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

Nami Arimitsu

Autori

Nami Arimitsu Toyo University Autor

Parole chiave:

negative events, metonymy, politeness, euphemism

Abstract

This paper has two objectives. First, by analyzing THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT-type metonymies, this paper points out that it is mainly negative events that are expressed by this type of metonymies. Second, this paper reveals the motivations of those THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT-type metonymies which express negative events. Metonymies are widely investigated along with the views of Lakoff and Johnson (1980), and their oppositional semantic aspects are pointed out by Voßhagen (1999). However, none of the previous studies have focused on the nature of THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT-type metonymies from the perspective of negative evaluation, euphemism and politeness. “Let’s not let Thailand become another Vietnam” expresses the Vietnam War and all the tragedies behind it. Speakers refrain from expressing negative evaluative aspects from a euphemistic perspective and try to behave politely through hiding the exact and precise expressions, and listeners can also easily understand THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT-type metonymies that express negative events since negative events are much more highly marked and intensified, and prominent than positive ones.

Downloads

La data di download non è ancora disponibile.

Riferimenti bibliografici

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.