转喻

Klaus-Uwe Panther
{"title":"转喻","authors":"Klaus-Uwe Panther","doi":"10.1056/nejm196706152762430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Metonymy (Greek μετωνυμία, Latin denominatio) has been known as a rhetorical trope since Greek antiquity. The online Oxford English Dictionary defines this trope as “[a] figure of speech characterized by the action of substituting for a word or phrase denoting an object, action, institution, etc., a word or phrase denoting a property or something associated with it [ . . . ].” In modern linguistics, especially cognitive linguistics, metonymy (like metaphor) is considered as not just a rhetorical trope used for various stylistic purposes, but as a figure of thought (referred to as “conceptual metonymy”). Metonymies are usually notated as source for target (i.e., the conventional meaning of a word or expression functions as the source vehicle for accessing a target meaning) as in the newspaper headline Brussels Proposes EU Antideforestation Fund, where the city of Brussels stands for the target meaning “the EU commission (located in Brussels)”. The relationship between the source and the target meaning of a metonymy is usually characterized as one of association or contiguity. In contrast, metaphor is normally represented as target is source, a notation indicating that the target meaning of a metaphor is conceptually organized like the source (e.g., in Shakespeare’s famous metaphor the world is a stage—see separate Oxford Bibliographies article “Cognitive Linguistics” by Vyvyan Evans). There is no unified conception of metonymy, but most scholars agree that metonymy involves an associative link between two meaning components within one conceptual domain or frame, whereas metaphor is constituted by usually multiple mappings across two domains or frames. It has, however, to be noted that no completely satisfactory definition of what constitutes one domain or frame in contrast to distinct domains or frames has been provided thus far. Given these definitional problems, the categories “metonymy” and “metaphor” should not be regarded as “classical” Aristotelian categories in the sense of being definable by a set of necessary and jointly sufficient properties, but as prototypes with central and more peripheral members and fuzzy boundaries.","PeriodicalId":240092,"journal":{"name":"The Craft of Poetry","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"94","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metonymy\",\"authors\":\"Klaus-Uwe Panther\",\"doi\":\"10.1056/nejm196706152762430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Metonymy (Greek μετωνυμία, Latin denominatio) has been known as a rhetorical trope since Greek antiquity. The online Oxford English Dictionary defines this trope as “[a] figure of speech characterized by the action of substituting for a word or phrase denoting an object, action, institution, etc., a word or phrase denoting a property or something associated with it [ . . . ].” In modern linguistics, especially cognitive linguistics, metonymy (like metaphor) is considered as not just a rhetorical trope used for various stylistic purposes, but as a figure of thought (referred to as “conceptual metonymy”). Metonymies are usually notated as source for target (i.e., the conventional meaning of a word or expression functions as the source vehicle for accessing a target meaning) as in the newspaper headline Brussels Proposes EU Antideforestation Fund, where the city of Brussels stands for the target meaning “the EU commission (located in Brussels)”. The relationship between the source and the target meaning of a metonymy is usually characterized as one of association or contiguity. In contrast, metaphor is normally represented as target is source, a notation indicating that the target meaning of a metaphor is conceptually organized like the source (e.g., in Shakespeare’s famous metaphor the world is a stage—see separate Oxford Bibliographies article “Cognitive Linguistics” by Vyvyan Evans). There is no unified conception of metonymy, but most scholars agree that metonymy involves an associative link between two meaning components within one conceptual domain or frame, whereas metaphor is constituted by usually multiple mappings across two domains or frames. It has, however, to be noted that no completely satisfactory definition of what constitutes one domain or frame in contrast to distinct domains or frames has been provided thus far. Given these definitional problems, the categories “metonymy” and “metaphor” should not be regarded as “classical” Aristotelian categories in the sense of being definable by a set of necessary and jointly sufficient properties, but as prototypes with central and more peripheral members and fuzzy boundaries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":240092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Craft of Poetry\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"94\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Craft of Poetry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm196706152762430\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Craft of Poetry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm196706152762430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 94

摘要

转喻(希腊语μετων ν ν μ榆树α,拉丁语denominatio)自希腊古代以来就被认为是一种修辞修辞。在线牛津英语词典将这种修辞定义为“一种修辞格,其特征是替换表示对象、动作、制度等的单词或短语,替换表示与之相关的属性或事物的单词或短语……”)。”在现代语言学,尤其是认知语言学中,转喻(像隐喻一样)不仅被认为是一种用于各种文体目的的修辞修辞,而且被认为是一种思维方式(称为“概念转喻”)。转喻通常被标记为目标的来源(即,一个词或表达的传统意义作为获取目标意义的来源载体),如报纸标题“布鲁塞尔提议欧盟反森林砍伐基金”,其中布鲁塞尔市代表目标意思“欧盟委员会(位于布鲁塞尔)”。转喻的源义和目的义之间的关系通常表现为一种关联或相邻关系。相比之下,隐喻通常被表示为目的即源,这一符号表明隐喻的目的意义在概念上与源一样被组织起来(例如,在莎士比亚著名的隐喻中,世界是一个舞台——参见Vyvyan Evans撰写的《牛津参考书目》的另一篇文章《认知语言学》)。转喻没有统一的概念,但大多数学者认为,转喻是指一个概念领域或框架内两个意义成分之间的联想联系,而隐喻通常是由两个概念领域或框架之间的多重映射构成的。然而,需要注意的是,迄今为止还没有提供与不同的域或框架相比构成一个域或框架的完全令人满意的定义。考虑到这些定义问题,“转喻”和“隐喻”这两个范畴不应被视为由一组必要和共同充分性质可定义的“经典”亚里士多德范畴,而应被视为具有中心和更多外围成员和模糊边界的原型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Metonymy
Metonymy (Greek μετωνυμία, Latin denominatio) has been known as a rhetorical trope since Greek antiquity. The online Oxford English Dictionary defines this trope as “[a] figure of speech characterized by the action of substituting for a word or phrase denoting an object, action, institution, etc., a word or phrase denoting a property or something associated with it [ . . . ].” In modern linguistics, especially cognitive linguistics, metonymy (like metaphor) is considered as not just a rhetorical trope used for various stylistic purposes, but as a figure of thought (referred to as “conceptual metonymy”). Metonymies are usually notated as source for target (i.e., the conventional meaning of a word or expression functions as the source vehicle for accessing a target meaning) as in the newspaper headline Brussels Proposes EU Antideforestation Fund, where the city of Brussels stands for the target meaning “the EU commission (located in Brussels)”. The relationship between the source and the target meaning of a metonymy is usually characterized as one of association or contiguity. In contrast, metaphor is normally represented as target is source, a notation indicating that the target meaning of a metaphor is conceptually organized like the source (e.g., in Shakespeare’s famous metaphor the world is a stage—see separate Oxford Bibliographies article “Cognitive Linguistics” by Vyvyan Evans). There is no unified conception of metonymy, but most scholars agree that metonymy involves an associative link between two meaning components within one conceptual domain or frame, whereas metaphor is constituted by usually multiple mappings across two domains or frames. It has, however, to be noted that no completely satisfactory definition of what constitutes one domain or frame in contrast to distinct domains or frames has been provided thus far. Given these definitional problems, the categories “metonymy” and “metaphor” should not be regarded as “classical” Aristotelian categories in the sense of being definable by a set of necessary and jointly sufficient properties, but as prototypes with central and more peripheral members and fuzzy boundaries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信