Grammar

grammatical

Table 24

– lexical homonymy, where all homonyms belong to the same part of speech, for example, “boron” - forest, “boron” - a chemical element, “boron” - dental drill; “match” – match and “match” – competition (from English).

– grammatical homonymy, where homonyms belong to different parts of speech, for example, “flow” is a noun and “flow” is a verb, “love” is a noun and “love” is a verb, etc.

– lexico-grammatical homonymy(mixed type), where homonyms are not connected by meaning, and are different parts of speech, for example, “light” (English) - light and “light” (English) - light.

P

homonymy by degree of completeness

about the degree of completeness:

unequal volume

non-homographic

Table 26

– homonyms – homographs (homographic) are identical in sound and spelling, for example, all homonyms “boron” or “key”;

– non-homographic homonyms sound the same, but are written differently, for example, “company” - a society of friends and “campaign” - electoral; “see” - to see and “sea” - sea.

By registration in dictionaries:

are registered

not registered

Table 27

Dictionaries record only homonym-homographs as homonyms, i.e. homonyms, which are identical in both sound and spelling, because Dictionaries are based on the written form of words.

UDC 81"373.612.2

L.A. Kozlova

METAPHOR AND METONYMY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

The article discusses certain issues related to the cognitive essence of metaphor and metonymy. A brief excursion into the history of the study of metaphor and metonymy is given, and the continuity of different paradigms in their study is noted. The dynamic nature of the processes of metaphorization and metonymization is shown. General and distinctive features are identified and described that make it possible to distinguish between these cognitive phenomena.

Key words: metaphor, metonymy, mental space, conceptual integration, refocusing.

Despite a truly huge number of works devoted to metonymy and metaphor (see review in [Oparina 2000]), the interest of researchers in the study of these phenomena does not weaken, but, on the contrary, intensifies: their specificity is considered in various types discourse, their cultural conditioning, their pragmatic potential, their ability to influence our perception and assessment of events, etc. At the same time, many issues related to the study of metaphor and metonymy continue to remain controversial. One of these controversial issues is, in our opinion, the question of a clearer differentiation of these processes. Issues related to the commonality and difference of metaphor and metonymy have been considered by many researchers [La-koff, Johnson 2004; Paducheva 2004; Kovecses 1998; Panther 2003; Ruis de Mendoza Ibáñez 2003; Ungerer, Schmid 1996, etc.], whose works examine both the commonality and differences between these processes, however, some signs of differentiation of these phenomena still remain outside the field of view of researchers.

The processes of metaphorization and metonymization are among the basic cognitive mechanisms that ensure the conceptualization and categorization of objects and phenomena of the external and internal world of a person. Considering the cognitive foundations of linguistic categorization, J. Lakoff introduces the concept of idealized cognitive models (ICM), understanding by them special cognitive entities that underlie linguistic categories, and identifies four types of such ICM: propositional, defining the nature of category elements, their properties and relationships between them; image-schematic models reflecting the basic figurative representations that form categorical classes; metaphorical models that allow one to represent some abstract area through identification

it with another area, usually more specific and accessible to empirical observation; metonymic models, acting in conjunction with the first three and ensuring the transfer of the characteristics of one element of the set to the entire set [Labl 1987: 68-76].

It is obvious that it is the significance of the processes of metaphorization and metonymization for the conceptualization and verbalization of phenomena of the external and internal world that explains the place that the study of metaphor and metonymy occupied at all stages of the development of linguistics, despite the fact that different stages of this development, the focus of research, in accordance with the dominant paradigm of the era, was various aspects of these complex and multifaceted phenomena.

The origins of the theory of metaphor and metonymy, as well as many linguistic theories, lie in ancient teachings. The theory of metaphor was born in the depths of rhetoric, which considered metaphor primarily as a means of influencing the audience. It was Aristotle who raised the question of the heuristic possibilities of metaphor. Considering metaphor in the context of rhetoric as a device of oratory and poetic art, he at the same time paid attention to the logical mechanism of metaphor, i.e. the mechanism that underlies the ability of metaphor to express knowledge about the world, i.e., in modern metalanguage, to participate in the processes of conceptualization. He also expressed an important idea about the need for metaphorical nomination, emphasizing that before the metaphorical name there was no exact nomination of the described concept in the language. The establishment of the relationship between metaphor and comparison also goes back to Aristotle; he defines metaphor as an abbreviated or hidden comparison [Aristotle 1978].

