Unformatted text preview: r. For him, metaphor (understood as substitution and similarity) is connected with selection aphasia, the poetry
and romanticism in literature, and expressionism and symbolism in art;
metonymy, on the other hand, (understood as dependent upon predication,
contexture and contiguity) is responsible for agrammatism, novel and realism in literature and cubism in art. Dirven (2002 ) elaborates the
connection between the Jakobsonian metaphoric and metonymic poles
with paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in language, respectively. He
views metonymy and metaphor as two mental strategies, which although
forming a continuum, can be opposed in their prototypical uses along the
following lines (Dirven 2002: 100):
In metonymy two elements are brought together, they are mapped on one
another, but keep their existence and are construed as forming a contiguous system. (…)
In metaphor, too, two elements are brought together, but the source domain loses its existence when mapped onto the target domain. Although
the source domain itself is wiped out, some aspects of its own nature or
structure are transferred to that of the target domain. The contrast between
the two elements or domains is often so great that this disparity can only
lead to full substitution of one domain by the other. Croft (1993 ) is strongly critical of CMT, but he adheres to its major claims. He notices that the status of domains is of vital importance to
the theory, therefore their nature cannot remain underspecified. He proves
his point in a detailed analysis of the LIFE IS A PATIENT metaphor proposed
by Lakoff – Johnson (1980: 49) as the underlying conceptual metaphor
for such linguistic expressions as:
This is a sick relationship.
They have a strong healthy marriage.
The marriage is dead – it can’t be revived.
Their marriage is on the mend.
We’re getting back on our feet. and several others. Croft (2002: 176) criticises this decision and convincingly argues in favour of the LIFE IS A BODILY STATE metaphor instead. Conceptual metaphor and its implications for discourse 25 This shows how arbitrary the concept of domain and domain mapping is
and how vague the procedures for domain identification are.
Kövecses (p.c.) maintains that the more detailed a study of the
concept in question we conduct, the more apt our proposed domains
should become. He advocates such methods as a means of linguistic
analysis of examples, elicitation of folk models, and introspection. In
view of this argument, in Chapter Three I shortly review the definitions of
the concept of war as proposed or at least implied in philosophy, sociology, literature, mass media studies and linguistics. This revision is hoped
to provide a necessary cultural grounding for the understanding of the
concept of war essential in the identification, categorisation and labelling
of conceptual metaphors in Chapter Four. A further discussion of the procedure of domain identification and a proposal for a method facilitating it
is given in Chapter F...
View Full Document