刘桃梅

Abstract： The traditional approach studies metaphor， metonymy and synecdoche as individual linguistic expressions or rhetoric devices， which seems a little difficult to distinguish them from each other clearly. The cognitive linguistic view provides new perspectives and proofs for the study of them. According to cognitive linguists， they are a common cognitive phenomenon of human beings， far from being a mere matter of ornament to language. The article aims at pointing out the differences among them from a cognitive perspective. The comparison of them from a cognitive linguistic view can help the learners to master them more easily.

Key words： cognitive linguistics； metaphor； metonymy； synecdoche

[中图分类号]H05

[文献标识码]A

[文章编号]1006-2831（2013）05-0183-5 doi：10.3969/j.issn.1006-2831.2013.02.047

1. Introduction

Metaphor， metonymy and synecdoche are three figures of speech which often make the Chinese English learners confused. Traditionally， they are viewed as “a matter of language， as a set of extraordinary or figurative linguistic expressions whose meaning is reducible to some set of literal propositions”（Yu Ning， 1998： 2）. They are regarded devices that may be imported into language in order to achieve specific， pre-judged effects. In Chinese， theyre usually be called Yinyu（隐喻），Zhuanyu or Huanyu（转喻或换喻），Tiyu（提喻）. Since they are all related to trope（Yu）， how can we distinguish them clearly？ If we look into them not only in a traditional view， but also in a cognitive linguistic view， well have a deeper understanding of their differences.

2. A comparative study on Metaphor and Metonymy from a cognitive perspective

2.1 Cognitive linguistic view of metaphor

Metaphor has been studied and theorized about for over two millennia. The word metaphor comes from the Greek word metaphora derived from “meta” meaning “over” and “to carry”. “It refers to a particular set of linguistic processes whereby aspects of one object is spoken of as if it were the first” （Hawkes， 1980： 1）. Traditionally metaphor was viewed as a rhetorical and stylistic device， a figure of speech in which a word or phrase denoting one kind of object or action is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or an analogy between them. However， the latest research has demonstrated that metaphor has an important function in language and has close relationship with thinking. In the past few decades， the achievement made by scholars who study metaphor from various disciplines， such as linguistics， anthropology， philosophy， psychology and so forth， provides new perspectives and proofs for the study of metaphor. And a revolutionary discovery has been revealed from the perspective of cognitive linguistics： Instead of being devalued as an ornament to language， metaphor is promoted to a powerful tool that helps us to shape the cognitive world we experience.

The publication of Lakoff and Johnsons seminal book Metaphors We Live By in 1980 marked the beginning of the cognitive era in metaphorical study. Their conception has become known as the “cognitive linguistic view of metaphor”. In the book， Lakoff and Johnson claim that rather than a device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish， metaphor is pervasive in everyday life， not just in language but in thought and action. “Our ordinary conceptual system， in terms of which we both think and act， is fundamentally metaphorical in natural” （Lakoff& Johnson， 1980： 3）. Exemplified by the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR， Lakoff and Johnson point out “the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” （ibid： 5）. Other linguists， including Brugman（1988）， Gibbs（1994）， Johnson （1983， 1987， 1989， 1991， 1992）， K？vecses（1990）， Lakoff and Johnson （1981）， Lakoff and Turner（1989）， Sweeter（1990，1992）， to mention just a few， have done considerable work for the development and articulation of the new theory. According to cognitive linguists， metaphor， far from being a mere matter of ornament to language， is a common cognitive phenomenon of human beings. It is a valuable tool in human cognition. It is a matter of thought rather than language.

In New Websters Dictionary of the English Language， metaphor is defined as a figure of speech containing an implied comparison， in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another. It is regarded as “a compressed or condensed simile”. A comparison in metaphor is usually implicit， whereas in simile it is explicit as it is shown in the following examples.

① Life is like an isthmus between two eternities. （simile）

② Life is an isthmus between two eternities. （metaphor）

（生活像永恒的生死两段之间的峡道。）

③ Habit may be likened to a cable； every day we weave a thread， and soon we cannot break it. （simile）

④ Habit is a cable； every day we weave a thread， and soon we cannot break it.（metaphor）

（习惯是缆绳，一日编一缕，最终不了断。）

In the two groups of sentences， sentences①&③are typically simile recognizable by the use of the word “like” or “likened”， while sentences②&④are typically metaphor because the comparison is achieved by the use of the word “is”.

