47. Metaphor

Specialization and generalization of denotation are identified on the evidence of comparing logical notions expressed by the meaning of words. The most frequent transfers are based as associations of similarity or of contiguity. These figures of speech (in rhetoric) are called metaphor and metonymy.

A metaphor is a transfer of name based on the association of similarity and thus is actually a hidden comparison. It presents a method of description which likens one thing to another by referring to it as if it were some other one. A cunning person = a fox, f.e. In a metonymy this referring to one thing as if it were some other one is based on the association of contiguity. Metaphor and metonymy differ from generalization and specialization as they don’t originate as a result of gradual, almost imperceptible change in many contexts, but come out of a purposeful momentary transfer of a name from one object to another belonging to a different sphere of reality.

When the metaphor is offered and accepted both the author and the reader are to a greater or lesser degree aware that this reference is figurative, that the object has another name. The relationship of the direct denotative meaning of the word and the meaning it has in the literary context in question is based on similarity of some features in the objects compared. The poetic metaphor is the fruit of the author’s creative imagination.

In a linguistic metaphor, especially when it’s dead as a result of long usage, the thing named often has no other name. In a dead metaphor the comparison is completely forgotten (gather, source, shady)

Metaphors (M. Paul points out) may be based upon very different types of similarity:

1) Similarity of shape – head of a cabbage, the teeth of a saw

2) … of function – the head of the school, the key to a mystery

3) … by position – foot of a page, of a mountain

4) … behaviour and function – bookworm, wirepuller

5) Anthropomorphic metaphors are among the most frequent, there words denoting parts of body are used to express a variety of meanings, f.e. head of an army, eye of a needle, tongue of a bell, foot of a hill

6) analogy between duration of time and space – long distance/long speech, a short path/short time

7) The transfer of space relations upon psychological and mental notions may be illustrated by words and expressions connected with understanding – to catch (grasp) an idea, to take a hint, to throw light upon.

8) Proper names – a Don Juan, an Adonis.

48. Metonymy,its semmemic mechanism

Contignity of Meaning or Metonymy may be described as the semantic process of associating &referents one of which makes part of the other or is closely connected with it.

e.g 1)This can be perhaps best illustrated by the use of the W “tongue – the organ of the speech in the meaning of language”. 2) the W “bench» acquired the meaning «judges» because it was on the bench that judges used to sit in low courts.

A more detailed analysis would show that there are some sem changes that fit into more than 2 groups discussed above. A change of meaning may be brought about by the association between the sound forms of 2 words. e.g. the W “boon» originally meant prayer, petition, request but then came to devote “a thing»,prayed or asked for. It’s current meaning is blessing, an advantage a thing to be thanked for the chance of meaning was probably, due to the similarity to the sound-form of the adj “boon” in French “bon” denotes nice,good.

The meaning of the adj “sad” in DE was satisfied with “food”. Later this meaning developed a cannotation of a greaten intensity of quality & come to mean “oversatisfied” with food. Thus, the meaning of the adj “sad” developed a negative evaluative connotation & now describe not a happy state of satisfaction but the physical unease & discomfort of a person who had too much to eat. The next shift of meaning was to transform the description of physical discomfort in a spiritual one because these 2 states often go together.

So the modern meaning of “sad” – “melancholy” sorrowful developed & the adj describes now a purely emotion state. The 2 meaning were ousted from the sem structure of the W long age.

Meanings based on contiguity sometimes originate from geographical or proper names.

E.g. China in the sense of dishes made of the porcelain originated from the name of the country which was believed to be the birthplace of porcelain.

53. the notion of a LSV.

Smirnitski in the mid-last century advanced a theory to claim that the polysem.structure of the word is a regular order of Lexico-semantic variant, which implies that each of LSV’s is inter-connected with the other LSV’s. the entire structure presents variation of same sem.sabstance. the invariant part of the LSV’s may be represented in 2 ways – by inclusion and by overlapping.

Inclusion: the whole content of the basic LSV’s makes part of the rest of meanings. (hand – the part of the arm; a manner of writing by hand; a person engaged in any activity that requires use of hands)

Overlapping: (to examine – get knowledge by carefully looking at papers, documents…; … thinking about; …asking about)

The invariant part of meaning may be obvious, perceptible or implied.

Dull – not clear or bright; slow in understanding; monotonous and uninteresting; not sharp.

49. Patterns in metaphoric and metonymic transfers.

The cardinal difference between Metaphor & Metonymy expresses themselves at the categorical & the generically level. It is the pointat which the common general part of figurative nomination ends and the different sem mechanisms of Metaphor & Metonymy carry out their specific semantic programmes in produce ultimately a new lexical item. The categorical level of Metonymy design reveals what entities are connected in the system of Noun two different object or an object and some its parts.

The generically lex.level determins the species relationship b/w the 2 correlated meanings: the direct one provides an association and the plain of expression and figurative one which is being produced. There are the following types of associations: