METONYMIC SHIFT IN THE SYSTEM OF MEASURE (DATA OF ENGLISH)
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2017-10-103-106
The immense interest in metaphor has resulted in the emergence of a massive literature on the subject. From this academic interest in metaphor, a growing interest in metonymy has emerged over recent years, resulting in the formation of an impressive body of research, almost entirely from a cognitive linguistics perspective. The new works on metonymy show a consensus around a number of claims: that metonymy, like metaphor, is a conceptual phenomenon; that metonymy, like metaphor, plays a central role in conceptualization and communication; and that metonymy and metaphor can be identified as distinct, though related, phenomena. Metonymy is not just a type of language but reflects a significant form of human cognition. Metonymy differs from metaphor by the number of domains. In metaphor, there are two conceptual domains, and one thing is understood in terms of another. On the other hand, metonymy involves only one conceptual domain, in that the connection between two things is within the same domain, or within the same domain matrix. There are many types of metonymy and the least investigated of them is the relation between the metric system units and the means of inaccurate measures which can be used alternatively to indicate the space measurements within the same domain.
Keywords: measure, metonymic shift, space measurements, distance, conceptual domain
References:
1. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago & London, The Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980. 242 p.
2. Gibbs R. W. Speaking and Thinking with Metonymy. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Ed. by K.-U. Panther, G. Radden. Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1999. Pp. 61–76.
3. Blank A. Co-presence and Succession: A Cognitive Typology of Metonymy. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Ed. by K.-U. Panther, G. Radden. Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1999. Pp. 169–191.
4. Geeraerts D. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 2010. 341 p.
5. Denroche Ch. Metonymy and Language: A New Theory of Linguistic Processing. New York, Routledge, 2015. 202 p.
6. Lemmens M. Cognitive Semantics. The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. Ed. by N. Riemer. New York, Routledge, 2016. Pp. 90–105.
7. Zhukova N. S. Problemy perevoda russkoy i nemetskoy leksem “shag” i “Schritt” na angliyskiy yazyk [The Problems of Translating the Russian and German Lexemes “shag” / “Schritt” into English]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – TSPU Bulletin, 2014, vol. 4 (145), pp. 126–128 (in Russian).
8. BYU-BNC – Brigham Young University: The British National Corpus. URL: http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ (accessed 2 June 2017).
9. BYU-COCA – Brigham Young University: The Corpus of Contemporary American English. URL: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (accessed 2 June 2017).
10. Arnold I. V. Stilistika. Sovremennyy angliyskiy yazyk: uchebnik [Modern English: Handbook of Stylistics]. 10th ed. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka Publ., 2010. 384 p. (in Russian).
11. Littlemore J. Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge, Camb. Univ. Press, 2015. 227 p.
12. Arutyunova N. D. Metonimiya. Yazykoznaniye. Bolshoy Entsyklopedicheskiy Slovar’ [Metonymy. The Big Encyclopedic Dictionary of Linguistics]. Ed. by V. N. Yartseva. 2nd ed. Мoscow, Bolshaya Rossiyskaya Entsyklopediya Publ., 1998. Pp. 300–301 (in Russian).
( 354.12 kB ) 
( 346.96 kB )
Issue: 10, 2017
Series of issue: Issue 10
Rubric: GERMANIC LANGUAGES
Pages: 103 — 106
Downloads: 790