New Trends in the Study of Metaphors, Similes, Metonymies, and Their Interaction in the Theoretical Framework of Relevance Theory

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.406

Abstract

Abstract:

This article examines the newest trends in the study of metaphors, similes, and metonymies, as well as their interaction in the theoretical framework of relevance theory (RT). The continuity hypothesis pertaining to the loose use of language has been criticized. RT scholars are attempting to explain metaphors and metonymies by combining RT and theories drawn from cognitive linguistics; similes could be analyzed via the explanatory mechanism of an ad hoc concept, but the function of the pragmatic markers of similes remains undetermined, and the interaction of metaphors and metonymies could be investigated by studying the lexical use of opposite compounds and noun-noun compounds. There could be defects in the above-mentioned explanatory RT mechanisms, which entails RT scholars’ continuous investigations. This study will not only reveal the newest trends in the research on metaphors, similes, and metonymies from the perspective of RT, but will also provide insights to broaden the extent of the research and the scope of application of RT.

Keywords: relevance theory; metaphors; similes; metonymies; ad hoc concept

摘要：

通过探究关联理论框架下喻式语言研究的新趋势, 本研究发现：非刻意用法的连续统解释机制受到批判, 关联学者正尝试结合认知语言学理论去解释隐喻与转喻现象;明喻被纳入特别概念解释机制中, 但明喻语用标记语的功能仍待确定;隐喻与转喻互动可透过反义关系词和名名复合词等词汇用法进行研究。任何喻式语言的关联解释机制都可能存在缺陷, 都需要学者不断地进行探究。本研究揭示了关联喻式语言研究的新动态, 为拓宽关联理论研究的外延和应用范围提供了启示。

关键词: 关联理论, 隐喻, 明喻, 转喻, 特别概念

CLC Number:

H030

Peng Zhuo. New Trends in the Study of Metaphors, Similes, Metonymies, and Their Interaction in the Theoretical Framework of Relevance Theory[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2022, 44(4): 123-139.

彭卓. 关联理论框架下喻式语言研究的新发展[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2022, 44(4): 123-139.

