A Cognitive Account of the Metonymic Usages of Opposites

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.2016.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Metonymic cognition as well as its linguistic representation is a hot topic in contemporary cognitive linguistics. Existing research has supplied ample discussion of all sorts of contiguity relations underlying metonymic cognition and systematic description of corresponding linguistic representation and speech act realization, and revealed the motivation and effects of metonymy use. The present study addresses an under-explored type of metonymy, i.e. metonymy realized by adjective opposites with regard to its cognitive foundation, cognitive mode and features, and metaphorization. It will be argued that the part-whole relation based on opposition gives rise to the metonymic usage of adjective opposites, and the derived metonymic usages may undergo both conceptual and grammatical metaphorization. Specifically, metonymies represented by adjective opposites involve either the substitution of the whole of an object for part of it (or the other way round), or that of a property of the object for the object itself; thus, they are cognitively motivated. Yet, in actual communication, the emergence of such metonymies depends on the context at the moment. Unless a part or a property of the object becomes salient in the current discourse, can it be used to refer to the whole object, or be substituted by the object. In addition, since shape and property stand for different aspects of an object from process and result, the differences in the focus with which the cognizers perceive them will yield different cognitive results, giving rise to nominalization or other grammatical-metaphoric processes. The metonymization as well as subsequent conceptual and grammatical metaphorization of the adjective opposites is not unique to Chinese language or cognition, but the combinational power of its compounding does facilitate the processes. This study will shed light on the cognitive mechanism of the metonymic usages of the opposites and provide implications for the teaching of adjective opposites.

Keywords: metonymy; contiguity; part-whole relation; opposition

摘要： 转喻认知及其语言表征是当代认知语言学的一个热门话题，相关研究成果可谓汗牛充栋。现有研究文献充分描述了转喻认知背后的各种事物“邻接”关系，并系统考察了这些类型的转喻认知在语言系统表征以及言语行为实施方面的体现，深入分析了转喻使用的动因以及效果等等。本研究聚焦现有文献中鲜有触及的反义关系型转喻，考察这类转喻认知方式形成的认知基础，探讨这类特殊转喻的认知方式、特点及隐喻化现象。笔者认为，基于对比关系形成的部分—整体关系是此类转喻用法形成的认知基础，特定语境下相关部分或属性的认知凸显是发生转喻的前提条件，相关转喻用法背后有可能发生概念隐喻化或语法隐喻化过程，产生不同的认知效果，而汉语自身的构词特点为上述认知过程提供了便利。本研究在理论上可以为反义关系词汇转喻用法的认知机制提供阐释，在应用上为此类汉语词汇的教学提供参考和启示。

关键词: 转喻, 邻接关系, 部分—整体关系, 反义关系

CLC Number:

H030

CHEN Xinren. A Cognitive Account of the Metonymic Usages of Opposites[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies Universit, 2016, 38(1): 1-13.

陈新仁. 反义关系词转喻用法的认知阐释[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2016, 38(1): 1-13.

