Metaphorization and Metonimization as Tools of Semantic Derivation (Based on English Economics Textbooks)
https://doi.org/10.24833/RJCSC-2023-2-3-36-52
Abstract
This paper studies two types of indirect (secondary) nomination: simulative and indicative, taken extracts from English economics textbooks. The similative nomination is actualized through functional transfer, which is interpreted as a separate kind of metaphor termed “actional metaphor”. The analysis of indicative nomination is focused on metonymy and synecdoche (as a closely related device), which is conditioned by the same transfer principle on the basis of an essential attribute. The semantic derivates are considered in sentences representing such a logical form of thought as definition, which reveals the metaphoric and metonymic processes in the field of English economic terminology.
Our analysis reveals the interrelations between models of terms and their functions as designators of target and source domains on the one hand, and types of cognitive metaphor (ontological and conceptual), on the other. The author comes to the conclusion that both types can have either simple or complex structures. Similarly, there are simple and complex metonymies. These are the peculiarities of this type of economic discourse from the point of view of semantic derivation. Another feature of economic discourse is the tendency towards the uniform secondary semiotic code when describing metaphorized terms.
With regard to indicative secondary nomination, the main findings are as follows: the metonymic lexis is organized as a chain of oppositions: terms and nomens – terms – terms and common lexis – common lexis. The mechanism of forming “mixed” kinds of indirect nominations, i.e. metaphtonymy and synecdoche-metonymy, is revealed in the course of the contextual analysis. This leads the author to a hypothetical argument that it is the actional metaphor that underlies these mixed types of semantic derivatives.
Both types of the secondary nomination have a systemic nature: metaphor is described in other system units; metonymies have a field structure and are actualised through specific oppositions.
Transl.: Anokhina S.P. 2021. Metaphorization and Metonimization as Tools of Semantic Derivation (Based on English Economics Textbooks). Professional Discourse & Communication. 3(3). P. 65–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2021-3-3-65-82
About the Author
S. P. Anokhina
Togliatti State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Svetlana P. Anokhina – Dr. Sci. (Philology), Professor in the Theory and Practice of Translation Department
References
1. Aleksejeva L. M., Mishlanova S. L. 2016. Permskaya shkola metafory [Metaphor school in Perm]. Vestnik permskogo universiteta. Russijskaya i zarubezhnaya filologia [Bulletin of Perm University. Russian and Foreign Philology]. 3(35). P. 122–133.
2. Aristotle. 1983. Poetika [Aristotele’s Poetics]. In Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh, tom 4 [Aristotele’s works in 4 volumes. Vol. 4]. Mysl’. P. 645–681. (In Russian)
3. Arutyunova, N. D. 1976. Predlozhenie i ego smysl [The Sentence and Its Meaning]. Nauka. (In Russian)
4. Balashova L. V. 2015. Dinamicheskaya koncepciya metafory: ot Aristotelya do sovremennoj kognitivnoj lingvistiki [Dynamic Concept of the Metaphor: From Aristotle to Modern Cognitive Lingustics]. Vestnik Omskogo universit’eta [Bulletin of Omsk university]. 2. P. 169–177. (In Russian)
5. Barcelona A. 2003. On the Plausibility of Claiming a Metonymic Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor. In A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Mouton de Gruyter. P. 31–58.
6. Black M. 1990. Metafora [Metaphor]. In Teoriya metafory [Metaphor Theory]. Progress. P. 153– 172. (In Russian)
7. Berger A., Jaekel O. 2015. The Cognitive Role of Metaphor in Teaching Science: Examples from Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology and Philosophy. Philosophical Inquiries. 3. P. 89–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4454/philinq.v3i1.116
8. Borodulina M. J., Makejeva M. N. 2018. Metafora “INTERNET = Vodnoje prostranstvo” v pechatnykh SMI (na osnove content-analisa resursov national’nogo korpusa russkogo yazyka) [Metaphor “INTERNET = Water Space” in Mass Media (Based on a Content Analysis of the Russian National Corpus]. Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki [Issues of Cognitive Lingustics]. 2. P. 13–20. (In Russian).
9. Charteris-Black J. 2011. Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230319899
10. Goosens L. 2002. Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expression for Linguistic Action. In R. Dirven, R. Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Mouton de Gruyter. P. 349–377.