In the cognitive linguistic view， metaphor is defined as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain. The conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain is called source domain， and the domain that we try to understand through the use of the source domain is target domain. Typically conceptual metaphors employ a more abstract concept as target and a more concrete or physical concept as their source. There is a set of systematic correspondences between the source and the target domains. These conceptual correspondences are often referred to as mappings. Understanding is achieved by mapping the structure of one domain onto another. To put the same thing differently，“from a cognitive perspective a metaphor is a mapping of the structure of a source model onto a target model” （Ungerer & Schmid， 2001： 120）. The main function of metaphor is to understand one thing in terms of another.

In the above examples， the abstract concept of life and habit is facilitated by the more concrete concept of isthmus and cable. The metaphor is thus a conceptual mapping from source domains “isthmus” and “cable” to target domains “life” and “habit” respectively. In the ② metaphor， people correspond to travelers and difficulties in life correspond to difficulties in travelling through an isthmus. It gives rise to a set of epistemic correspondences in which knowledge of the source domain （isthmus） is mapped onto knowledge of the target domain（life）.

2.2 Cognitive linguistic view of metonymy

In New Websters Dictionary， the definition of metonymy is a figure of a speech that consists in using the name of one thing for that of something else with which it is associated. Take the following as an example.

The peaceful Shepherd （Robert Frost）

If heaven were to do again，

And on the pasture bars

I leaned to line the figures in

Between the dotted stars

I should be tempted to forget，

I fear， the Crown of Rule，

The Scales of Trade， the Cross of Faith，

As hardly worth renewal.

For these have governed in our lives，

And see how men have warred.

The Cross， the Crown， the Scales may all

As well have been the Sword.

In the poetry， the Crown of Rule， the Scales of Trade， the Cross of Faith refers to “government”， “money” and “religion”respectively， all of which are the uses of metonymy. The poet says that he should be tempted to forget his fear of the various objects， because he has been controlled by these things and has fought to have these things. This suggests that in metonymy we use one entity， or thing to indicate， or to provide mental access to another entity. In other words， instead of mentioning the second entity directly， we provide mental access to it through another entity. Thus we get the definition of metonymy from a cognitive linguistic view：

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 idealized cognitive model （ICM）.

The entity that directs domain attention， or provides mental access， to another entity can be called the vehicle entity， and the kind of entity to which attention， or mental access， is provided is called the target entity. It is a basic feature of metonymically related vehicle and target entities that they are “close” to each other in conceptual space. In the traditional view of metonymy， the two entities are contiguously related， or that the two entities are in each others proximity. In the cognitive linguistic view， it is suggested that a vehicle entity can provide mental access to a target entity when the two entities belong to the same domain， or as Lakeoff puts it， the same idealized cognitive model （ICM）. In metonymy， in contrast to metaphor， there is a single mapping—a mapping that takes the listener from the vehicle entity to the target entity. The main function of metonymy seems to be to provide mental， cognitive access to a target entity that is less readily or easily available， typically a more concrete or salient vehicle entity is used to give or gain access to a more abstract or less salient target entity within the same domain.

2.3 Comparative study on metaphor and metonymy： a cognitive perspective

Although both metaphor and metonymy are fundamental types of cognitive models， they are two different kinds of processes. In the understanding of metaphor， two distinct domains are involved and the two concepts participating in metaphor understanding typically in the relationship of similarity. By contrast， in metonymy， two elements that are closely related to each other are based on the relationship of contiguity， and they form a single domain or ICM. The main function of metaphor is to understand one thing in terms of another. Understanding is achieved by mapping the structure of one domain onto another. There is a set of systematic mappings between elements of the source and the target. On the other hand， the main function of metonymy seems to provide mental， cognitive access to a target entity that is less readily or easily available. There is only a single mapping in metonymy—a mapping that takes the listener from the vehicle entity to the target entity.