Significant contribution to the development of the theory of metaphor (namely its conceptual essence)

contributed works by A.A. Potebni. Discussing with Aristotle and Gerber about the possibility of rearranging the members of a proposition in a metaphor, A. A. Potebnya writes that such a rearrangement would be possible if the language of science and poetry did not reflect the direction of the processes of cognition - from the previously known to the new, unknown ( compare with the description of the essence of conceptual metaphor in the works of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson!) [Potebnya 1990: 203].

Within the framework of the system-centric paradigm, or “internal” linguistics, when language was studied “in itself and for itself,” metaphor and metonymy were considered primarily as stylistic devices, means of increasing the expressiveness of speech. But even within the framework of this paradigm, as is always the case, many linguists and philosophers emphasized the role of metaphor and metonymy in the processes of cognition and conceptualization of the world. Thus, in the concept of metaphor proposed by M. Black, who builds his theory of metaphor based on the concept of interaction, the author’s attempt to consider the essence of metaphor as a process of mental activity is clearly visible. It was he who introduced the concept of “cognitive metaphor” into linguistic use. He considers the mechanism of metaphor as the result of the interaction of two associative systems: the denoted metaphor and its figurative means, as a result of which the denoted appears in a new light, from a new angle, receiving a new, metaphorical name [Black 1990]. In this interpretation of metaphor, there is an easy connection with the theory of conceptual metaphor proposed by J. Lakoff and M. Johnson. L. Shlain defined metaphor as a unique contribution of the right hemisphere to the linguistic ability of the left, also considering it in the context of human mental activity. Thus, there is every reason to assert that even within the framework of the systemic-structural paradigm, researchers have come close to the need to consider metaphor not only as a stylistic device or a way of expanding meaning, but also as a mental entity. The above allows us to state continuity in the development of linguistic science, which is manifested in the fact that new approaches and the formation of any new paradigm do not occur in a vacuum, but are born within the framework of the previous paradigm, which ensures the fruitfulness of integration different approaches to the object of study and

confirms the evolutionary nature of the development of linguistics.

An example of such an evolution of views on the essence of metaphor can be the works of M.V. Nikitin, in whose works one can trace the transition from the interpretation of metaphor as a transfer of meaning to the consideration of its cognitive essence. Thus, speaking about the role of metaphor in the formation of a new concept, M.V. Nikitin especially emphasizes that metaphor does not generate a new concept, but only contributes to its clear formation and verbal expression, which is its cognitive function. In the figurative expression of M.V. Nikitin, metaphor serves as a “midwife,” helping the concept emerge from the twilight of consciousness and be verbalized in speech [Nikitin 2001: 34].

Since the 70s. last century, in connection with the emergence and promotion of the cognitive paradigm to a central position in linguistics, the attention of linguists is almost entirely focused on the study of the cognitive function of metaphor and metonymy: they are studied from the standpoint of those mental operations that occur during their generation, the role of metaphorization processes is explored and metonymization as special cognitive operations involved in the processes of conceptualization and categorization. The greatest attention was initially paid to metaphor, primarily thanks to the work of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson [Lakoff, Johnson 2004], which, in the words of A.N. Baranov, can rightfully be considered “the bible of the cognitive approach to metaphor” [Baranov 2004: 7]. The popularity of this work is so high that it often serves as a precedent name for other works in the field of metaphorology (see, for example, titles such as “Metaphors we can learn by”, “Metaphors that we choose” [Alekseeva 2002: 288-298 ], etc.).

The main merit of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson is that they determined the place and role of metaphor in understanding the world, showing that metaphors permeate our daily life(which is reflected in the very title of the work) organize our everyday experience. Metaphor expresses the basic cognitive ability of a person to think about one sphere life experience or a field of knowledge in the images of another, to master new things, relying on what is already well known, on analogy, to form new concepts on the basis of old ones, formed on the basis of previous experience.

The process of metaphorization in the concept of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson is based on mutual

the action of two conceptual spheres: the source area, which represents the sphere of acquired experience, and the goal area, which is thought to be structured on the basis of the source area. The basis for such a transfer is, according to researchers, the so-called correspondences in experience. At the same time, correspondences in experience are understood quite broadly as some common feature inherent in both conceptual areas. The nature of this common characteristic can be different: similarity in appearance, size, demeanor, need, function performed, etc. For example, in the metaphor “...the key to my fiction... lies in my relationship with nature” (Fowles J.), the general attribute “function” serves as such a basis: with the help of a key you can open a door in inner world writer and understand his work.