References

［1］Barcelona，A. Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy ［A］. R. Benczes，A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez（Eds.）. Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics：Towards a Consensus View［C］. Philadelphia：John Benjamins Publishing Co.，2011：7—57.
［2］Benczes，R.，A. Barcelona，& F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez（Eds.）. Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics：Towards a Consensus View［C］. Philadelphia：John Benjamins Publishing Co.，2011.
［3］Croft，W. & D. A. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics［M］. Beijing：Beijing University Press，2006.
［4］Gonzálvez-García，F.，M. S. Peña Cervel & L. Pérez Hernández （Eds）. Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor［C］. Philadelphia： John Benjamins Publishing Co，2013.
［5］Halliday，M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar［M］. London：Edward Arnold，1985 / 1994.
［6］Kovecses，Z. Metaphor：A Practical Introduction［M］. Oxford：Oxford University Press，2002.
［7］Lakoff，G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things：What Categories Reveal about the Mind［M］. Chicago：University of Chicago Press，1987.
［8］Lakoff，G. & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by［M］. Chicago：University of Chicago Press，1980.
［9］ Lakoff，G.，& M. Turner. More Than Cool Reasons：A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor ［M］. Chicago，IL：University of Chicago Press，1989.
［10］Leech，G. Principles of Pragmatics［M］. London：Longman，1983.
［11］Littlemore，J. Metonymy：Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication［M］.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，2015.
［12］Panther，K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation［J］. Journal of Pragmatics，1998，30：755—769.
［13］Panther，K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian［A］. K. Panther & G. Radden（Eds.）. Metonymy in Language and Thought［C］. Amsterdam：John Benjamins，1999：333—357.
［14］Panther，K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg. Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas：The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts［A］. K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg（Eds.）. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing［C］. Philadelphia：John Benjamins，2003：127—147.
［15］Panther，K.-U. & L. Thornburg. Metonymy［A］. In：D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens（Eds.）. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics［M］. Oxford：Oxford University Press，2007：236—263.
［16］Quirk，et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language［M］. London：Longman，1985.
［17］Radden，G. & Z. Kovecses. Towards a Theory of Metonymy［M］. Amsterdam：John Benjamins，1999.
［18］Radden，G. How metonymic are metaphors［A］. A. Barcelona. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads［C］. Berlin：Mouton de Gruyter，2000：93—108.
［19］Ruiz de Mendoza，F. & L. P. Hernandez. Cognitive operation and pragmatic implication［A］. In Panther，K.-U. & L. Thornburg（Eds.）. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing［C］. Amsterdam：John Benjamins，2003.
［20］陈望道. 修辞学发凡［M］. 上海：上海教育出版社，1979.
［21］陈新仁. “转喻”指称的认知语用阐释［J］. 外语学刊，2008（2）：84—89.
［22］胡壮麟. 语法隐喻［J］. 外语教学与研究，1996（4）：1—7.
［23］李国南. 辞格与词汇［M］. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001.
［24］束定芳，黄洁. 汉语反义复合词构词理据和语义变化的认知分析［A］. 张辉主编. 认知语义学研究［C］. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2011：411—421.
［25］杨波，张辉，隐喻与转喻的相互作用：模式、分析与应用［J］. 外国研究，2009（5）：1—8.
［26］张辉，杨波. 隐喻和转喻的区分：研究现状和分歧［J］. 外国语文，2009（1）：81—88.
［27］朱永生. 名词化、动词化与语法隐喻［J］. 外语教学与研究，2006（2）：83—90.

[1]	Wei Zaijiang. Latest Development in Research on Conceptual Metonymy [J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2023, 45(5): 147-160.
[2]	Shen Yanping. A Study of the Metonymic Inferencing Mechanism of Dialogic Syntactic Resonance [J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2023, 45(3): 136-150.
[3]	Lin Zhengjun, Xia Shizhou. Realization of Ideational Grammatical Metaphor through Conceptual Metaphor and Conceptual Metonymy [J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2023, 45(3): 3-17.
[4]	Wang Jun. A Contrastive Study of Chinese and English Oppositional Collocations [J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2022, 44(6): 19-31.
[5]	Du Fengjiao, Liu Zhiyuan. A Review of Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, Theoretical, and Descriptive Issues [J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2021, 43(1): 110-120.
[6]	LIU Yin / YANG Wenbin. Multimodal Metaphors and Metonymies in Printed Anti-corruption Advertisements [J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2017, 39(6): 40-56.
[7]	ZHONG Shuneng / ZHENG Wenhui. A Study on the Cognitive Mechanism of Foreshadowing-echoing [J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2017, 39(2): 30-41.
[8]	Wang Zhanbin. The Consciousness of Deconstruction in Eugene O’Neill’s Plays [J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2015, 37(8): 28-.
[9]	Lu Weizhong, Hao Wenhua. A Study of the Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Spatialization of TIME [J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2013, 35(12): 18-23.