THE INVESTIGATING METHODS OF METAPHORICAL AND METONYMIC CONCEPTS

National Technical University of Ukraine « Kiev Polytechnic Institute»

(37 Prospect Peremogy, Kiev 03056, Ukraine)

Zhanetta Romanyuk

In accordance with recent investigations cognitive linguists [Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff, Johnson, 1980; Kovecses, 1986, 1988] claim that our conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. But in other words , metaphor is pervasive both in language and thought. The essence of metaphor, according to George Lakoff, is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. Most of our conceptual system is metaphorically structured; that is, most concepts are partially understood in terms of other concepts [Lakoff, Johnson, 1980: 56].

To give some idea of what it means for a concept to be metaphorical and for such a concept to structure an everyday activity, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson [1980: 4-5] start with the concept argument and the conceptual metaphor argument is war.

This metaphor is reflected in language by a wide variety of expressions: Your claims are indefensible. His criticisms were right on target. I've never won an argument with him. If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments.

It is important to see that many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument - attack, defense, counterattack, etc. - reflects this. It is in this sense that the argument is war metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing.

Thus the concept argument is metaphorically structured, the activity is metaphorically structured, and, consequently, the language is metaphorically structured.

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson [1980: 5] argue that human thought processes are largely metaphorical. This is what the linguists mean when they say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined. Metaphors as linguistic expressions are possible precisely because there are metaphors in a person's conceptual system. Therefore, metaphors, such as argument is war should be understood as metaphorical concepts.

Since metaphorical expressions in our language are tied to metaphorical concepts in a systematic way, we can use metaphorical linguistic expressions to study the nature of metaphorical concepts.

To get an idea of how metaphorical expressions in everyday language can give us insight into the metaphorical nature of the concepts, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson [1980: 7] consider the metaphorical concept time is money as it is reflected in contemporary English: You're wasting my time. Can you give me a few minutes? How do you spend your time? We are running out of time. I've invested a lot of time in her. You need to budget your time.

In our culture time is money in many ways. We do not just exploit the metaphor time is money linguistically, but we actually think of, or conceptualize, the so-called ‘target’ category time via the 'source’ category money, i.e., a valuable commodity and limited resource that we use to accomplish our goals. Thus we understand and experience time as the kind of thing that can be spent, wasted, budgeted, invested wisely or poorly, saved, or squandered.

Conceptual metaphors bring into correspondence two domains of knowledge. One is typically a well-delineated, familiar physical domain and the other a less well-delineated, less familiar, abstract domain. The first is called a source domain; the second a target domain. The source domain is typically applied to provide understanding about the target domain. The domain of fire, for instance, is used to understand a varied set of abstract concepts. In the expression spit fire, the domain of fire is used to understand the domain of anger and the conceptual metaphor is anger is fire. In the sentence The fire between them finally went out, the conceptual metaphor is love is fire, in The painting set fire to the composer's imagination, it is imagination is fire; in The killing sparked off riots, it is conflict is fire. These conceptual metaphors function like the connecting element between an abstract domain (such as anger, love, etc.) and a more physical domain (fire in the examples).

Because of the connections they make in our conceptual system, the conceptual metaphors allow us to use terms from one domain (fire) to talk about another (anger and love). Linguistic expressions that employ these terms (such as those of fire) will be about certain target domains (such as anger) as a result of the existence of conceptual metaphors (such as anger is fire).

A conceptual metaphor is a set of mapping or correspondences between two domains - the source and the target. Many of the fire-metaphors listed above, such as anger is fire, love is fire, etc, are constituted by the following conceptual mapping or correspondences: the thing burning is the person in a state/ process; the fire is the state (like anger, love, imagination); the cause of the fire is the cause of the state; the beginning of the fire is the beginning of the state; the existence of the fire is the existence of the state; the end of the fire is the end of the state; the intensity of the fire is the intensity of the state. This set of mapping will explain why for example, setting fire to one's imagination means 'causing one's imagination to function’; why extinguishing the last sparks of the uprising means 'ending the uprising’.

Metaphors are not only used to structure concepts underlying certain abstract words or expressions, but can also contribute to our understanding of complex scientific, political, and social issues. Cognitive linguistics also investigates these more general effects of conceptual metaphors [Ungerer, Schmid, 1996: 147].

As Richard Boyd [1993] and others have shown, metaphors are omnipresent in science. This seems to be especially true of most metaphors used in computer science. Thus many user-friendly programs provide a surface screen which establishes a metaphorical link with the category office. The screen is a desktop that can be tidied up, there are folders for filing items, a clipboard where items can be temporarily stored, windows that can be opened and closed, and a trash can into which superfluous items are dropped. In addition to metaphors based on the office context (computer work is office work), computer programmers make use of animal and illness metaphors, e.g., computer mouse and computer virus.

Like metaphors, metonymic concepts also structure our language, our thoughts, attitudes and actions [Lakoff, Johnson, 1980: 37]. In cases of metonymy, one entity is being used to refer to another that is related to it. Metonymic concepts allow us to conceptualize one thing by means of its relation to something else.

Metonymy is distinguished from metaphor in that it is characterized as typically involving one conceptual domain, rather than two distinct ones. Furthermore, metonymy involves a ‘stands for’ conceptual relationship between two entities (within a single domain), while metaphor involves an ‘is’ or ‘is understood as’ relationship between two conceptual domains such as anger and fire. Metaphor is principally a way of conceiving of one thing in terms of another, and its primary function is understanding; metonymy has primarily a referential function, that is, it allows us to use one entity to stand for another [Lakoff, Johnson, 1980: 36-38].

the part for the whole: We don't hire longhairs.

producer for product: He's got a Picasso in his den.

object for user: The gun he hired wanted fifty grand.

controller for controlled: Nixon bombed Hanoi.

institution for people responsible: I don't approve of the government's actions.

the place for the event: It's been Grand Central Station here all day.

the place for the institution: Wall Street is in a panic.

We can make to the conclusion language reflects our conceptual system. Concepts arise from human's interaction with the world. Concepts have dynamic, developmental nature,i .e they may change their cognitive represantation in the course of time.

REFERENCES:

1. Boyd R. Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor “ a metaphor for? // Metaphor and Thought / ed. A. Ortony. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 1993. - P. 481- 532.

2. Kovecses Z. The language of Love. - Lewisburgh: Associated University Press, 1988. - P. 37 – 38.

3. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors . We live by. - Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1980. - P. 4 -7; 56.

4. Lakoff G., Turner M. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. - Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1989. - P. 11.

5. Ungerer F., Schmid H.J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. - Harlow: Longman, 1996. - P. 147.