Based on the analysis of everyday, everyday metaphors (those by which we live), J. Lakoff and M. Johnson identified three groups of conceptual metaphors that reflect stable, stable correspondences between the source area and the target area, entrenched in the collective consciousness: structural metaphors, orientational and ontological. Structural metaphors allow one phenomenon to be perceived and described in terms of another, for example, the idea of ​​life educational institution in terms of a ship in distress: “Do you think the Literary Institute will survive?”; “He survived, and that’s good. It floats heavily, difficultly, the sides are cracking. But he floats" (LG December 24-30, 2004). With the help of orientation metaphors, concepts are structured in terms of spatial relationships: positive - top, negative - bottom, cf.: “Life is a miracle. But you can’t forbid a miracle. Long live the amplitude, sometimes you fall, sometimes you fly” (Bokov V.). Ontological metaphors make it possible to represent abstract phenomena in the form of a material substance, cf.: “Woe are you, grief is the salty sea” (Tsvetaeva M.).

It should be emphasized that when speaking about the correspondences in experience underlying conceptual metaphors, J. Lakoff and M. Johnson had in mind not individual, but collective experience, understandable to all representatives of a given society, and the object of their analysis was the so-called erased, or dead metaphors, i.e. verbal metaphors that have become facts of language (according to J. Searle’s apt description, dead metaphors are those that have survived, i.e. have become facts of language, and

not an individual [Searle 1990: 313]). Individual cultural, professional and intellectual experience may differ from the conventional one, which leads to the creation of living, creative metaphors that do not fit into traditional models. An example is the metaphors of John Fowles, in which the source area is often stylistic figures of speech, since this area is the most famous for Fowles as an artist of words, and he often relies on it when describing specific people or phenomena, cf.: She was a kind of human oxymoron. The landscape was a simile of my life (Fowles J.). Another example of individual experience, which served as a source area for creating a metaphor, can be the following characteristic: “A cheerful, smart, nice person, such an Adler of the soul” (This is what Yu. Bashmet says about his daughter in one of the interviews (KP 04/05/05) ).

It should be recognized that the conceptual areas of source and goal, which serve as the basis for describing the cognitive essence of metaphor in the Lakoff-Johnson theory, appear as formed, static formations, which somewhat limits the applicative potential of this theory for describing the processes of generating new meanings and creating author’s metaphors in the process of metaphorization . This limitation is overcome in works on conceptual integration, which represent a further development of the cognitive theory of metaphor. A distinctive characteristic of the theory of conceptual integration, the main provisions of which are presented in the works of J. Fauconnier, M. Turner, E. Sweetser, is that it focuses on the creative, dynamic nature of the process of meaning generation in general and metaphorization in particular.

The theory of conceptual integration is based on the concept of mental space, which is not a static, but a dynamic entity. Mental spaces are not given in advance, but represent packages of information that arise on-line in the process of comprehension, conceptual processing of a past or current situation based on existing knowledge. The process of conceptual integration includes the interaction of four mental spaces: two initial spaces, a common space (created as a result of their intersection based on common principles)

signs) and a combined, integral space, the so-called blend, which, in fact, is the result of conceptual integration. The advantage of this theory is that it represents the process of metaphor formation, as well as the process of meaning formation in general, as dynamic entities. As N.K. emphasizes Ryabtseva, the concept of conceptual integration is fundamentally important for language as a whole, since language itself is integral, syncretic, and polysemantic [Ryabtseva 2005: 85]. OK. Iriskhanova, noting the great explanatory potential of this theory, points out that it can be used in the study of the semantics of syntactic constructions, phraseological units, the construction of literary texts, and various stylistic devices [Iriskhanova 2000: 64].

Turning to specific linguistic material allows us to see the dynamic essence of metaphorization processes as a result of conceptual integration. Let us turn to the analysis of an excerpt from the book by American writer of Chinese origin Amy Tan “The Joy Luck Club”, which, it seems to us, allows us to see the process of generating metaphor as a result of conceptual integration.

The old woman remembered a swan she had bought many years ago in Shanghai for a foolish sum. This bird, boasted the vendor, was once a duck that stretched its neck in hopes of becoming a goose, and now look! - it is too beautiful to eat.

Then the woman and the swan sailed across an ocean many thousands of li wide, stretching their necks toward America. On her journey she cooed to the swan: “In America I will have a daughter just like me. But over there nobody will say her worth is measured by the loudness of her husband's belch. Over there nobody will look down on her, because I will make her speak only perfect American English. And over there she will always be too full to swallow any sorrow! She will know my meaning, because I will give her this swan - a creature that became more than what was hoped for."

