Metonymy in Language and Thought. Case Studies.

elective courses

The course is meant for students of the II level (MA).

Classroom
Self-reading

The course for II level (MA)

The course is designed for students who are interested in conceptual metonymy from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. Relying on analyses of linguistic as well as non-linguistic examples of metonymy, the course discusses metonymy as a conceptual process. Even though different kinds of linguistic manifestations of metonymy will be of main concern, pictorial and verbo-pictorial manifestations of metonymy in, e.g.: illustrations and drawings will also be considered.

The theoretical aspect of the course covers developments of the conceptual theory of metonymy since Lakoff and Johnson (1980); the main aim here is to show how changes within this theoretical framework have widened the scope of research on metonymy.

At the level of language, examples of metonymy include expressions such as: "hands" in "all hands on deck!"; "four wheels" in "A perfect set of four wheels for a perfect driver – that would be something!"; and also the statement "Boys will be boys" or the question "Do you have a watch?". Even though analysis of different kinds of linguistic manifestations of metonymy will be of main concern, non-linguistic realizations of metonymy in visual perception will also be considered. Relying on analyses of linguistic as well as non-linguistic examples of metonymy within the framework of cognitive linguistics, the course discusses metonymy as a conceptual process – a "figure of thought", rather than a "figure of speech".

Theoretical issues taken up during the course pertain to developments of conceptual metonymy theory in cognitive linguistics with reference to approaches postulated by: Lakoff and Johnson (1980); Lakoff and Turner (1989); Lakoff (1987); Taylor (1989); Langacker (1993); Radden and Kövecses (1999).

The chief source of data: English.

Main terms and issues:

• cognitive domain and Idealized Cognitive Model (ICM);

• the distinction of metonymic vehicle and metonymic target;

• pictorial and verbo-pictorial manifestations of metonymy in illustrations and drawings;

• linguistic metonymic expression (verbal metonymies) vs. conceptual metonymy;

• comparison of conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor;

• types of metonymies;

• systematicity of metonymies;

• functions of metonymy (lexical; discursive; rhetorical; cognitive);

• the role of metonymy in categorization;

• metonymy as a reference-point phenomenon;

• principles for the selection of metonymic vehicle;

• types of metonymy-producing relationships;

• linguistic manipulation by means of metonymy (in advertisements and politics);

• rhetorical effects of metonymy.

Basic readings (the relevant parts of):

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

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

Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. "Reference-point constructions". Cognitive Linguistics 4(1): 1-38.

Radden, Günter, and Zoltán Kövecses. 1999. "Towards a theory of metonymy". In Metonymy in Languge and Thought, edited by Klaus-Uwe Panther, and Günter Radden, 17-59. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Taylor, John R. 1989/1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Further readings:

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1999. “Speaking and thinking with metonymy”. In Metonymy in Languge and Thought, edited by Klaus-Uwe Panther, and Günter Radden, 61-77. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Górska, Elżbieta. 2017. “Text-image relations in cartoons. A case study of image schematic metaphors”. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 134(3): 219–228. doi:10.4467/20834624SL.17.015.7089

Górska, Elżbieta. 2020. Understanding Abstract Concepts across Modes in Multimodal Discourse. A Cognitive Linguistic Approach. London and New York: Routledge. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429282737

Górska, Elżbieta, and Günter Radden, eds. 2005. Metonymy-Metaphor Collage. Warszawa: Warsaw University Press.

Littlemore, Jeannette. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge University Press.

Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Günter Radden, eds. 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Panther Klaus-Uwe, and Linda L. Thornburg, eds. 2003. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Learning outcomes for students admitted before the academic year 2022/2023:

Upon completing the course students will have:

Knowledge about:

• metonymy in language and thought.

• relationships between conceptual metonymy and metaphor.

Skills that will allow them to:

• analyse metonymic expressions in language (i.e. verbal metonymies) as well as pictorial and verbo-pictorial manifestations of metonymy in, e.g.: illustrations, drawings, cartoons, comics, print advertisements.

Competence that will allow them to:

• develop their ability of critical reading of the literature on the conceptual theory of metonymy.

Education at language level B2+.

Learning outcomes for students admitted after the academic year 2022/23:

KNOWLEDGE

Students know and understand:

- manifestations of conceptual metonymy in language and in the visual mode (e.g. in illustrations, drawings).

- development of conceptual theory of metonymy in cognitive linguistics.

- functions of metonymy in language and thought.

- relationships between conceptual metonymy and metaphor.

SKILLS

Students will be able to:

- analyse metonymic expressions in language (i.e. verbal metonymies) as well as pictorial and verbo-pictorial manifestations of metonymy in, e.g.: illustrations, drawings, cartoons, comics, print advertisements.

- criticaly read the literature on the conceptual theory of metonymy.

- recognize differences between diverse methodological approaches to conceptual metonymy.

- present their knowledge in a coherent, precise and linguistically correct manner in English on level C2 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, using appropriate register and form.

- communicate with diverse groups of participants, and in particular about issues pertaining to the role of conceptual metonymy in language and thought.

- further develop their interest in cognitive linguistics with ease and keep their curiosity alive.

- apply knowledge about conceptual metonymy in their translation practice.

SOCIAL COMPETENCE

Students will be ready to:

- critically assess their own linguistic knowledge and skills related to the collection, analysis, and interpretation of linguistic data.

- venture on lifelong learning and personal and professional development, applying knowledge and skills obtained during the course, and in particular their abilities to critically study academic literature.

- take responsibility for performing their professional duties, with due respect for the work of others.

- strive at formulating their views in a precise and trustworthy manner.

- care about the application of ethical norms in professional and academic conduct, as well as about development of professional ethos and ethical principles and norms in academia.

• Form: Discussions and analytical tasks to be done individually and in small groups.

• The basis for the final grade is the result of the written mid-term (40%) and the final test (60%); types of test questions: multiple choice, filling-in blanks, one short open question.

• 10% extra can be gained from an optional written assignment; active participation in the discussions may also raise the final grade.

• Two up to three absences are allowed.