4.3. THE SEMANTICS OF METONYMIC EXPRESSIONS IN
4.3.2. The semantic mechanism for the idealized conceptual models ICMs of metonymy
Following the model of cognitive linguistics, we assume that metonymic expressions should be examined as a structure of conventional conceptual mapping from one conceptual domain (called the source) to another conceptual domain (called the target). With this model, metonymy is seen as a mapping within a single schema, connecting one element of a schema to another within the same schema. Basing on Ruiz de Mendoza’s proposal of the two descriptive parameters (a) the nature of the relationship
between the source and target domains, and (b) the kind of mapping process involved, we will deal with the analysis of metonymic expressions in such a way to look into how the source allows us to understand and reason about the target in terms of some of the relevant aspects of its conceptual structure.
In terms of the nature of relationship metonymy is seen to be based on the subdomain relationship in the reference to the main domain as the matrix domain. Metonymies in the first group are called source-in-target metonymies and those in the second group target-in-source metonymies. In the former group, the source is a subdomain of the target whereas in the latter group the target is a subdomain of the source, e.g.
(86) But it was familiar to every eye in the village, and endowed by our people with the honors of an ancient landmark. [53]
(87) Scarce a dwelling, or a face, in the little town, that was not familiar to me, and it gave additional zest to the pleasure of a holiday at home, to meet one's townsfolk under the excitement of an approaching eclipse. [53]
In (86) “every eye” is a subdomain of “every person who possesses the eyes in the village” and in (87) “a face” is a subdomain of “the person who possesses this face in the little town”
In Vietnamese we also found instances of metonymic expressions of this type. E.g.
(88) Tôi có oan thì tôi phải giải. Không việc gì đến cái mặt chú mày nhé.
[28, p.231]
(89) Người ta ngỡ đây là hai vợ chồng trong một nhà đông anh em ở bên kia dốc Lùng Chùng Phủng, nương vỡ được ít mà miệng ăn thì nhiều, anh em, vợ chồng phải chia ra, đem nhau đi tìm ăn nơi khác... [31, p.57]
In (88), “cái mặt [the face]” is a subdomain of “the person who wears the face” and in (89) “miệng ăn” [mouth] is a subdomain of “the person who possesses the mouth”.
For the illustration of the target-in-source metonymies, let’s consider the examples below
(90) “Perhaps you will play ein Stuck for me – Liszt perhaps?”
“Lord, no. I’ve never done him.” [44, p.34]
(91) Ôi những phiếm đàn nối tiếp, hành lang vô tận đi tới Bách thần bí trang nghiêm, Bêthôven hào hùng tráng lệ, Sôpanh trữ tình, tha thiết.[28,p.43]
In (90) “Liszt” can be interpreted as his “artistic work” as far as our encyclopedic knowledge about famous composers is invoked. In the same line of analysis, “Bach”, Beethoven” and “Chopin” can be used to mean “musical pieces of work composed by the composer” respectively. These transferred meaning can be seen as a subdomain of our world knowledge concerning artworks of famous authors
For the clarification of the relationship between the subdomain and the matrix domain in the identifying of the reference of metonymy we would like to expand the context of metonymic expressions with the anaphoric antecedent as follows
(91) This sensitive soul ran away from home because his parents wouldn't buy him a moped for Christmas. [42, p.35]
(92) * This sensitive soul ran away from home because his parents wouldn't buy it a moped for Christmas. [42, p.35]
(93) “Perhaps you will play ein Stuck for me – Liszt perhaps?”
“Lord, no. I’ve never done him.” [44, p.34]
(94) “Perhaps you will play ein Stuck for me – Liszt perhaps?”
*“Lord, no. I’ve never done it.” [44, p.34]
As we can see from the examples mentioned above, the antecedent
“him” was actually used to refer to the man whose soul was described as sensitive in (91) and again the anaphoric pronoun was used to refer to Liszt the composer. Thus, in the pattern SOURCE IN TARGET, the reference is made to the target domain of the metonymy which is also the main domain of the reference or the matrix domain. With the pattern TARGET IN SOURCE, the reference is made in the source domain which is also the matrix domain. In other words, to identify the intended reference of the metonymy in (86) the matrix domain of the target domain is accessible for us to search for the relevant targeted entity that is related to the source. On the other hand, the intended reference in (91) is only identifiable in the source domain which is also the matrix domain. This can be represented in the figure below
[source] [target]
(explicit antecedent) (implicit antecedent)
This sensitive soul the man who possessed the soul
him (anaphoric pronoun) [source] [target]
(explicit antecedent) (implicit antecedent) Liszt music work related to Liszt
him (anaphoric pronoun)
In the second case of target in source pattern, the subdomain for the reference is not necessarily as clearly identifiable. It is not as clearly salient in our mind as the matrix domain. In this sense, it is the matrix domain that is in focus rather than any of its subdomain, accordingly Liszt himself figures more predominantly than in the hearer’s mind than anything related to Liszt himself. In the same line of argument we can have the respresentation of the metonymic expressions in Vietnamese as follows
(95) Tôi có oan thì tôi phải giải. Không việc gì đến cái mặt chú mày (mà chú mày xen vào) nhé. [27, p.331]
(96) Tôi có oan thì tôi phải giải. Không việc gì đến cái mặt chú mày mà cái mặt chú mày/ nó xen vào nhé. [27, p.331]
In (95) we can successfully expand the context by inserting the anaphoric expression “chú mày” to refer back to the metonymic expression
“cái mặt chú mày”. However, it seems to be odd to insert the anaphoric expression “cái mặt chú mày” or the anaphoric pronoun “nó” for the co- reference to the targeted entity “the addressee” in the utterance. This can be represented as follows
[source] [target]
(explicit antecedent) (implicit antecedent)
cái mặt chú mày the addressee whose face was mentioned
chú mày (anaphoric expression)
The presentation of the correspondence between the linguistic representation and the conceptual representation of metonymies in the examples above help us to have a clearer relationship between the source domain and the target domain. Also, this helps to figure out how the intended reference is made within the source domain or target domain as refered to the main domain or matrix domain.