But when she arrived in the new country, the immigration officials pulled her swan away from her, leaving the woman fluttering her arms and with only one swan feather for a memory. And then she had to fill out so many forms she forgot why she had come and what she had left behind.

Now the woman was old. And she had a daughter who grew up speaking only English and swallow-

ing more Coca-Cola than sorrow. For a long time now the woman had wanted to give her daughter the single swan feather and tell her: “This feather may look worthless, but it comes from afar and carries with it all my good intentions.” And she waited, years after years, for the day she could tell her daughter this in perfect American English.

The analysis of this passage allows us to trace the operation of conceptual integration using the example of the integration of two initial mental spaces (input spaces), formed on the basis of the concepts WOMAN and SWAN, the first of which is the target area, and the second is the source of the conceptual metaphor. The interaction of these mental spaces leads to the formation of a common mental space (generic space), which arises as a result of the intersection of common features of the original spaces. Linguistic markers of this shared mental space are words and phrases such as sail across an ocean, stretch their necks, which are used to describe both the woman and the swan. On the basis of this common mental space, a so-called blend is created, i.e. integrated mental space (blended, integrated space), which underlies the generation of metaphor. The linguistic representatives of this blend, which we can conditionally designate as SWAN WOMAN, are such units as coo (she cooed to the swam), swallow (she will always be too full to swallow any sorrow, swallowing more Coca-Cola than sorrow) , flutter (the woman fluttering her arms). Moreover, their fundamental difference from units representing the general mental space lies precisely in the metaphorical meaning they convey.

It should be especially emphasized that, despite the presence of a conventional metaphor, which is based on a stable association of a graceful woman with a swan, this metaphor is the author’s, generated in this text. Its individuality lies primarily in the fact that, unlike the existing conventional metaphor, which is based on the comparison of a woman with a swan and has positive connotations, this metaphor also includes negative connotations, which are clearly present in the combination to swallow Coca-Cola. In addition, this metaphor, as it seems to us, also carries a certain culturally specific flavor, which is indirectly indicated by such details as the loudness of her husband's belch,

emphasizing the place and purpose of a woman in China at that time, as well as swan feather - a swan feather, indirectly associated with the lightness and weightlessness of an eastern woman.

The consequence of a kind of metaphorological boom was that, firstly, the study of metonymy from a cognitive perspective was somewhat pushed back in time, and, secondly, that some cases of transferring meaning of a clearly metonymic nature began to be described as metaphorical. So, for example, when considering cases like Ten dollars later..., some researchers classify them as varieties of conceptual metaphor [Gileva 2002], based on the basic metaphorical model TIME IS MONEY. Of course, there is a certain temptation to interpret these cases as metaphorical, but then how to consider such cases when the units of time are not the names of monetary units, but the names of other entities, such as: He put on an apron and began to peel. One potato later, Sheila mentioned:

“Evelyn called" (Segal E.) or A thousand doors ago, when I was a lonely kid... (Sexton A.), which clearly cannot be reduced to the metaphorical model TIME IS MONEY.

It seems to us that there are much more reasons to consider these cases as metonymic in their essence, i.e. based on transfer by contiguity “an action occurring in time, an object of an action occurring in time” ^ “unit of time measurement”, i.e. an event, object or other entity associated with an action occurring in time can become a unit of measurement of time, as K. Vonnegut once demonstrated in the now classic phrase “When I was a young man - two wives ago, 250,000 cigarettes ago, 3 000 quarts of booze ago" (Vonnegut K.).

The transition from the traditional consideration of metonymy as a process of semantic transfer and stylistic means to its description as a phenomenon at the conceptual level occurred later than the study of metaphor in the cognitive aspect). Recognizing that much work describes both metaphor and metonymy in terms of conceptual integration as a basic cognitive operation underlying many mental and linguistic processes, we would like to note that for metonymy,

a mental operation of refocusing, or shifting the focus of attention (L. Talmy's term), occurring in the mind of the speaker during the conceptualization and verbalization of an object or event. Thus, describing the essence of metonymy as a cognitive process, E.V. Paducheva notes: “Metonymy is usually defined as transfer by contiguity. The concept of conceptual structure allows us to define a metonymic shift differently - as a shift in the focus of attention when conceptualizing a real situation; in other words, as a change in the relationship between figure and background” [Paducheva 2004: 190]. Such a shift is based on the existence in consciousness of strong associative connections between an event, phenomenon and its participants or other characteristics, i.e. connections by contiguity. As a result of such a shift, the focus of attention can move from the event itself to its time (After September 11, the world became different), place (We will remember Bes-lan for a long time), from the action to its characteristics (The train rumbled past), from the author to his works (Do you have Okudzhava?), from a patient to his diagnosis (I had three appendicitis today), from a person to a part of his body, a piece of clothing or jewelry (Look, what an awesome neck is sitting at the end table (Rubina D. ); (The ring spoke), etc. (more full list such metonymic transfers (see).