11. Gvishiani N. B. 2018. Referenciya i representaciya v structure konceptul’noj metafory (v aspekte kompyuterno-korpusnogo issledovaniya i perevoda) [Reference and Representation in the Structure of Conceptual Metaphor (Computer Corpus and Translation Aspects)]. Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki [Issues of Cognitive Linguistics]. 3. P. 5–15. (In Russian)
12. Ivina L. V. 2018. Kognitivnyya ocnovayniya zoomorfnoj metafory v investicionnoj terminologii anglijskogo yazyka [Cognitive Grounds of Zoomorfic Metaphor in English Investment Terminology]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanitues]. 4. P. 189–198. (In Russian)
13. Jakobson R. 2002. The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In In R. Dirven, R. Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Mouton de Gruyter. P. 41–47.
14. Kolesov V. V. 2012. Ostavit’ sled … [Leave a Trace …]. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta [Bulletin of Omsk University]. 3. P. 253–257. (In Russian)
15. Krasavskij N. A. 2020. Metafora kak sposob eksplikacii revnosti v russkikh i nemeckikh khudozhestvennykh tekstakh [Mataphor as a Way of Explicating Jealousy in Russian and German Literary Texts]. Izvestiya Volgogradsckogo gosudarstevennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Pedagogicheskie nauki. Filologicheskie nauki [News of Volgograd State Pedagogical University. Pedagogical Sciences. Philological Sciences]. 1(144). P. 211–216. (In Russian)
16. Lakoff J., Johnson M. 2004. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem [Metaphors We Live By]. Editorial URSS. (In Russian)
17. Lakoff J. 2004. Zhenshthiny, ogon’ i opasnye veshthi: chto kategorii jazyka govoryat nam o myshlenii [Women, Fire and Hazardous Things: What Language Categories Tell Us about Thought]. Yazyki slavyanskoj kultury. (In Russian)
18. Marinchenko I. A. 2018. Vestimentarnaya metafora v parfyumernom diskurse [Verbal Metaphor in Perfume Discourse]. Voprosy cognitivnoj linguistiki [Issues of Cognitive Linguistics]. 4. P. 101–107. (In Russian)
19. Moskvin V. P. 2006. Russkaya metafora: ocherk semioticheskoy teorii. Moscow, LENAND. (In Russian)
20. Schulzek D. 2014. A Frame approach to metonymical process in some common types of German word formation. In T. Gamerschlag, D. Gerland, R. Osswald, W. Peterson (eds.). Frames and Concept Types. Springer International Publishing. P. 221–242.
21. Semino E., Demjen Z., Demmen J. 2018. An Integrated Approach to Metaphor and Framing in Cognition, Discourse, and Practice, with an Application to Metaphors for Cancer. Applied linguistics. 39(5). P. 625–645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw028
22. Shutova E., Kiela D., Maillard J. 2016. Black Hotels and White Rabbits: Metaphor Identification with Visual Features. HLT-NAACL.
23. Tikhonova I. B. 2021. Metaforicheskije naimenovaniya khimicheskhikh veshchestv kak sredstvo vizualizacii khimicheskoj struktury i kognitivnogo, odelirovaniya v anglijskom khimicheskom diskurse [Metaphor Naming Units of Chemical Substances as a Means of the Visualizing Chemical Structure and Cognitive Modeling in Engish Chemical Discourse]. Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Pedagogicheskije nauki. Filologicheskije nauki [Bulletin of Volgograd State Pedagogical University. Pedagogical Sciences. Philological Sciences]. 1(154). P. 141– 146. (In Russian)
24. Zadornova V. Y., Matvejeva A. S. 2017. Konceptualnye metafory v angloyazychnoj poesii [Conceptual Metaphors in English Poetry]. University Book. (In Russian)
25. Zubkova O. S. 2016. Metaforicheskoje modelirovanije sovremennogo kommunikativnogo prostranstva professionalnykh yazykov s ispolzovanijem tropeicheskoj leksiki [Metaphoric Modeling of the Modern Communictive Space of Professional Languages Through the Use of Tropes]. Teoriya yazyka i mezhkulturnaya kommunikaciya [Language Theory and Crosscultural Communication]. 1. P. 16–21. (In Russian)
Review
For citations:
Anokhina S.P. Metaphorization and Metonimization as Tools of Semantic Derivation (Based on English Economics Textbooks). The Russian Journal of Cultural Studies and Communication. 2023;2(3):36-52. https://doi.org/10.24833/RJCSC-2023-2-3-36-52
Views:
364
Email this article 