4.4. PRAGMATIC FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS OF METONYMY
4.4.1. The information status of metonymic expressions
As we have mentioned above, the great majority of metonymic expressions found in English and Vietnamese short stories are noun phrase structure. Metonymies are efficient in discourse for two main reasons: one being that they serve to make particular aspects of meaning salient in a particular context as we have stated above. The other being they may serve as a way of reducing the use of a longer expression.
4.4.1.1. When the entity in the source domain is more specific Let’s consider examples (110) and (111) below
(110) Turning his veiled face from one group to another, he paid due reverence to the hoary heads, saluted the middle-aged with kind dignity as their friend and spiritual guide, greeted the young with. [67]
(111) Em ăn được bốn bát. Ở Hà Nội em chỉ ăn ba bát. [34, p.53]
It is interesting to note that in English and Vietnamese corpus almost noun phrases functioning as metonymies consist of a modifier-head structure which the head is implicit. For example, “the hoary heads” in (110) can be interpreted as “the elderly people with grey hair”. Similarly, in Vietnamese in (111) the noun phrase “ba bát bốn bát” (three bowls, four bowls) means the thing which is contained in the bows, i.e. the rice.
Obviously, we have now an explanation for the non-literal reading of metonymic expressions: the predication apparently applies to the modifier of the construction: “the hoary heads” “ba bát bốn bát”, whereas in actual fact it applies to the implicit head: “the elderly people with grey hair”, “the rice in the bowls”
In these metonymic expressions, the nominal element functioning as the head of a textually incomplete noun phrase, and, consequently the primary pragmatic process required for its interpretation. The metonymic pragmatic process required the reconstruction so that the content of a syntactic element becomes “visible” in the interpretation of a metonymic utterance.
It can be seen for what has been presented is that general semantic meachanism operate on two essential components: the semantic entity mentioned by the metonymic expression in the source domain and the desired referent or entity intended in target domain. Linguistically the entity in the source domain is often explicit or actualized in form of a metonymic expression whereas the intended referent is necessarily linguistically implicit or non-actualized. E.g.
(112) All eyes were now turned on the country lad, standing at the door, in his worn three-cornered hat, gray coat, leather breeches, and blue yarn stockings, leaning on an oaken cudgel, and bearing a wallet on his back. [54]
In (112) the entity mentioned by the metonymic expression is “all eyes”
and the entity being referred to is the people who were looking at the country lad with their eyes. Although the implicit desired referent is what the addresser wished the addressee to target at, there seems to be another good reason of pragmatics for the addresser to use this metonymic expression.
First, this is a case of low level metonymy of Non-generic ICMs whereby the representations are highly conventional and based on experience which specify elements and their properties and relations. Accordingly, it is easy for the hearer or reader to access into the matrix domain and infers what is really intended as a desired target. In (112), with the expression “All eyes”
serving as a reference point, the reader can be directed to the target referent
“the people who were looking at the country lad”. In view of cognive
principle, the addressee’s effort for inference is not much due to the conventionalized structure of the metonymy. Thus, there is another reason for the addresser to use the metonymic expression in the situation. This is the addresser’s purpose to lay the focus on the entity mentioned by the metonymic expression in the source domain, rather than focus on the implicit target referent.
As we have mentioned the metonymy used here is highly conventionalized in that we are easy to be directed to the target referent in the mapping EYE FOR PERSON. Accordingly, the information status of the explicit entity and the implicit entity is different as far as the cognitive view is concerned. It can be said that the information about the target referent “the people” is presupposed or given in this context and it is not worth representing syntactically. For the need to focus on “the eyes” that were the entities mentioned in the source domain, the information about these entities is comprehended as new and worth mentioning, they should be actualized syntactically to fulfil the function of attracting the reader’s comprehension and interpreting. At this point, we can say that “All eyes” in this context can be conceived of with foregrounding status whereas the “The people who were looking at the country lad” should be viewed with backgrounding status.
In this sense, metonymic expressions are used in grounding the referent noun to the knowledge –base that is already represented in the mind of the hearer. We can see that in some cases, basic noun phrases are used when the speaker assumes that the referent’s identity is accessible to the hearer – but not easily accessible. The speaker assumes that the desired referent identified with the metonymic expression as a reference point is familiar, known or accessible to the hearer or otherwise is unlikely to be challenged as new information. For example, an appropriate response to the utterance in (111):
(111) Em ăn được bốn bát. Ở Hà Nội em chỉ ăn ba bát. [34, p.53]
should be: “Chỉ ba bát thôi ư?” or: “Chị không tin là em chỉ ăn ba bát”.
whereas such responses as: “Bát gì?”; “Bát cơm ấy à?”; “Chị không tin em chỉ ăn ba bát cơm” may be regarded as odd and inappropriate in this situation where the number of the bowls can be doubted and challenged but not with what is contained in the bowl.