Based on the above, we believe that the significant difference between metaphor and metonymy is that for metonymy, a shift in the focus of attention is essential, and for metaphor, the presence of common features is essential, on the basis of which a combined, integral space - a blend - is formed. In the process of metaphorization, two mental spaces are involved, having a common feature, on the basis of which the integrated space underlying the metaphor is created. In this regard, metaphor turns out to be much closer to comparison, which is also based on the conceptual integration of two different mental spaces, which allows us to consider metaphor and comparison as members of the same cognitive category. The mental processes involved in the process of metonymization occur “in the territory” of one mental area, within which refocusing occurs

attention. The result of such refocusing, which occurs at the mental level, at the linguistic level, is an economy of linguistic means, a kind of semantic ellipsis, when time, place, object and other characteristics become signs of the event itself. Thus, metonymy as a mental operation acts as a way of cognitive economy, focusing the main thing, which is also its difference from metaphor, which is not associated with economy.

Another, no less important difference is that a metaphor at the level of linguistic representation is associated primarily with a noun, since only a noun is capable of creating a certain image in the mind, endowed with various features, which form the implication of the word, which serves as the basis for the metaphorization of its meanings . Even in cases of metaphorical use of a verb, the basis for such metaphorization, in our opinion, most often still serves as a noun associated with an action called a verb, i.e., the verb is metaphorized on the basis of an associative connection with the denotation of the name. Thus, in the case of “The sea laughed,” the verb “to laugh” is used metaphorically on the basis that the sea is likened to a living creature. Many researchers point to this associative connection with a noun in the case of metaphorization of a verb. Thus, describing cases of metaphorization of verbs like “howl” in the combination “the wind howls”, N.D. Arutyunova says that a metaphor of this type can be derived from a comparison based on the parallelism of phenomena of different orders: “the wind howls like an animal howls” [Arutyunova 1998: 361], i.e. through an associative connection with a noun. FOR. Kharitonchik, describing the metaphorization of the verb in the example “The road snaked into the mountains,” also notes that the metaphorical meaning of the verb is associated associatively with the original word “snake,” i.e. occurs on the basis of an associative connection with the subject name [Kharitonchik 2009: 419]. Metonymy, unlike metaphor, can occur in the sphere of the verb not through an associative connection with a noun, but directly, based on refocusing attention from the action itself to its attribute, for example, qualitative characteristics, which is used to name the action itself. For example: Mrs Tanter rustled forward, effusive and kind (Fowles J.). In this example, one of the characteristics of the effective

Via, namely its sound accompaniment, becomes a means of nominating the action itself, while simultaneously naming both the action itself and its characteristics, i.e. acting as a method of semantic compression. As shown benchmarking, metonymic transfer in the sphere of the verb is more frequent than metaphorical. E.S. Kubryakova notes that it is metonymic transfers that “underlie the nomination by a verb of an entire situation, a special type of human activity, when one of the components of the situation, or one with another, being designated, then exhibits the ability to evoke in our imagination the situation as a whole, or , in other terms, activate the corresponding frame [Kubryakova 1992: 89-90]. As the factual material shows, in the sphere of the verb there can be cases of metonymic-metaphorical transfer, in which a metonymic shift initially occurs, and then, on its basis, metaphorization occurs. For example: Her voice bulldozed through all opposition (Greene G.).

Let's sum it up summary what was said. Metaphor and metonymy, as cognitive operations and as semantic processes taking place in the field of linguistic semantics, are characterized by both elements of similarity and difference. Their similarities are that they:

a) are cognitive in nature;

b) increase the resources of our consciousness and language;

c) can be both conventional and individual, creative in nature and have significant pragmatic potential;

d) are explained in the theory of semantics in terms of transfer, or shift of meaning.

The difference between metaphor and metonymy is that:

a) for metonymy, a shift in the focus of attention is essential, and for metaphor - the presence of common features, on the basis of which a combined, integral space - a blend - is formed;

b) metaphor is based on the interaction of two mental spaces, metonymy as a cognitive operation occurs within the boundaries of one mental space;

c) at the mental level, metonymy is associated with the principle of cognitive economy, and at the linguistic level - with a kind of semantic ellipsis; the metaphor is not related to economy;

d) at the linguistic level, metaphor is associated primarily with the noun, metaphorization of the verb occurs through an associative connection with the subject of the action, called the verb; Metonymy can take place both in the sphere of nouns and verbs, while the verb is metonymized independently, due to the operation of shifting the focus of attention.

