II. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON CLASSIFIERS
2.4 Remarks
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
27
domain by cognitively motivated metaphors and metonymies. He exemplifies that when used metaphorically, the classifier ki1 (枝) classifies objects with a slim and long shape, such as sticks and bamboo shoots. On the other hand, when it is used metonymically, it classifies the parts for human to hold, such as pens and candles.
Similarly, Wu’s (2010) study explores the metaphorical and metonymic usages of classifiers. In his invetigation, the metaphorical usages of classifiers refer to classifiers associated with two domains. For example, the abstarct concept of
miang7 (命) ‘life’ is mapped onto the concrete domain and thus classified by the
classifier tiau5 (條) as in rhid4 tiau5 miang7 (一條命) ‘a life’. On the other hand, the metonymic usages of classifiers refer to stand-for relationship of classifiers within one domian. The selection of the classifier depends on the most salient perceptual property of the entity. For instance, both ng5 (魚) ‘fish’ and mui1 (尾)
‘tail’ are within the same domain. The region of tail is selected as a classifier mui1 (尾) ‘tail’ in Taiwanese Hakka to measure the number of fish as in in the sense that
tail is the most salient characteristic of a fish.
2.4 Remarks
Classifiers are widely used in the Chinese languages as well as in other languages in the world. The classifiers examined in this thesis refer to numeral
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
classifiers, following the definitions of the studies on typological classifiers provided by Allan (1977) and Aikhenvald (2003). Previous studies on Chinese classifiers as classification enrich our understanding of human categorization and provide evidence that the selection of classifiers is not arbitrary but determined by the shared semantic features of classifiers and nouns or by semantic extension.
Moreover, the comparison between Taiwanese Mandarin, Taiwanese Southern Min, and Taiwanese Hakka reflects the manifestation of categorization in various cultures and crystallizes the influence of culture. Since human conceptual system is
fundamentally metaphorical in nature, classifiers, representing conceptual classification of the world, are often found to manifest metaphorically and metonymically. In particular, classifiers and measure words in Taiwanese Hakka proverbial expressions are rife with metaphors and metonymies. However, research on the metaphorical and metonymic usages of classifiers in classifier languages, Taiwanese Hakka included, is scanty. This study hence aims to unravel the metaphorical and metonymic interaction associated with classifiers and measure words exhibited in proverbial expressions. Specifically, the cognitive mechanisms associated with classifier/measure word proverbial expressions will be carefully spelled out. Before we come to the analysis in Chapter IV, we will present the theoretical foundations grounded upon metaphor and metonymy in the next Chapter.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
29
CHAPTER III
METAPHOR AND METONYMY
In the traditional view, metaphors and metonymies have been regarded as figures of speech, i.e., as more or less ornamental devices used in rhetorical style. However, cognitive linguists have shown that metaphors and metonymies are powerful
cognitive tools for our conceptualization of the world (Ungerer and Schmid 2006).
Metonymy exhibits a conceptual mapping between two elements within the same cognitive domain. In contrast, the essence of metaphor is to understand one thing in terms of another. Both metonymy and metaphor involve a vehicle and a target. In metonymy, the vehicle functions as identifying the target construal, allowing us to focus more specifically on certain aspects of what is being referred to. In metaphor, which involves an interaction between two domains construed from two regions of purport, the content of the vehicle domain is an ingredient of the construed target through processes of correspondence and blending (Croft and Cruse 2004).
While metaphors and metonymies individually function as cognitive instruments, numerous cases where the metaphorical and metonymic interaction is found
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
manifest in proverbial expressions. Radden (2003), for instance, raises an intermediate notion of metonymy-based metaphor based on the
literalness-metonymy-metaphor continuum. He also proposes four sources which give rise to metonymy-based metaphor. In addition, due to cultural constraints, metaphors and metonymies exhibit both cultural variation and universality. The cognitive mechanisms, including metonymy, metaphor, the interaction of them, the cognitive perspective of idiomaticity, and cultural constraints will be elaborated, respectively, in the following subsections.
3.1 Metonymy
Metonymy has been viewed as a matter of words used in figurative senses and a stand-for relationship between two names or two entities traditionally. For instance, in the case The university needs more clever heads, the entity head stands for another entity person. The nature of the relationship is generally regarded to be
‘contiguity’ or ‘proximity’. However, metonymy is not restricted to literary language.
