Going Back to Metaphtonymy in Neologism
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Goossens (1990) first demonstrated that metaphor and metonymy interact in a single unit, called metaphtonymy. Following the pioneering work, researchers, including Ruiz de Mendoza (1997) and Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez Velasco (2002) discovered that there are more types of conceptual complexes other than metaphtonymy, such as metaphoric amalgam and metonymic amalgam. Furthermore, Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa (2011) rejected three of the four metaphtonymy types Goossens suggested and argued that one more type of conceptual complexes has to be added in order to interpret phrasal verbs, namely metaphoric chains. This paper aims to investigate whether Korean and English new words exploit various types of conceptual complexes and whether any of the other types of metaphtonymy, that Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez Velasco (2002) rejected, is observed in the interpretation of the new words. The result shows that Korean and English neologisms do make use of all types of conceptual complexes and the result partly supports Goossens (1990) in that metaphor within metonymy type metaphtonymy, rejected by Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa (2011), is required for interpretation of new words.
Abstract
Goossens (1990) first demonstrated that metaphor and metonymy interact in a single unit, called metaphtonymy. Following the pioneering work, researchers, including Ruiz de Mendoza (1997) and Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez Velasco (2002) discovered that there are more types of conceptual complexes other than metaphtonymy, such as metaphoric amalgam and metonymic amalgam. Furthermore, Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa (2011) rejected three of the four metaphtonymy types Goossens suggested and argued that one more type of conceptual complexes has to be added in order to interpret phrasal verbs, namely metaphoric chains. This paper aims to investigate whether Korean and English new words exploit various types of conceptual complexes and whether any of the other types of metaphtonymy, that Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez Velasco (2002) rejected, is observed in the interpretation of the new words. The result shows that Korean and English neologisms do make use of all types of conceptual complexes and the result partly supports Goossens (1990) in that metaphor within metonymy type metaphtonymy, rejected by Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa (2011), is required for interpretation of new words.
참고문헌 (28)
- Barcelona, Antonio., "Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective", pp.31~58 (2000), Mouton de Gruyter
- 최영주, "Metonymy and Korean Noun-Noun Compounds", 영어영문학21, 25(3), pp.269~289 (2012), 21세기영어영문학회
- 최영주, "Semantic Comparison between English -er Nominals and Korean -i Nominals", 담화와 인지, 19(3), pp.297~319 (2012), 담화·인지언어학회
- 최영주, "Metonymy in American Sign Language Compounds", 담화와 인지, 20(3), pp.217~236 (2013), 담화·인지언어학회
- Deignan, Alice., "Metaphorical expressions and culture : An indirect link", Metaphor and Symbol, 18(4), pp.255~271 (2003)
- Dobrovol'skij, Dimitrij., "Figurative language: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspective", pp.323~351 (2005), Elsevier
- Geeraerts, Dirk., "Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast", pp.435~465 (2002), Mouton de Gruyter
- Goossens, Louis., "Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast", pp.349~377 (1990), Mouton de Gruyter
- Janda, Laura A., "Metonymy in word-formation", Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), pp.359~392 (2011)
- Kövecses, Zoltan., "Metaphor: A practical introduction" (2002), Oxford University Press
- Kövecses, Zoltan., "Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation" (2005), Cambridge University Press
- Kövecses, Zoltan., "Metonymy : Developing a cognitive linguistic view", Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), pp.37~77 (1998)
- Lakoff, George., "Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind" (1987), University of Chicago Press
- Lakoff, George, "Metaphor and thought", pp.202~251 (1993), Cambridge University Press
- Lakoff, George, "Metaphors we live by" (1980), University of Chicago Press
- Lakoff, George, "Philosophy in the flesh" (1999), Basic Books
- Lakoff, George, "Cultural models in language and thought", pp.195~221 (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Langacker, Ronald W, "Reference-point constructions", Cognitive linguistics, 4(1), pp.1~38 (1993)
- Panther, Klaus-Uwe., "Metonymy in language and thought" (1999), John Benjamins
- Panther, Klaus-Uwe., "Metonymy in language and thought", pp.333~357 (1999), John Benjamins
- Panther, Klaus-Uwe., "Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction", pp.353~386 (2005), Mouton de Gruyter
- Panther, Klaus-Uwe., "The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics", pp.236~263 (2007), Oxford University Press
- Peirsman, Yves., "Metonymy as a prototypical category", Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), pp.269~316 (2006)
- Radden, Giinter., "Metonymy in language and thought", pp.17~59 (1999), John Benjamins
- Ruiz de Mendoza, "Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction", Atlantis, 19(1), pp.281~295 (1997)
- Ruiz de Mendoza., "Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast", pp.489~532 (2002), Mouton de Gruyter
- Ruiz de Mendoza., "Going beyond metaphtonymy : Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation", Language Value, 3(1), pp.1~29 (2011)
- Yu, Ning., "Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese", Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(2), pp.59~92 (1995)