In conclusion, it should be recognized that, despite the listed differences, metaphor and metonymy can in some cases intersect and overlap each other, which makes their differentiation quite difficult. Such cases often occur in the field of linguistic representation of temporal and spatial relations, which is primarily due to the complexity of the nature of the relationship between the basic concepts SPACE and TIME, as well as in the field of linguistic representation of emotions. The facts of crossing the boundaries between metaphor and metonymy indicate the continuity of our thinking and the diffuseness of the boundaries between various mental processes.

References

Alekseeva L.M. Metaphors that we choose // With love for language. M.; Voronezh: Voronezh. state Univ., 2002. pp. 288-298.

Aristotle Works: in 4 volumes. T. 2. M.: Mysl, 1978.

Arutyunova N.D. Language and the human world. M.: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 1998.

Baranov A.N. Cognitive theory of metaphor: almost twenty-five years later / ed. A.N. Baranova. M.: Editorial, URSS, 2004. P. 7-21.

Black M. Metaphor // Theory of metaphor. M.: Progress, 1990. P. 153-172.

Gileva E.P. Cognitive foundations of the ungrammatical representation of the concept of time: abstract. dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences, Barnaul, 2002.

Iriskhanova O.K. On the theory of conceptual integration // Traditional problems of linguistics in the light of new paradigms of knowledge (Round table materials, April 2000). M.: Institute of Linguistics RAS, 2000. pp. 62-67.

Kubryakova E.S. Action verbs through their cognitive characteristics // Logical analysis of language. Models of action. M.: Indrik, 1992. pp. 84-90.

Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors by which we live / ed. A.N. Baranova. M.: Editorial, URSS, 2004.

Nikitin M.V. Concept and metaphor // Studia Linguistica. Problems of the theory of European languages. Vol. 10. St. Petersburg, 2001, pp. 16-35.

Oparina E. O. Study of metaphor in the last third of the twentieth century // Linguistic research at the end of the twentieth century. Sat. reviews. M.: 2000. P.186-205.

Paducheva E.V. Towards a cognitive theory of metonymy. URL: //http://www.dialog-21.ru/Archive/2003/ Padocheva.htm

Paducheva E.V. Metaphor and its relatives // Secret meanings. Word, text, culture: collection. Art. in honor of N.D. Arutyunova. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2004. pp. 187-203.

Potebnya A.A. Theoretical poetics. M.: Higher. school, 1990.

Ryabtseva N.K. Language and natural intelligence. M.: Academia, 2005.

Searle J. Metaphor // Theory of metaphor. M.: Progress, 1990. P. 307-341.

Kharitonchik Z.A. About the nominative resources of the language, or to the discussion about conceptual integration // Horizons of modern linguistics. Traditions and innovation: collection. in honor of E.S. Kubryakova. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic Cultures, 2009. pp. 412-422.

Fauconnier G., Turner M. Conceptual Integration Networks // Cognitive Science 1998. No. 22. P.133-187.

Fludernik M., Freeman D.C., Freeman M.H. Metaphor and Beyond // Poetics Today 1999, 20. 3. P.383-396.

Kovecses Z. Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive Linguistic View // Cognitive Linguistics 1998, #9-10. P. 37-77.

Lakoff, G., Women Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and L.: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Panther K.U. Introduction: on the Nature of Conceptual Metonymy // Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins 2003. P.1-20.

Ponterotto D. Metaphors We Can Learn by: How Insights from Cognitive Linguistic Research Can Improve the Teaching/Learning of Figurative Language // English Teaching Forum, vol. 32. Number 3. July 1994. P. 2-8.

Ruis de Mendoza Ibanez F.J. The Role of Mappings and Domains in Understanding Metonymy // Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: a Cognitive Perspective / Ed. by A. Barcelona. B. and N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. P. 109-132.

Shlain L. The Alphabet versus the Goddess. Lnd.: Penguin Arkana, 2000.

Sweetser E. & Fauconnier G. Cognitive Links and Domains: Basic Aspects of Mental Space Theory // Space Worlds and Grammar. The University of Chicago Press: 1996. P. 1-28.

Talmy L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1. Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts; L., England: MIT Press, 2003.

