I will see it done: Metonymic extensions of the verb see in English
Łukasz Matus
University of Silesia, PolandŁukasz Matusz holds a PhD degree in linguistics from the University of Silesia in Katowice. He is currently employed as an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Linguistics of the University of Silesia. His research interests include the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy, as well as language taboo and the linguistic reality of swearing.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2810-5798
Аннотация
English verbs of perception appear to be significant generators of divergent polysemous senses. The aim of this paper is to propose a dictionary study of the verb see. It appears that many semantic extensions of the term are metonymic in nature, because they are motivated by metonymic shifts within specific State-of-Affairs Scenarios (SASs). Three distinct dictionary sources are consulted in order to identify different metonymic extensions of the verb see. The majority of the database samples appear to belong to the part for whole propositional metonymy category (a stage of SAS for SAS). The conceptual link between seeing and intellectual comprehension is complex and appears to require the discussion of metonymy–metaphor interaction for its fuller explanation. The analysis is followed by conclusions drawn from the database study, as well as suggestions for future research in the field of metonymic extensions of English terms of visual perception.
Ключевые слова:
propositional metonymy, State-of-Affairs Scenarios, metonymy–metaphor interaction, visual perception, seeБиблиографические ссылки
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2001. Implikatury jako metonimie, czyli o poznawczych podstawach pragmatyki. In: W. Kubiński & D. Stanulewicz (eds.), Językoznawstwo kognitywne II. Zjawiska pragmatyczne, 95-115. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2007. On formal metonymy. In: K. Kosecki (ed.), Perspectives on Metonymy: Proceedings of the International Conference “Perspectives on Metonymy”, Held in Łódź, Poland, May 6-7, 2005, 43-67. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2013. Metonymy in Language, Thought and Brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
Barcelona, A. 2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In: A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, 32-58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, W. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 335-370.
Goossens, L. 1990 [2002]. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 3(1): 323-40. Reprinted in: R. Dirven & R. Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 349-378. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, J. 1999. A typology for motivation for conceptual metaphor. In: R. Gibbs and G. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, 79-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grady, J. & Johnson, C. 2002. Converging evidence for the notion of substance and primary scene. In: R. Dirven and R. Pӧrings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 533-554. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hernández, L. 2007. High-level metonymies in the understanding of modality: a crosslinguistic analysis. In K. Kosecki (ed.), Perspectives on Metonymy: Proceedings of the International Conference “Perspectives on Metonymy”, Held in Łódź, Poland, May 6-7, 2005, 133-146. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Kӧvecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kӧvecses, Z. 2013. The metaphor-metonymy relationship: correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol 28: 75-88.
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37-77.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Norrick, N. R. 1981. Semiotic Principles in Sematic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nunberg, G. 1978. The Pragmatics of Reference. Indiana University Linguistics.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In: K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 303-332. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. 2003a. Introduction: on the nature of conceptual metonymy. In: K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.), Metonymy in Pragmatic Inferencing, 1-20. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. 2003b. Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: the case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In: K.-U. Panther and L. Thornburg (eds.), Metonymy in Pragmatic Inferencing, 127-147. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. 2003c. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English – er nominals. In: R. Dirven and R. Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 279-319. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. 2005. Inference in the construction of meaning: the role of conceptual metonymy. In: E. Górska and G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy-Metaphor Collage, 37-57. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. 2007. Metonymy. In: D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 236-263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radden, G. 2002. How metonymic are metaphors? In: R. Dirven and R. Pӧrings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 407-433. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther and G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 17-59. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In: A. Barcelona (ed.), Metonymy and Metaphor at the Crossroads, 109-132. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Otal Campo, J. L. 2002. Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication. Albolote, Spain: Editorial Comares.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Díez Velasco, O. I. 2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction. In: R. Dirven and R. Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 489-532. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dictionary sources
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2005. 4th ed. Harlow: Longman.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English. 1998. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Collins COBUILD Advanced Learners’ English Dictionary. 2005. 4th ed. Kraków: Express Publishing.
University of Silesia, Poland
Łukasz Matusz holds a PhD degree in linguistics from the University of Silesia in Katowice. He is currently employed as an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Linguistics of the University of Silesia. His research interests include the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy, as well as language taboo and the linguistic reality of swearing.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2810-5798