It is conceptual in nature. The sense of contiguity or proximity can be explained by knowledge structures defined by domains or idealized cognitive models (ICMs). A cognitive-linguistic account of metonymy proposed by Kövecses and Radden (1998:
39) is as follows:
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
31
Metonymy is a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same domain, or ICM (idealized cognitive models).
Hence in the previous example, the metonymy PART-FOR-WHOLE is triggered in our conceptual system, where the entity head is used as a vehicle to the target entity
person, and both head and person are within the same domain. The entities involved
in a metonymic relationship are parts of an ICM, and they are contiguously related.
Conceptual relationships which give rise to metonymy will be called
metonymy-producing relationships. Given that our knowledge about the world is organized by structured ICMs which we perceive as wholes with parts, according to Kövecses and Radden (1998), the types of metonymy-producing relationships may be subsumed under two general conceptual configurations: whole ICM and its parts, and parts of an ICM. The former indicates that we access a part of an ICM through its whole or a whole ICM through one of its parts, i.e., via the WHOLE-AND-PART
configuration, whereas the latter indicates that we access a part via another part of the same ICM, i.e., via the PART-AND-PART configuration. Six types of the whole ICM and its parts and seven types of the parts of an ICM are given as follows (Kövecses and Radden 1998: 49ff):
‧
e. Category-and-member ICM f. Category-and-property ICM
(4) Parts of an ICM
h. Assorted ICMs involving indeterminate relationships i. Sign and reference ICMs
Among the types regarding the whole ICM and the parts of an ICM, some of the metonymic relationships are reversible. However, we tend to provide access to a given target via a particular vehicle and find that one of them is more natural and more conventionalized than the other due to the cognitive and communicative principles. As Kövecses and Radden (1998: 62ff) illustrate, the cognitive principle
CONCRETE OVER ABSTRACT accounts for why we speak of having one’s hands on
something for controlling something, the cognitive principle
EFFECT-FOR-CAUSEaccounts for why we speak of He got cold feet for he was frightened. Also, the cognitive principle SPECIFIC OVER GENERIC accounts for the generalized
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
33
interpretation of proverbs, which is in line with Lakoff and Turner (1989), who claim that we regard proverbs as being specific instances which metonymically stand for a generic-level meaning schema. Furthermore, the communicative
principle CLEAR OVER LESS CLEAR accounts for why we speak of The dog bit the cat rather than *The dog’s teeth bit the cat in that the metonymic mode of expression is clearer than the literal one.
However, not all metonymies follow the cognitive and the communicative principles. The typical overriding factors for these non-default cases of metonymy taken from Kövecses and Radden (1998: 71ff) are given as follows:
(5) a. Social-communicative effects b. Rhetorical effects
c. Default principles and indirect speech acts
Kövecses and Radden illustrate that we may override some of the cognitive or communicative principles in communicative situation. For instance, the expression
They did it for They have sex violates the communicative principle
CLEAR OVERLESS CLEAR due to social-communicative effects. Moreover, rhetorical effects account for the metonymic expression The pen is mightier than the sword, in which the cognitive principle HUMAN OVER NON-HUMAN is overridden. Furthermore, indirect speech acts are a particular case of a non-default metonymy, which violates
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the cognitive principle ACTUALITY-FOR-POTENTIALITY.
Apart from the concept of metonymy and the accounts for default and
non-default cases of metonymy provided by Kövecses and Radden (1998), Ruiz de Mendoza (2003) further proposes the concept of double metonymy, which includes domain reduction, domain expansion, and the combination of the two, as
exemplified in the following examples:
(6) Wall Street (= the people in the institution) is in panic.
(7) His sister heads (= carries out the action of leading) the policy unit.
(8) Shakespeare (= a book which contains part of Shakespeare’s work) is on the top shelf.