Ungerer F., Schmid H.J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Lnd., N.Y.: Longman, 1996.

METAPHOR AND METONYMY: SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE

The article addresses the issues related to the cognitive essence of metaphor and metonymy. The author gives a brief review of studies on metaphor and metonymy, stresses the continuity of different paradigms in the exploration of these phenomena, reveals the dynamic character of metaphorization and metonymization, points out and describes the common and differential features which help to distinguish these cognitive phenomenal

Key words: metaphor, metonymy, mental space, conceptual integration, change of focus.

9th grade

Lesson #9

Topic: Special means of expression

Trails

Metaphor and its thematic types. Metonymy. Synecdoche.

Goals:

Introducing students to special means of artistic expression;

Forming in students the ability to see tropes in context and use them in their own speech;

Show the beauty and expressive possibilities of metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche;

Cultivating the need to improve one’s own speech.

Equipment: texts for analysis (printed), slide presentation.

Lesson progress

Org moment. Goal setting.

We all really want to be understood, but does this always happen? Is it always easy for us to express our thoughts and feelings? Why do you think?

Yes, indeed, sometimes we lack words with which to express feelings, etc.

But guys, there are such words, but we don’t know how to use them. V. Shefner has a poem:

Russian literature is dying out,

Conversational beauty;

Retreating into the unknown

Russian miracle speeches.

Hundreds of native and apt words,

Locked up like birds in cages,

They doze in thick dictionaries.

Let them out of there

Return to everyday life,

So that speech, a human miracle,

Not poor these days.

II. Repetition and consolidation of what has been learned.

1. Frontal work.

Many masters have said that it is difficult to find the right word: “How can the heart express itself!?” - exclaimed F.I. Tyutchev. (slide No. 2)

A man who was outwardly unattractive, he was spiritually beautiful, and we see this in his creations. Human beauty- not only in appearance, but also in the ability to express one’s thoughts, because a person’s thought is the essence of his spiritual life. An example of high spirituality for us are people who have the gift of words, who carry vivid images to bring joy, excitement...

Tell me, what means of our language are designed to influence feelings?

(Means of expression).

In another way they are called “paths”. What trails do you know?

(Students name the words, the teacher reveals the names of these tropes on slide 3).

2. Terminological dictation.

Now find out the tropes in poetic texts:

(Reads the passage, and students write the term after the number)

(slides No. 4 - 7)

1. What is the dawn call today?

In foamy cherry clouds! (E. Asadov).

2. Like a tree quietly dropping its leaves,

So I drop sad words. (S. Yesenin).

3. Autumn leaves are circling in the wind,

Autumn leaves cry out in alarm:

“Everything is dying, everything is dying!

You are black and naked

O our dear forest,

Your end has come!” (A. Maikov).

4. A bush bends in a white flame

Ice dazzling roses. (A. Akhmatova).

What trails have you recorded? (slide No. 8)

Answer:

Comparison

Personification

Metaphor

III . Explanation of new material.

1. Introduction to metaphor.

Guys, each of these paths is beautiful, bright, expressive in its own way, but one of them may include others, it is the most capacious of those listed here. Name it. (metaphor)

This is what we will be talking about today.

L. Uspensky called the word “the most amazing weapon.” And each weapon brings the highest benefit in the hands of someone who has studied it as deeply as possible, who wields it like a master. And mastery means knowing down to the subtleties how it works. Let's return to the term “metaphor”, what is it?

(slide number 9)

Metaphor - the use of a word or expression in a figurative meaning to create an image.

What is it based on? (comparison)

Simile is an independent trope, how does it differ from metaphor?

(In a comparison there are two objects, there are comparative conjunctions, but in a metaphor there is one image and no comparative words).

If a metaphor is based on comparison, then in order to create a metaphor, you must first compare an object to something. What does compare mean?

(Find similarities based on individual characteristics).

In other words, define associations. People have long tried to find ways to make their speech brighter and more expressive. Remember which works of folklore are based on metaphor? (riddles).

Guess the riddles and determine what objects or phenomena were involved in their creation (slides no. 10)

1. Five brothers are equal in age, but different in height.

2. There is a haystack in the middle of the yard, a pitchfork in front, a broom in the back.

3. The old man is wearing a red cap.

Poetic metaphors are the most expressive, and we will now work with vivid examples from the poems of Akhmatova and Vysotsky. (slide no. 11)

“Here loneliness caught me in its net.” A. Akhmatova

“Souls are frozen under a crust of ice.” V. Vysotsky

Why do you think Vysotsky compared a dead soul to an ice crust, and not, say, concrete or cement?

