Analyzing THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT-type Metonymies from the Perspective of Negative Evaluative Factors

Nami Arimitsu

Autores

Nami Arimitsu Toyo University Autor

Palavras-chave:

eventos negativos, metonímia, atenuação de situações negativas, eufemística

Resumo

Esta análise objetiva destacar as situações negativas expressos através da metonímia. Em primeiro lugar, por meio da análise da função do tipo metonímias, se aponta que os eventos negativos são expresos principalmente em metonímias. Em segundo lugar, menciona as razões do uso da figura. A metonímia foi amplamente pesquisada pelos pontos de vista de Lakoff e Johnson (1980), e também pelos aspectos semânticos da oposição de Voßhagen (1999). Porém, nenhum desses estudos se concentrou na natureza da metonímia baseando-se na atenuação de situações negativas e eufemísticas. Por exemplo, "não vamos deixar a Tailândia se tornar um outro Vietnã," essa ideia expressa a Guerra do Vietnã e suas tragédias. Os falantes deixam de expressar as palavras negativas que trazem à tona o cenário da tragédia, assim também evitam o constrangimento. Desta forma, os ouvintes podem facilmente compreender o significado da metonímia usada, pois situações reais expressam ideais negativas e deixam marcas profundas, intensificadas e proeminentes comparando com aquelas dos eventos positivos.

Downloads

Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.

Referências

ALBEE, E. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962.

BARNDEN, J. A. Metaphor and Metonymy: Making Their Connections More Slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, Berlin/New York, v. 21, n. 1, p. 1-34, March, 2010.

BARNDEN, J. A. 2010. Metaphor and Metonymy: Making Their Connections More Slippery., Cognitive Linguistics Berlin/New York, v. 21, n. 1, p. 1-34, December, 2010.

DAHL, Ö. Typology of Sentence Negation. Linguistics, the Hague, v. 17, p. 79-106, 1979.

DIRVEN, R. Metonymy and Metaphor: Different Mental Strategies of Conceptualization. In: DIRVEN, René and PÖRINGS, Ralf (Eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002. p. 75-111.

EKMAN, P.; LEVENSON, R.W.; FRIESEN, W. V. Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science. Washington, D. C., v. 221, p. 1218-1220, 1983.

GOOSSENS, L. Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Figurative Expressions for Linguistic Action. In: GOOSSENS, L.et al. By Word of Mouth. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995. p. 159-174.

GRICE, P. H. Logic and Conversation. In: COLE, Peter and MORGAN, Jerry (Eds.). Syntax and Semantics, New York, 1975. p. 41-58.

EGAMI, N.; YAMAMOTO, T.; HAYASHI, K.; NARUSE, O. Shosetsu Sekaishi (Detailed World History). Tokyo: Yamakawa Publishing Co., 1997.

HASER, V. Metaphor, Metonymy and Experientialist Philosophy: Challenging Cognitive Semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005.

HAYAKAWA, S. I. Language in Thought and Action. 4th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1939 [1978].

HORN, L. R. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.

JAKOBSON, R. The Metaphoric and Metonymic poles. In: DIRVEN, René and PÖRINGS (Eds.)., Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002 [1956]. p. 41-47. Reprinted with added abstract by René Dirven from Roman Jakobson and M. Halle (eds.). Fundamentals of Language, The Hague and Paris, v. 2, p. 90-96, 1971 [1956].

JESPERSEN, O. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host, 1917.

JING-SCHUMIDT, Z. Negativity bias in Language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers., Cognitive Linguistics Berlin/New York, v. 18, n. 3, p. 417-443, 2007.

LADUSAW, W. A. Negation, Indefinites, and the Jespersen Cycle, Berkeley: In the Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Semantic Typology and Semantic Universals, 1993. p. 437-446.

LAKOFF, G.; JOHNSON, M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.

LANDIS, T. Y.; HERRMANN, D. J.; CHAFFIN, R. Developmental differences in the comprehension of semantic relations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, Leipzig, v. 195, p. 129-139, 1987.

LANGACKER, R. W. Reference-point constructions., Cognitive Linguistics . Berlin/ New York, v. 4, p. 1-38, 1993.

LODGE, D. The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy and the Typology of Modern Literature. London: Edward Arnold; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977.

NANNEY, E. (Project Coordinator). History Year by Year. London: Dorling Kindersley Limited, 2011.

NERLICH, B.; CLARKE, D. D. Synecdoche as a Cognitive and Communicative Strategy. In: BLANK, A. and KOCH, P. (Eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001. p. 197-214.

NORRICK, N. R. Semiotic Principles in Semantic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1981.

NUMBERG, G. The Pragmatics of Reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club,1978.

RADDEN, G. How Metonymic are Metaphors. In: BARCELONA, A. (Ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroad: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000. p. 93-108.

RIEMER, N. Remetonomyzing Metaphor: Hypercategories in Semantic Extention., Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York, v. 12, n. 4, p. 379-401, 2001.

VOßHAGEN, C. Opposition as a Metonymic Principle. In: UWE AND PANTHER, K. and RADDEN, G. (Eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999. p. 289-308.

WARREN, B. An Alternative Account of the Interpretation of Referential Metonymy and Metaphor. In:; DIRVEN, R., PÖRINGS R. (Eds.).. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002. p. 113-130.

WARREN, B. Referential metonymy. Stockholm: Almquiest and Wilksell International, 2006.

The Bible, Authorized King James Version, Oxford World's Classics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.