга тегишли бўлса, бизда метонимия
мавжуд. Агар манба ва мақсад икки хил устун доменга тегишли бўлса, демак бизда метафора бор.
Таянч сўз ва иборалар: метонимия, метафора, контсептуал ўзаро таъсир, метафора-метони-
миянинг ўзаро таъсири, майдоннинг кенгайиши, майдоннинг камайиши, идеаллаштирилган когнитив
моделлар.
Аннотация. Нет четкого различия между метонимией и метафорой. Определение взаимодействия
метафоры и метонимии - сложная задача, особенно если дифференцировать два когнитивных механизма
друг от друга. Есть самые разные мнения. В этой статье мы рассматриваем в основном два важных
вопроса: (i) что вызывает это взаимодействие между метафорой и метонимией и (ii) как сочетаются эти
два совершенно разных процесса. В когнитивной лингвистике метафора и метонимия были явно признаны
центральными в теории организации знания. И метафора, и метонимия были описаны Лакоффом и его
сотрудниками как сопоставления между концептуальными областями. С помощью метафоры мы понимаем
одну концептуальную область и рассуждаем о ней с точки зрения другой. Метонимия - это многоуровневый
когнитивный механизм, который может действовать на грамматическом, лексическом, синтаксическом,
фонологическом и дискурсивном уровнях. Согласно когнитивным лингвистам, метонимия - это не просто
фигура речи; это также способ мышления и осмысления. Когнитивные лингвисты различают метафору и
метонимию с точки зрения количества вовлеченных областей. Если источник и цель принадлежат одному и
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
35
тому же вышестоящему домену, у нас есть метонимия. Если источник и цель принадлежат двум разным
вышестоящим доменам, то у нас есть метафора.
Опорные слова и выражения: метонимия, метафора, концептуальное взаимодействие,
взаимодействие метафора-метонимия, расширение области, сокращение области, идеализирован-
ные когнитивные модели.
In Cognitive Linguistics metonymy is also seen, like metaphor, as a conceptual mapping. In
making the difference between metaphor and metonymy, Lakoff & Turner
1
have pointed out several
distinguishing features:
(i)
In metaphor there are two conceptual domains, while metonymy involves only one conceptual
domain.
(ii)
Metonymies, but not metaphors, involve a 'stand-for' relationship between the source and
target domains. For example, if I say Chrysler has laid off a hundred workers, the name of the
company stands for the person or persons in charge of the
company's employment policy. A well-known case of metonymy is ORDER FOR CUSTOMER
as in The ham sandwich is waiting for his check
2
, where “the ham sandwich” may be conventionally
used by a waitress to refer to the 'customer who has ordered a ham sandwich.'
(iii)
In metaphor a whole schematic structure, called the source domain, is mapped, together with its
accompanying logic, onto another whole schematic structure, called the target, and its logic; the function
of the mapping is to allow us to understand and reason about the target in terms of the source. In contrast,
a metonymy is primarily used for reference: we refer to an entity by means of another entity.
According to Barcelona
3
, the interaction of both phenomena (metaphor and metonymy - H.G.)
can be done explicitly through texts or can occur at a purely conceptual level. He emphasizes two
types of interaction at the conceptual level: a) the metonymic conceptual motivation of metaphor
and b) the metaphorical conceptual motivation of metonymy. For example:
Prick up one's ears
-
qulaqlarını şəkləmək, diqqətlə qulaq asmaq. There are also linguists who have different approaches
to domains. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and Diez Velasco
4
discuss two types of metonymy operations:
domain expansion (source-in-target metonymy) and domain reduction (target-in-source metonymy).
Source metonyms in the target include domain expansion, that is, they provide a complete transition
to the matrix domain through one of their subdomains. Target metonyms in the source include
domain reduction, which results in highlighting the relevant part of the domain. They do not accept
part-to-part metonymies. Ruiz de Mendoza's theory is based on the criteria of distinguishing
domains from subdomains. Croft's approach to distinguishing domains from subdomains is
noteworthy. He describes the domain in his article “The role of domains in the interpretation of
metaphors and metonyms” in this way: “We can now define a domain as a
semantic structure that
functions as the base for at least one concept profile
(typically, many profiles)”
5
. Croft here from
1
Lakoff, G. and M. Turner (1989) More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. University of Chicago
Press, pp. 103.
2
Lakoff, G., M. Johnson (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, pp. 35.
