A Tentative Study Of Metonymy-Metaphor Continuum

Metaphor and metonymy have been traditionally regarded as figures of speech, i.e. as more or less ornamental devices used in rhetorical style. However, current cognitive linguistics and psychology have shown that metaphors and metonymies are powerful cognitive tools for our conceptualization of abstract categories. In fact, more and more scholars such as Goossens and Taylor have been already aware that metonymy is more fundamental than metaphor. Professor Wang Yin in his book Cognitive Linguistics even claims that"We can surely say'Metonymies We Live By'".The relationship between metonymy and metaphor has become one research focus. Some scholars like Radden claim that metonymy and metaphor form a continuum and that the classical notions of metonymy and metaphor are to be seen as prototypical categories along a metonymy-metaphor continuum with a wide range of intermediate categories such as metonymy-based metaphor in between. The distinction between metonymy and metaphor is not scattered but scalar. In other words, there are many points along the metonymy-metaphor continuum. The conceptual relationship between the two entities may probably be closer to some end of the continuum with different views. The theoretical significance of metonymy-metaphor continuum lies in that this theory pays attention to the vague intermediate categories as well as the prototypical categories of both ends along the continuum. It makes us realize that metonymy is one of the cognitive mechanisms as important as metaphor and even more fundamental than metaphor during the process of human understanding and thinking.This thesis is divided into five chapters: chapter one discusses about metonymic tendency of cognitive linguistics, research object and structure of the thesis.Chapter two gives examples to expound metonymy-metaphor continuum and points out that metonymy is the basis of most metaphors. The metonymic basis can be illustrated from the following four aspects: a) a common experiential basis; b) conversational implicature; c) the taxonomic structure of categories and d) cultural models. Then the thesis discusses about Chinese version of metonymy (借代vs转喻). For the purpose of making clear which type of metonymy is"转喻"and which type of metonymy is"借代",the thesis clears up the following two questions: a) whether metonymy has figurativity or not; b) whether all metonymies are referential or not. Dirven classified metonymy into three types: a) linear metonymy; b) conjunctive metonymy and c) inclusive metonymy. Dirven divided thought into two classes: literalness and non-literalness. Literalness obviously is non-figurative. Non-literalness is subdivided into non-figurative and figurative. Linear metonymy and non-figurative conjunctive metonymy are non-literal non-figurative metonymy while figurative conjunctive metonymy and inclusive metonymy are non-literal figurative metonymy. Linear metonymy is prototypical non-figurative metonymy while inclusive metonymy is prototypical figurative metonymy. Metonymy which is one-correspondence mapping is commonly referential. However, Mendoza &Velasco think that cases of non-referential metonymy, as identified in the current literature, are perhaps as frequent as those of referential metonymy. Non-referential metonymic expressions actually exist in our language. For example, a pretty face in the sentence She's just a pretty face stands for'beauty'and to giggle in the sentence'Oh, Dear,'she giggled stands for'to say something while giggling'. This kind of non-referential metonymic expressions should be translated into"转喻"instead of"借代". Therefore we can draw such conclusion that non-figurative referential metonymy (e.g. The pot is boiling.) is"借代", figurative non-referential metonymy (e.g. Mary is just a pretty face.) is"转喻"and figurative referential metonymy (e.g. The crown has not withheld its assent to a Bill since 1707.) can be translated into either"借代"or"转喻". In fact, a continuum comes into being from literalness, non-literal non-figurative referential metonymy, non-literal figurative non-referential metonymy to metaphor.Chapter three talks about the interaction between metonymy and metaphor which is regarded as the intermediate category of metonymy-metaphor continuum. There are four patterns to display their interaction: a) metaphor from metonymy; b) metonymy within metaphor; c) metaphor within metonymy and d) demetonymization in a metaphorical context. Among them, the first two are the current patterns.Then on the basis of the above theoretical framework, chapter four collects and analyzes metonymic expressions, metaphorical expressions and mixed cases used in English speeches which are regarded as fine examples of humans using language from the cognitive perspective. For this purpose, the author built a corpus from about 40,000-word English speeches. After the careful analysis, the author of this thesis further proves that metonymy and metaphor form a continuum and that metonymy is the basis of most metaphors. What's more, this chapter finds out some functions of metonymies and metaphors used in English speeches.Finally, chapter five sums up the whole thesis.