Example (6) accounts for domain reduction, in which there are two target-in-source metonymies where the target of the first mapping becomes the sources of the second mapping. Wall Street originally refers to a street in the southern section of
Manhattan in New York. Then, when interpreted with single metonymy reading,
Wall Street stands for the financial institution located in Wall Street via
PLACE-FOR-INSTITUTION metonymy. Furthermore, Wall Street metonymically stands for the people who work there via INSTITUTION-FOR-PEOPLE metonymy, as illustrated in Figure 1.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
35
Figure 1. Place for institution for people (related to the institution) (Ruiz de Mendoza 2003: 513)
In contrast to domain reduction, domain expansion is a case whereby the first source-in-target metonymy is the source of the second source-in-target metonymy, which is illustrated by example (7). With single metonymy reading, head stands for the person who is in control or in charge of an organization such as a leader via
HEAD-FOR-PERSON metonymy. However, head metonymically refers to the action of governing or ruling based on the fact that the prototypical activity that a leader carries out is ruling or governing, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Head for leader for action of leading (Ruiz de Mendoza 2003: 515)
PLACE
INSTITUTION PEOPLE
ACTION OF LEADING LEADER/
AGENT HEAD
‧
Finally, example (8
) accounts for the last type that both a source
target-in-source metonymy work in combination.
Shakespeare stands for his literary work via
example (8
), nevertheless,
Shakespeare’
s work where the source is Shakespeare
format in which
it is presented, as demonstrated in Figure 3.
F
igure 3. Author for work for format (Ruiz de Mendoza 2003: 517)
I
n addition to the three types of double metonymy, Gao (2005: 64) proposes triple metonymy where interaction possibility holds three metonym
She illustrates triple metonymy by
thinking in
Taiwanese Mandarin for cold perception through the
metonymy. T
hen, the target
8 The term triple metonymy is proposed by Gao (200
) accounts for the last type that both a source
-in source metonymy work in combination.
With single metonym
stands for his literary work via
AUTHOR-FOR-WORKmetonymy. In
), nevertheless, Shakespeare refers to a book which contains part of
s work where the source is Shakespeare
’s work and the target the it is presented, as demonstrated in Figure 3.
igure 3. Author for work for format (Ruiz de Mendoza 2003: 517)
n addition to the three types of double metonymy, Gao (2005: 64) proposes
triple metonymy where interaction possibility holds three metonymies together.
She illustrates triple metonymy by
exemplifying the lexical manifestation of Taiwanese Mandarin
lengyan (冷眼) ‘cold indifference’. First, it stands for cold perception through the
ORGAN OF PERCEPTION-FOR-THE PERCEPTIONhen, the target
domain of the first target-in-source metonymy stands for
is proposed by Gao (2005) in her master thesis.
in
-target and aith single metonym
y reading,metonymy. In
contains part of
s work and the target the
n addition to the three types of double metonymy, Gao (2005: 64) proposes
ies together.
8ying the lexical manifestation of
irst, it stands
THE PERCEPTION
source metonymy stands for
‧
to coldly perceive through the
PERCEPTION-FOR-MANNER OF PERCEPTION metonymy, which is also a target-in-source type. Finally, the second target-in-source metonymy stands for indifferent attitude resulting in the cold manner of perception through theEFFECT-FOR-CAUSE metonymy. The processes are captured in Figure 4:
Figure 4. Triple metonymy of lengyan (冷眼) ‘cold indifference’ (Gao 2005: 64)
3.2 Metaphor
Like metonymy, metaphor used to be regarded as figures of speech. Although generally realized linguistically, metaphor is not merely linguistic in nature. It is the result of a special process for construing a meaning. According to Lakoff and Johnson’s theory of metaphor (1980), metaphor is a property not of individual linguistic expressions and their meanings, but of the whole conceptual domains. In
indifferent
‧
principle, any concept from the source domain, i.e., the domain of the literal meaning of the expression, can be used to describe a concept in the target domain, i.e., the domain the sentence actually refers to. For example, My mind just isn’t
operating today, whereby the metaphor
THE MIND IS AN ENTITY, specifically, THEMIND IS A MACHINE, is activated in our cognition. Croft and Cruse (2004: 198) summarize Lakoff’s conceptual theory of metaphor as follows:
(9) A summary of conceptual theory of metaphor
a. It is a theory of recurrently conventionalized expressions in everyday
language in which literal and metaphorical elements are intimately combined grammatically.
b. The conventionalized metaphorical expressions are not a merely linguistic phenomenon, but the manifestation of a conceptual mapping between two semantic domains; hence the mapping is general and productive (and assumed to be characteristic of the human mind).
c. The metaphorical mapping is asymmetrical: the expression is about a situation in one domain (the target domain) using concepts mapped over from another domain (the source domain).
d. The metaphorical mapping can be used for metaphorical reasoning about concepts in the target domain.
The CONDUIT metaphor, an instance of conventional metaphors proposed by Reddy (1979), specifies that our knowledge about language is structured by the following metaphors:
(10) IDEAS (or MEANINGS) ARE OBJECTS.
LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS ARE CONTAINERS.
COMMUNICATION IS SENDING.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
39
As Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 10) elaborate, the metaphor MEANINGS ARE OBJECTS
entails meanings exist by themselves, independent of people and contexts. The metaphor LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS ARE CONTAINERS entails that words have meanings in themselves. The metaphor COMMUNICATION IS SENDING entails that the speaker puts objects, i.e., ideas, into containers, i.e., words, and sends them through a conduit to a hearer. For instance, in this example, It’s difficult to put my ideas into
words, ideas are seen as objects and words as containers for the speaker to put the
objects into.
In addition, a metaphor is a conceptual mapping between the source and target domains, and the mapping between them involves two kinds of metaphorical mappings, i.e., ontological and epistemic correspondences (Lakoff 1987). The ontological correspondences are mappings between elements of two domains, allowing us to map elements in the source domain onto those in the target domain.
On the other hand, the epistemic correspondences refer to knowledge about the two domains, allowing us to carry over knowledge about the source domain onto that about the target domain. As Lakoff (1987: 384) has shown with the following examples: since stewing indicates the continuance of anger over a long period whereas simmer indicates a lowering of the intensity of anger, the two cooking terms are used to distinguish different degrees of intensity of anger. Essentially, the
‧
correspondences between the source and target domains are represented in the conceptual system.
3.3 The Interaction Between Metaphor and Metonymy
Apart from individually functioning as cognitive instruments, metaphor and metonymy interact pervasively in our languages. First, Radden (2003) raises an intermediate notion of metonymy-based metaphor based on the
literalness-metonymy-metaphor continuum, where metonymy shades over into metaphor. Radden (2003: 409) takes the attributive adjective high for example to illustrate its gradual transition from literalness through various stages of metonymy to metaphor, as given in Table 2:
Table 2. Literalness-metonymy-metaphor continuum (Radden 2003: 409)
literal metonymic metaphoric
(a)
In (a), high is used literally to indicate verticality; in (b), high is partially metonymic since it refers to both vertical and horizontal extension, i.e., the
UP-FOR-UP AND MORE metonymy; in (c), high is fully metonymic in that it represents an entity within the same conceptual domain, namely, the scale of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
41
verticality stands for degrees of temperature, i.e., the UP-FOR-MORE metonymy; in (d), high vacillates between a metonymic and metaphorical interpretation. On the one hand, people may consider height (of a price) and quantity (of money) in the same conceptual domain and understand high prices via the UP-FOR-MORE
metonymy. On the other, people may regard them as belonging to different domains and understand high prices via the MORE IS UP metaphor. In (e), high is used
metaphorically in that high, which refers to a scale of evaluation, is different from the conceptual domain of verticality. The GOOD IS UP metaphor is activated to conceptualize the abstract concept of good quality through the concrete source concept of verticality. In brief, height is literally correlated with quantity, and the natural association between quantity and verticality is one of metonymy (e.g., high
temperature). It is only when more abstract instances of addition are involved does
metaphor take over (e.g., high prices).
In addition to literalness-metonymy-metaphor continuum, Radden (2003: 413ff) proposes four types of metonymic sources of metaphor. The first type of
metonymy-based metaphor is grounded in a common experiential basis, including correlation and complementarity. Correlation refers to “an interrelationship between two variables in which changes in one variable are accompanied by changes in the other variable, and these two variables have to be conceptually contiguous” (414).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
For example, the HAPPY IS UP metaphor results from people’s facial expressions, such as drawing up their mouths and eyebrows when they feel happy. These reactions are metonymically used to refer to their happiness. Complementarity, on the other hand, refers to a part-whole relationship or a part-part relationship in which parts are tightly associated with each other and such inseparability constitutes a unity.
For instance, THE MIND IS THE BODY metaphor, which allows us to understand the abstract concept of the mind in terms of the concrete concept of the body, is claimed to be based on our common complementary experience of BODY and MIND.
The second metonymic source of metaphor is the process of conversational implicature, involving (i) implicated result and causation, (ii) implicated possession, and (iii) implicated purpose and activity. (i) is found in sequential events and in correlational relationship, as in the example Once bitten, twice shy, which gives rise to the causal implicature: since I was bitten once, I am shy twice as much. The metonymic relationship between CAUSATION and CORRELATION forms the base of the metaphor CAUSATIONISCORRELATION. (ii) refers to a conceptual metaphor
POSSESSION IS HOLDING, such as to hold power, emerging through the
HOLDING-FOR-POSSESSION metonymy. (iii) indicates that the metaphor PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS, as in We’ve reached an agreement, is grounded on the
implicated PLACE-FOR-(PLACE AND) ACTIVITY metonymyand
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
43
DESTINATION-FOR-(DESTINATION AND) PURPOSE metonymy. Radden (2003)
explains that “[t]he association between such man-designed spaces and the activities typically performed there is so tight that the mention of the place suffices to invite the implicature of a special activity” (424).
The third type of metonymy-based metaphor relates to taxonomic hierarchies of categories. The relation between a category and members included in the category is widely utilized in metonymy; for example, the category pill stands for its salient member birth control pill. Quite often, the physical domain serves as a source domain for an abstract target domain. For instance, the metaphor HARM IS PHYSICAL
INJURY, as in Her death hurt him, is based on a metonymic relationship between the category psychic harm and a salient member of this category physical injury.
And the fourth source of metonymy-based metaphor derives from cultural models, subsuming (i) physical forces, (ii) communication and language, and (iii) emotions and their physiological reactions. (i) is known as impetus theory, where forces are contained in the moving objects themselves and propel them into a certain direction. For example, His punches carry a lot of force is understood in terms of the
SUBSTANCE-FOR-FORCE metonymy and the FORCE IS A SUBSTANCE CONTAINED IN AFFECTING CAUSES metaphor. (ii) refers to expressions based on the CONDUIT
metaphor, which involves two aspects: that of the relationship between form and
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
meaning and that of communication as transfer. For instance, I didn’t get my point
across is understood through the metonymy
FORM-FOR-CONTENT and the metaphorCOMMUNICATION IS TRANSFER. (iii) indicates that the relationship between a given emotion and a particular physiological reaction is considered to be causal. For example, He was breathing fire, whereby increased body heat is one of the
physiological effects of anger and this metonymic relationship fosters the ANGER IS
FIRE metaphor.
Radden (2003) concludes that the distinction of metonymy and metaphor is not to be seen as clear-cut; rather, “the classical notions of metonymy and metaphor are to be regarded as prototypical categories along a metonymy-metaphor continuum with a wide range of intermediate categories such as metonymy-based metaphor in between” (431). In other words, metaphors which are ubiquitous in our languages are generally fostered by metonymic relationships.
3.4 Idiomaticity
9Idioms are pervasive in our everyday languages. Traditionally, idioms are viewed as a larger chunk of lexical items in lexicon. They are noncompositional in that their conventional interpretations are not functions of the meanings of their
9 Here, idiom in this section is defined more rigorously, although it can be used in a broader sense, encompassing various sorts of fixed expressions, including proverbial expressions..
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
45
individual parts (Chafe 1970, Chomsky 1965; 1980, Fraser 1970, Katz 1973). The noncompositionality of idioms accounts for their restricted syntactic and lexical productivity, as well as lexical inflexibility. Thus, idioms are claimed to be learned by forming arbitrary links between idioms and their nonliteral meanings in the traditional view. Namely, they are simply linguistic expressions, which are independent of any conceptual system and encyclopedic knowledge (Carter and McCarthy 1988:19).
In contrast to the traditional view, the cognitive view, however, deems that
In contrast to the traditional view, the cognitive view, however, deems that