Pragmatically, it is a default case that “The people who were responsible for the act of looking” should be the people present at the scene of the addresser’s utterance, at the moment of the utterance. The target referent here cannot be someone else out of the context, i.e. present at somewhere else at a different time other than the time of the utterance. Thus, the target referent need not be representing syntactically in order that the addresser can narrow down the addressee’s attention to the description of the entity mentioned by the metonymic expressions. The eyes can be chosen for the reference point of focus may be due to the psychological fact that they easily attract the other people’s attention than any other parts or even the whole body of the people in question. The psychological and pragmatic effect here can be that the reader may also turn their look onto “the country lad” in the context thanks to the description given to the entity in the source domain. This is evidenced in other examples …. below
(113) Eager voices hailed each other from house to house, all demanding the explanation, which not a soul could give. [44, p.77]
(114) Cái hàng rào sĩ tử có đủ các hạng tuổi từ một cái đầu xanh mặt trắng cho đến một chòm tóc bạc, một lớp da mồi đã bị xé thủng. [37, p.199]
In (113), though the target referent can be understood as the people whose voices were heard, the voices should be paid attention to with the addresser’s focus on the specification of these entities via the addresser’s description. This is understandable because the people who were responsible for the act of making sound with their voices can be viewed as unknown or not worth mentioning. It may also be because the addresser’s purpose is to avoid the reader’s distraction to have “the people” actualized in the utterance.
The focus here should be on “the voices which signaled the eagerness” rather than on the people in the context.
In (114) the same analysis can be applied to the focus on the description of the head, the hair, the face, the complexion which serve as the referent point to the people of different ages. This description highlights the addresser or author’s observation in the context of utterance and at the same time signal more of his/her engagement into the scene of the story. The stylistic effect can be that the reader or hearer will not spend much of their effort on identifying the intended referent as something presupposed or given but take part in the atmosphere of the story with the appealing description.
With these arguments and assumption in mind we propose that the motivation of the use of metonymy in this case is the matter of distribution of reader’s attion and focus on a certain part of the addresser’s description.
The information status of the explicit entity in the source domain and the entity in the target domain as in (113) can be represented as follows
Table 4.10. The information status of the explicit entity and implicit entity
Eager voices persons with eager voices
Domain source domain target domain
Explicitness Explicit implicit
Information status new/asserted given/presupposed
Grounding Foregrounded Backgrounded
Specificity more specific less specific
4.4.1.2. When the entity in the source domain is less specific In some other cases, when the metonymic expression has a target-in- source mapping, for example WHOLE-FOR-PART, this target-in-source metonymies make use of the matrix domain to refer to a subdomain which is not necessarily as clearly identifiable. In communication, when the speaker feels that he cannot express or figure the intended referent as clearly as it is with its precise properties, this kind of target-in-source metonymy is an excellent communicative means to be applied. Let’s consider examples below
(115) Some mornings he went to the phone box at the terminus down at
the bay and called his office to say he was sick. [48]
(The hottest night - Glenda Adams),
(116) Ít nhất họ cũng hy vọng Nhà nước mở đường cho dân ba xã vùng biển.
[8, p.55]
In (115) by invoking the matrix domain “his office” to refer to the subdomain for the targeted referent, it is not necessary for the speaker to point exactly who was responsible for receiving the phone call. For the domain reduction, the actual referent of the matrix “office” could be anyone among the receptionist, the operator or the secretary or the person who was
temporarily in charge of this work at the moment of speaking. In (116), the hearer can make use of the matrix domain “Nhà nước” to refer to the leaders of the state or the person who was supposed to be in charge of the construction project or the construction workers who were expected to come.
In this case of target-in-source metonymies, it can be said that the entity in the matrix domain can be characterized more saliently as a whole in the addressee or hearer’s mind than any of its subdomain.
With this charactersitics of the target-in-source metonymies we understand that it is the whole office or whole state should be responsible or involved in the act in question. In our view, the motivation for metonymies used in this way is due to a kind of loose talk where the speaker may select an imprecise way to ease their speech or it is due to the lack of proper expressions to be used at the moment of speaking.
In some cases when the metonymic expressions are encoded with the universal quantifier “whole” in English or “cả” in Vietnamese, the speaker’s intent can be made clear with the itended referent invoked in the matrix domain. In this case, the speaker’s speech is not as loose as the one mentioned above. Though the referent is mentioned with somewhat emphasis and a certain degree of hypobole, it is clear that it is the whole town as in (117), the whole family as in (118) and the whole family as in (119) were the ones that were referred to in the matrix domain, rather than any of their members in the subdomain.
(117) Our whole town went to her funeral. [68]
(118) She has lost her whole family. Taken away and shot before her eyes...
[9, p.78]
(119) Tôi biết được có bao nhiêu đó thôi, kể ra cũng mấy dòng vậy thôi.
Mà, cũng phải đợi tới năm mười lăm tuổi cả nhà mới cho tôi biết. [28, p.45]
The selection of the entity with the WHOLE-FOR-PART mapping as the reference point here conforms to the cognitive principle of salience: human entities are more salient than non-human, wholes are more salient than parts, concrete entities are more salient than abstract ones, and visible entities are more salient than invisible ones.