(Ice can melt, souls can come to life from a warm word...)

Poets often use metaphors to create an image of natural phenomena. Most recently, we painted miniatures “The Sound of Rain” using sound writing techniques (alliteration and assonance).

Today let's try our hand at creating images using this phenomenon. Make an associative series for the word “rain”.

(students' answers).

Now listen to how the masters of words saw the rain...

(The teacher reads passages, simultaneously opening them on slides 12 - 13)

1. The rain is throwing down big peas (N. Zabolotsky)

2. And over all the shining Paris the rain rushed, spreading its mane. (V. Lugovskoy)

3. The timid rain tastes the fallen leaves with its damp paws. (V. Lugovskoy)

4. The rain walked on huge stilts, tall and thin as a thread. (S. Kirsanov)

2. Introduction to metonymy and synecdoche.

A type of metaphor is metonymy And synecdoche. What is it? (slide number 14).

- Metonymy – trope, a figure of speech in which, instead of the name of one object, the name of another is given, which is related to it by association by contiguity.

In metonymy, the connection can be: (slide number 15)

between an object and the material from which the object is made;

between the place of action (social event, organization) and the people there;

between an action (or its result) and the instrument of this action;

between a place and an event associated with it;

Let's find examples of metonymy in the following poetic texts and determine their connection (slide number 16).

1. I read Apuleius willingly, but did not read Cicero (A.S. Pushkin)

2. Amber smoked in his mouth (A.S. Pushkin)

3. The stocks shine; the stalls and the chairs - everything is boiling (A.S. Pushkin)

4. For the violent raid he doomed their villages and fields to swords and fires (A.S. Pushkin)

5. It’s not for nothing that all of Russia remembers Borodin’s Day (M.Yu. Lermontov)

6. I ate three plates (I.A. Krylov)

Now let's talk about synecdoche (slide number 17)

Synecdoche – this usage:

singular instead of plural;

plural instead of singular;

the name of the part instead of the name of the whole;

generic name instead of specific name;

species name instead of generic name.

(slide no.)

- Let us comment on examples of synecdoche in the following texts:

A) Save your penny most of all (N.V. Gogol)

B) I need a roof for my family (A.I. Herzen)

B) We all look at

Napoleons (A.S. Pushkin)

D) Well, sit down, luminary (V.V. Mayakovsky)

D) And you could hear how the Frenchman rejoiced until dawn (M.Yu. Lermontov)

IV. Consolidation.

1. Working with texts.

You have poetry passages on your tables. Please read the ones you like, distinguishing between metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and explaining how they made you feel.

(Reading passages, texts printed):

1. The first snow made the trees’ eyelashes bristle.

Both in the forest and in the fields there is silence, silence.

How my heart needs her song now!

N. Rylenkov.

2. The road thought about the red evening,

Rowan bushes are more misty than the depths.

Hut-old woman jaw threshold

Chews the fragrant crumb of silence.

S. Yesenin

3. She fell in love with deceptions

Both Richardson and Russo.

A. Pushkin

4.No, my Moscow did not go

To him with a guilty head.

5. The hat went deep into reading the newspapers.

Ilf and Petrov

2. Poetic dictation

What are you bowing over the waters,

Willow, the top of your head?

And trembling leaves,

Like greedy lips,

Are you catching a running stream?

Even if it languishes, even if it trembles

Each leaf of yours is above the stream:

But the stream runs and splashes,

And, basking in the sun, it shines,

And laughs at you

F.I. Tyutchev

What picture appears in your mind when you read this poem?

What visual and expressive means help you with this? Write out the trails from the poem.

IV . Summing up the lesson

Today we got acquainted with three figurative and expressive means of language - metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche.

Why are they needed, for what purpose do writers and poets use them? ( With the help of these means, writers and poets paint bright, colorful pictures, create memorable images, we visually imagine everything they write about. Therefore, poets and writers are also called artists of words.)

V . Reflection.

Guys, today we heard a lot of metaphors from famous poets, found them in poems, and created them ourselves. I will ask you to write down the one you like best on a piece of paper in large letters.

(3 people place them on the board).

I am very glad that here among the professional samples there are your works, your creativity, your discoveries. It is very difficult to create a good metaphor; Aristotle said that metaphor is the hallmark of genius. But a person whose heart is open to love - for people, for a mother, for a woman, for nature - will respond to the voice of poetry.

VI . Homework:

Write out examples of metaphors, metonymy, and synecdoche from works of Russian literature.