References 62

[1]	Allott N, & Textor M. Lexical pragmatic adjustment and the nature of ad hoc concepts[J]. International Review of Pragmatics, 2012, 4(2):185-208.
[2]	Aristotle. On Rhetoric:A Theory of Civic Discourse[M]. Kennedy G A(trans.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
[3]	Barcelona A. Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy[C]//Benczes R,Barcelona A & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez F J. Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics:Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011:7-58.
[4]	Black M. Models and Metaphors:Studies in Language and Philosophy[M]. New York: Cornell University Press, 1962.
[5]	Carston R. Thoughts and Utterances:The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication[M]. Oxford:Blackwell, 2002.
[6]	Carston R. Explicature and semantics[C]//Davis S & Gillon B S. Semantics:A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004:817-845.
[7]	Carston R. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication[J]. International Review of Pragmatics, 2009, 1(1):35-62.
[8]	Carston R. XIII — Metaphor:Ad hoc concepts,literal meaning and mental images[J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 2010a, 110(3):295-321.
[9]	Carston R. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment[C]//Soria B & Romero E. Explicit Communication:Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010b:217-285.
[10]	Carston R, & Hall A. Implicature and explicature[C]//Schmid H J. Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 2012:47-84.
[11]	Carston R, & Wearing C. Metaphor, hyperbole and simile:A pragmatic approach[J]. Language and Cognition, 2011, 3(2):283-312.
[12]	Carston R, & Wearing C. Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2015, 79:79-92.
[13]	Falkum I L. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy:A Relevance-Theoretic Account[D]. London: University College London, 2011.
[14]	Fauconnier G, & Turner M. The Way We Think:Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities[M]. New York: Basic Books, 2003.
[15]	Fogelin R J. Figuratively Speaking[M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
[16]	Geeraerts D. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions[C]// Dirven R & Pörings R. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 2002:435-465.
[17]	Gibbs R W Jr. Process and products in making sense of tropes[C]// Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought. 2nd Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993:252-276.
[18]	Gibbs R W Jr,. & Tendahl M. Coupling of metaphoric cognition and communication:A reply to Deirdre Wilson[J]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2011, 8(4):601-609.
[19]	Glucksberg S, & Haught C. On the relation between metaphor and simile:When comparison fails[J]. Mind & Language, 2006, 21(3):360-378.
[20]	Glucksberg S, & Keysar B. Understanding metaphorical comparisons:Beyond similarity[J]. Psychological Review, 1990, 97(1):3-18.
[21]	Goossens L. Metaphtonymy:The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 1990, 1(3):323-340.
[22]	Grice H P. Logic and conversation[C]//Cole P & Morgan J L. Syntax and Semantics:Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975:41-58.
[23]	Happé F G E. Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism:A test of relevance theory[J]. Cognition, 1993, 48(2):101-119.
[24]	Hernández Iglesias M. Ad hoc concepts and metaphor[C]//Soria B & Romero E. Explicit Communication:Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010:173-182.
[25]	Jodłowiec M, & Piskorska A. Metonymy revisited:Towards a new relevance-theoretic account[J]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2015, 12(2):161-187.
[26]	Kovecses Z. Where Metaphors Come from:Reconsidering Context in Metaphor[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
[27]	Lakoff G,. Women Fire,and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[28]	Lakoff G, & Johnson M. Metaphors We Live by[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[29]	Lakoff G, & Turner M. More Than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor M. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
[30]	Langacker R W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1:Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.
[31]	Lyons J. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
[32]	Miller G A. Images and models,similes and metaphors[C]// Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought. 2nd Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993:357-400.
[33]	O’Donoghue J. Is a metaphor (like) a simile? Differences in meaning,effect and processing[J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2009, 21:125-149.
[34]	Ortony A. The role of similarity in similes and metaphors[C]// Ortony A. Metaphor and Thought. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993:342-356.
[35]	Panther K U, & Thornburg L L. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003.
[36]	Papafragou A. Metonymy and relevance[J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 1995, 7:141-175.
[37]	Radden G. How metonymic are metaphors?[C]// Dirven R & Pörings R. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 2002:407-434.
[38]	Rebollar B E. A relevance-theoretic perspective on metonymy[J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, 173:191-198.
[39]	Richards I A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
[40]	Rubio-Fernández P, Cummins C, & Tian Y. Are single and extended metaphors processed differently? A test of two relevance-theoretic accounts[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2016, 94:15-28.
[41]	Rubio-Fernández P, Wearing C, & Carston R. Metaphor and hyperbole:Testing the continuity hypothesis[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 2015, 30(1):24-40.
[42]	Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez F J, & Galera-Masegosa A. Going beyond metaphtonymy:Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation[J]. Language Value, 2011, 3(1):1-29.
[43]	Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez F J, & Mairal Usón R. Constraints on syntactic alternation:Lexical-constructional subsumption in the lexical-constructional model[C]//Medina P G. Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London:Equinox, 2011:62-82.
[44]	Sperber D, & Wilson D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition[M]. 2nd Ed. Oxford:Blackwell, 1995.
[45]	Stern J. Metaphor in Context[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.
[46]	Tirrell L. Reductive and nonreductive simile theories of metaphor[J]. The Journal of Philosophy, 1991, 88(7):337-358.
[47]	Vicente A, & Martínez-Manrique F. On relevance theory’s atomistic commitments[C]//Soria B & Romero E. Explicit Communication:Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010:42-57.
[48]	Wałaszewska E. Like in similes—A relevance-theoretic view[J]. Research in Language, 2013, 11(3):323-334.
[49]	Wilson D. Relevance and lexical pragmatics[J]. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica, 2003, 15(2):273-291.
[50]	Wilson D. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics[J]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2011, 8(2):177-196.
[51]	Wilson D, & Carston R. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics:Relevance,inference and ad hoc concepts[C]// Burton-Roberts N. Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007:230-259.
[52]	Wilson D, & Sperber D. Truthfulness and relevance[J]. Mind, 2002, 111(443):583-632.
[53]	Wilson D, & Sperber D. A deflationary account of metaphors[C]// Wilson D & Sperber D. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012:97-122.
[54]	陈新仁. "转喻"指称的认知语用阐释[J]. 外语学刊, 2008(2):84-89.
[55]	陈新仁. 新认知语用学——认知语言学视野中的认知语用研究[J]. 外语学刊, 2011,(2):40-44.
[56]	陈新仁. 语言隐喻的来源与理解——Deirdre Wilson与Raymond Gibbs的对话评议[J]. 当代语言学, 2015, 17(2):204-214.
[57]	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.
[58]	江晓红. 转喻词语理解的认知语用机理探究——关联理论和认知语言学的整合分析模式[J]. 现代外语, 2011, 34(1):34-41.
[59]	江晓红, 何自然. 转喻词语识别的语境制约[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2010, 42(6):411-417.
[60]	覃胜勇. 关联理论角度中的转喻认知机制[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2010, 32(8):39-44.
[61]	王寅. 语用学之理论前沿——简论普遍语用学和新认知语用学[J]. 外国语文, 2015, 31(5):52-58.
[62]	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, 25(1):81-88.