Given the description above， we can see that metaphor distinguishes from metonymy in the following ways： （1） While metonymy is based on contiguity， that is， on elements that are parts of the same ICM， metaphor is based on similarity. （2） While metonymy involves a single domain， metaphor involves two distant domains. （3） While metonymy is largely used to provide access to a single target entity within a single domain， metaphor is primarily used to understand a whole system of entities in terms of another system. （4） While metonymy occurs between concepts， as well as between linguistic forms and concepts and between linguistic forms and things/events in the world， metaphor occurs between concepts.

3. A Comparative study on Synecdoche and Metonymy from a cognitive perspective

New Websters Dictionary defines synecdoche as follows from a rhetoric view： a figure of speech in which a part is used for a whole， an individual for a class， a material for a thing， or the reverse of any of these， such as bread for food， the army for a soldier， or copper for a penny. However， the definition doesnt cut to the point to help us to distinguish it from metonymy. Some even regard it as a special type or a branch of metonymy. In fact， although they are very difficult to distinguish， they are still different from each other. First lets look at some examples.

A） 1. Lets drink a cup or two. （cup refers to the wine in the cup）

2. The kettle is boiling. （kettle refers to water in the kettle）

3. The pen is mightier than the sword.（pen refers to people who use the pen， sword refers to people who use the sword）

B） 1. They were short of hands. （hands refers to workers）

2. My TV is out of order. （TV refers to a part or some parts of TV）

3. He could hardly earn his everyday bread. （bread refers to food）

We say the figures of speech of Group A are metonymy because the two entities involved in each of the sentences are in the relations of correlation or correspondence. Although the relationship is based on contiguity， the two entities dont include each other. Each of them constitutes “an absolutely separate whole” （Fauconnier， 1997）. This is why metonymy divides up in turn according to the variety of relationships that satisfy the general condition of correspondence： relationship of cause to effect， instrument to purpose， container to content， thing to its location， sign to signification， physical to moral， model to thing. On the contrary， the figures of speech of Group B are synecdoche because the two entities of each sentence include each other. They are in the relationship of connection in which two entities “form an ensemble， a physical or metaphysical whole， the existence or idea of one being included in the existence or idea of the other”. （Fauconnier， 1997） The inclusiveness of the relationships will also have many species： relations of part to whole， of material to thing， of one to many， of species to genus， of abstract to concrete， of species to individual.

Correspondence and connection thus designate two relationships as distinct as exclusion （absolutely separate whole） and inclusion （included in…）. Now we can draw a conclusion that metonymy distinguishes from synecdoche in that the two entities in metonymy are exclusive while the two entities in synecdoche are inclusive.

Note that more attention should be paid to this issue. Lets see two more examples.

1. The gray hair should be respected.（metonymy）

2. The soldier is a valiant heart.（synecdoche）

Hair and heart are both parts of human body， why is it a figure of metonymy in Sentence 1 while synecdoche in Sentence 2？ Giving the observations above， we can understand it easily. In Sentence 1 “grey hair” refers to “the old”. It is a concept of whole. When speaking of grey hair， we often think of the old. They are two concepts which dont include each other. While in Sentence 2， “heart” refers to “people”. The former is a part of the latter， they are inclusive. So we call it synecdoche.

4. Conclusion

Now the fundamental distinction among metonymy， synecdoche， and metaphor is obvious. To summarize， the contrast among them， just as Fauconnier puts it， is as follows： they take place through these three kinds of relationships respectively， relations of correlation or correspondence， relations of connection， and relations by resemblance. The understanding of metaphor， metonymy and synecdoche from a cognitive perspective helps us to distinguish them from each other more easily.

References：

Fauconnier， G. Mapping in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1997.

Hawkes， D.（trs.） The Story of the Stone （Vol. III）[M]. London： the Penguin Group， 1980.

Lakoff， G. & Johnson， M. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1980.

Lakoff， G. & Turner， M. More Than Cool Reason： A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor[M]. Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1989.

New Websters Dictionary of the English Language （college edition）[Z]. New York： Belair Publishing Company Inc.， 1981.

Ungerer， F. & Schmid， H. J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Beijing： Foreign Teaching and Research Press， 2001.

Yu， Ning. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor： A Perspective from Chinese[M]. The Netherlands： John Benjamins Publishing Co.， 1998.