3
Barcelona, A. 2003. Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In: A. Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor
and Metonymy at the crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
4
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco J., and Olga J. Diez Velasco. 2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction. In Metaphor
and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Rene Dirven, and Ralf Pörings (eds.), 489–532 (Cognitive Linguistics
Research 20.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
5
Croft, W. 2003. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven and R. Porings
(eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 166.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
36
two terms put forward by R. Langaker; uses the
base
and
profile
, and perceives the relationship
between them as presupposition: “...the base is usually taken to be just the domain immediately
presupposed by the profiled concept”
1
. He calls the base of the profiled concept the
base domain
.
This approach is consistent with Ruiz de Mendoza's concept of the matrix domain. It should be noted
that Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez's
matrix domain
and R. Longaker's
domain matrix
differ. Ruiz de
Mendoza Ibanez and Diez Velasco present four models of interaction in their article “Patterns of
conceptual interaction”
2
:
1.
Interaction based on image schemas;
2.
Interaction between propositional cognitive models in metaphoric settings;
3.
Interaction involving metonymic models;
4.
Interaction between metaphor and metonymy.
Metonymy is a multilevel cognitive mechanism that can operate at the grammatical, lexical,
syntactic, phonological, and discursive levels.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
3
explain metonymy based on G.Lakoff’s idealized cognitive
model. They note that metonymy is understood as a conceptual process that is mentally perceived
by one conceptual entity, 'target', another conceptual entity 'mechanism' (vehicle) within the same
ICM (idealized cognitive model - H.G.), one expressing the other, i.e. metonymy is a reversible
process. For Radden & Kövecses, in classifying metonyms into 'sign', 'reference' and 'concept'
metonyms, metonyms are used at each of the three points of the semiotic triangle, only 'concept
metonyms' is reversible. Each ICM offers three 'ontological worlds', 'worlds of realities' (things and
events), 'worlds of conceptualization' and 'worlds of language' (forms), representing the three points
of the semiotic triangle, all of which can lead to metonymy. These worlds cover the three entities [.
. .]: thought, characters, and referent; that create the famous semiotic triangle developed by Ogden
and Richards. Radden & Kövecses
4
distinguish two main types of ICM:
1.
ICMs which interrelate entities of different ontological realms within the same semiotic unit:
a)
The state of the connected ontological realms gives rise to two ICMs: a pair of concepts and
forms generate a sign, and can be described as
‘Sign ICMs’
(italics H.G.). Sign ICMs combine form
and one or more concepts, thus creating the metonym FORM FOR CONCEPT. The form expresses
the concept that it defines metonymically. For example, the word or sign of the
dollar
is associated
with $
money
;
b)
the pairing, shape, and concept of a thing or event and sign creates a reference situation and
can be described as ‘
Reference ICMs’
(italics H.G.). Reference ICMs promote the emergence of
three types of metonymy:
-
FORM - CONCEPT FOR THING/EVENT (where, e.g. the word/concept cow “stands for” a real cow);
- CONCEPT FOR THING / EVENT (here the concept of
cow
means any
cow
). This situation is
called Reference-via-Meaning ICM by G. Lakoff;
1
Croft, W. 2003. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven and R. Porings
(eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 167.
2
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco J., and Olga J. Diez Velasco. 2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction. In Metaphor
and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Rene Dirven, and Ralf Pörings (eds.), 489–532 (Cognitive Linguistics
Research 20.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
3
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in
language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.)
4
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in
language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.), pp. 23.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
37
- FORM FOR THING/EVENT (where, e.g. the word- form cow “stands for” a real cow or where
a proper name (e.g. John Smith) is used for the person of that name. Radden and Kövecses call it
the Direct- Reference ICM.
2.
ICMs which interrelate entities of different semiotic units within the same ontological realm
or realms and which give rise to Concept ICMs. Concept ICMs in turn lead to the following
metonymic relationships:
a)
FORMA - CONCEPTA FOR FORMB - CONCEPTB (e.g. bus -“bus” which “stands for” bus
driver -“bus driver”);
b)
FORM - CONCEPTA FOR CONCEPTB (e.g. mother - “mother” which “stands for”
“housewife mother”);
c)
FORMA - CONCEPTA FOR FORMA - CONCEPTB (e.g. White House “place” which
“stands for” White House “institution”);
d)
FORMA - CONCEPTA FOR FORMB - CONCEPTA (e.g. UN which “stands for” United Nations).
These examples are
linguistic metonyms
, as noted by Panther and Thornburg, because “when the
source content is expressed by a linguistic sign (a lexeme or a syntagmatic combination of lexemes),
one can speak of a
linguistic metonymy
”
1
Goossens explores the interaction between metonymy and metaphor and identifies four categories
of 'metaphtonymy': 'metaphor from metonymy', 'metonymy within metaphor', 'metaphor within
metonymy' and 'demetonization in a metaphorical context'
2
.
Goossens used the term 'metaphor from metonymy' to describe the formation of many
metonyms from metaphorical expressions, for example,
close-lipped, tongue in cheek
etc.. As an
example of the phrase 'metonymy within metaphor', Goossens uses the phrase
to shoot your mouth
off
. Here, the
mouth
expresses
speech
(metonymy) and expression means
to reveal the mystery
(metaphor). He tries to show the possibility of working together, despite the fact that both metaphor
and metonymy are different within an expression.
Panther & Thornburg
3
notes that metonymy has two other relationships besides the reference
relationship, the reference phenomenon: (i) referential metonyms, (ii) predicational metonyms, and
(iii) illocutionary metonyms. Examples of reference metonyms include
Ağ Ev (The White House)
,
which represents the US leadership, the President, or his spokesmen. Example of predicative
metonyms: O
getməli oldu (He had to leave)
. In this sentence, the source (had to leave) is the same
as the target. Scholars call the combination of reference metonyms and predicative metonyms
propositional metonymy
. They try to explain the illocutive categories through scenarios: “... speech
acts are actions, and they share certain features with non-linguistic actions. Like other actions, they
have “phases” or “stages” or “conditions” for successful performance. The scenario of a speech act
represents the whole or its central element, in the words of Panther & Thornburg, the “core”.
Scholars describe the scenario for the request as follows:
(i) The BEFORE: H can do A, S wants H to do A
(ii) The CORE: S puts H under a (more or less strong) obligation to do A.
The RESULT: H is under an obligation to do A (H must/should/ought to do A).
1
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda. 2007. “Metonymy,” in: The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics.
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 240.
2
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action.
Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (3), 323–340.)
3
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda. 2007. “Metonymy,” in: The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics.
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 236-263.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
38
(iii) The AFTER: H will do A
1
.
They show that different parts of the scenario can represent a whole illocutive category.
In his book “Metonymy and Language”
2
, Charles Denrosh proposes a new theory of language and
communication in which metonymy and metonymic processing play a key role. This theory shows
how cognitive ability is necessary at all levels of language use in understanding the relationship
between signs and parts of signs. The scholar develops it within the framework of the General Theory
of Metonymy. Let's take a look at his views: “By ‘metonymy’ I mean the recognition of part-whole
relatedness between things, words and concepts.... metonymy plays a fundamental role in
conceptualization and communication... Things, words and concepts are related if they have an
element in common, if a part-whole relationship exists between them. The part may be a physical part
or an attribute. It is the manipulation of these ‘parts’ which allows us to realize the full meaning-
making potential of the lexicon and the fullest expression of our conceptual system. It is argued in this
study that morphology, syntax, lexis and phraseology, as they are conventionally represented, account
only for basic meaning making in language, and that it is metonymy — or better, ‘metonymic
processing’— which gives us the flexibility and subtleties on and above those systems, on which we
constantly rely in our social dealings with others”
3
. Charles Denroche tries to justify the transition
from metaphor to metonymy and argues that metonymy is more fundamental than metaphor. He uses
Frege's sense/reference to clarify his point. With these notions, he draws parallels between Saussure’s
‘langue’ (language) and ‘parole’ (speech) and Chomsky’s ‘competence’ and ‘performance’. Sense is
the meaning of the word 'complete', and reference is the meaning of 'part', and the connection between
sense/reference is metonymic according to Denroche. Denroche argues that the General Theory of
Metonymy has a wide range of relevance, plays an important role in conceptualization, language
system and face-to-face interaction using language, is important in defining categories of metonymy,
pragmatically, literary and metaphorical meaning, as well as metonymic meaning.
One of the main means of nominativeness is metonymy, which has a special role in expanding
the meaning of the word. The difference with the metaphor is that it has no semantic similarity.
Metonymy is a kind of metaphor realized on the principle of connection and substitution. Within
this process, different objects, events, and signs replace each other within certain time and space.
The language of metonyms adorns it with its conciseness, brevity, expressiveness and implicitness,
making it more attractive.
1
Thornburg, L. and Panther, K-U. 1997. "Speech act metonymies", in Liebert W. A. et al. (eds.), Discourse and
Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 208.
2
Denroche, Charles. (2015). Metonymy and language: a new theory of linguistic processing. Taylor & Francis.
3
Denroche, Charles. (2015). Metonymy and language: a new theory of linguistic processing. Taylor & Francis, pp. 1.
