CC BY
92
23. Schmidt P. W. Tukuelerin dini.lstanbul. 1992.
24. Starostin S.A, Dybo A.V, Mudrakov O. A. An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic languages. 2003, 1556 c.
25. Стеблева И. В. К реконструкции древнетюркской религиозно-мифологической системы//Тюркологиче-ский сборник. 1971. - М.: Наука, 1972.
26. Tanyu H. Islamliktan once turklerde tek tanri inanci. Ankara, 1980, 226 с.
27. Trujarski E. Turkler ve olum.Var§ava.2011, 641 с.
28. Yukneki M. Atebetul-hakayik. R. R. Arat. Ankara. 1992.
Naghiyeva Shafa, Azerbaijan University of Languages, Masters in Linguistics, PhD student, the Faculty of Pedagogics E-mail: [email protected]
The role of metaphtonymy in the formation of the English economic discourse
Abstract: The goal of the paper is to define the role of the metaphtonymy — which is a hybrid formed by the metonymic rethinking adjacent elements of one domain and metaphorical interaction with the conceptual signs of another domain — in the English economic discourse.
The depth and comprehensiveness of the metonymic transition is reflected on the completion of almost all sectors of the English-language picture of the world and their fragments, while the largest metaphtonymy activity is observed in sectors such as everyday life and, culture and entertainment, politics, social services, computer and electronic communications, environmental protection, as well as in economics and business. Metaphtonymic projection lies it the heart of creation of, above all, new words, made in the process of indirect secondary nomination. Conceptual metaphtonymy also accompanies many types of nominative acts: compounding, fusion, affixation, reduction, conversion.
At the current phase of the English language functioning there is an increasing trend in the development of the value chain-type on the polysemantic. The formation of a new metaphtonymy values held in two cognitive models based on the direction vector of metaphtonymy projection. The first model is characterized by a vertical projection axis, the second — the horizontal axis.
Keywords: metonymy, metaphor, conceptual metaphtonymy, cognitive structure, the frame slot, economic discourse.
Introduction. There is no doubt that metonymy and metaphor are effective means of conceptualizing the new elements of the modern picture of the world and, therefore, these two phenomena permeated every layer of human cultural activity. Metonymy and metaphor are integral parts of the process of categorization, which is based on common actions for all human cognitive mechanisms that are manifested in the form of cognitive models, and, as the complexity of the concepts moves on, complicate the mechanism to express the new elements of the modern picture of the world. Recent studies prove the existence of such a complex mechanism, combining the properties of both metonymy and metaphor.
The article attempts to review metaphtonymy as a complex integrated structure, which is an effective means of conceptualization and verbalization of changes in the picture of the world of Anglo-American society, in particular — in the sphere of economic discourse. Metaphtonymy is a key to understanding the processes of thinking. Therefore, the study of the process of birth for a new word and changing values in metaphtonymy type at a conceptual level can shed light on the problem of the functioning of some of the fragments of human consciousness system.
The cognitive approach to metaphtonymy suggests considering it as one of the principles of the organization of
everyday thinking and a certain way of conceptualizing and categorizing the reality. The basis of metaphtonymy and metaphtonymy projection process takes place in a vertical or horizontal projection and involves multiple domain-matrixes or, in other words, several ontological areas.
The subjects of the study are the new words and new lexical-semantic variants of words that appeared in modern English economic discourse, the value of which is based on metaphtonymy transfer.
The basis of study is use of the texts containing economic information and analytical articles in modern English periodicals and their electronic versions: The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Guardian.
As the methodological basis of the study we use the provisions of the cognitive-discursive paradigms of knowledge, in particular, cognitive linguistics; discourse theory; cognitive metaphor theory; historical lingvocog-nitivity; theory of nomination and terminology.
Results of the study. Generation of a new word is determined by three main factors — cognitive, semantic and pragmatic.
Due to this, it is necessary to talk about the cognitive operations that underlie the process of generating a new lexical unit or a new value.
Semantic neologisms are a new productive way of expressing sophisticated concepts of reality. And one of the main roles in this process is played by metaphor, metonymy and metaphtonymy.
Metaphor and metonymy is the phenomenon, known since antiquity, when it was considered only as paths. But in the ancient representations of the authors of rhetoric, metonymy is viewed in the same context and in comparison with other language pathways that give rise to different judgments about the nature of mutual existence of metonymy and other tropes. And, the most important among them is metaphor. Thus, Aristotle united metaphor and metonymy in one phenomenon, calling it a "portable word" [6]. The study of phenomena of both metaphor and metonymy in the Middle Ages in the European tradition was paralleled to the ancient tradition. It is only in modern times a question of the primacy of the same phenomenon in relation to another has arisen. According to S. Dyu-marse [10], metonymy is a fundamental figure in this change of name in a sense that includes all other kinds of tropes. This allows us to say that at that time were formed the basic preconditions to metaphtonymy possibility of a complex phenomenon, combining the properties of metaphor and metonymy.
In XX century, the approach to the study of metaphor and metonymy is associated with the understanding of these phenomena as a language consisting in the transfer of names from one entity to another. As part of the actual linguistic theory at this time, the processes of metaphorical and metonymic were actively studied, as well as their typology. From the point of view of a pragmatic approach, which is widely used in the XX century metonymy, like a metaphor, it is considered as an effective means of saving the language. Furthermore, it is seen as part of a logical approach to the phenomena of groups, where metaphor and metonymy in general theoretical terms are the units belonging to the same class. So the metaphor and metonymy are considered within the same logic construct: O — (I) — R, where O — the original word, R — the resulting word, and I is intermediate concept, through which the transition from the first to the second is performed.
According to Umberto Eco [2], who is considering metonymy as the associative chain adjacencies:
1. in the structure of the code,
2. in the context of the structure,
3. in the structure of referent, it is possible to build on the metaphorical figure of metonymy.
In contrast to this position, many authors consider metonymy as one of the types or subclasses of metaphors [12]. In addition, many authors note that metonymy and metaphor are often closely cooperate with each other, acting as a single entity -metonymical metaphor and metaphorical metonymy.
From a general point of semiotic view, metonymy, along with the metaphor, is the basis of meaning in any semiotic system. This view was first suggested by R. Ja-cobson [5], who tied metaphor and metonymy with systematic and paradigmatic relations in language. R. Ja-cobson formulated a theory about the dichotomy of "metaphor/metonymy" and thus we are able to identify the existence of metonymy, which would be at the same time a metaphor. Following R. Jacobson, X. The McLean examines cases where metonymy is reborn ("blooming") into a metaphor that collectively calls "blossoming" a term borrowed from M. Riffatera [6]. At the same time R. Warhol sees in this syllogism example of "discrimination" metonymy: "If the metaphor is a flower ("blossom"), the metonymy — only the kidney ("bud"), undeveloped essence sample, representing a potential of creating beauty in itself" [12].
Summarizing all above, it becomes clear that since ancient times, the phenomena of metaphorical and metonymic regarded as essentially similar. And in the XX
century as part of a logical approach in linguistics, metonymy and metaphor are the center of attention as the complex structures that often interact. However, as we will see later, the metaphor, as well as metonymy, followed by metaphtonymy and initially regarded as trails in the poetics and literary criticism.
Understanding the internal processes of interaction of metaphor and metonymy comes only at the end of the XX century in the framework of the cognitive approach to study language phenomena.
Currently, there is not yet an explicit definition of metaphtonymy as a cognitive phenomenon. As with metaphor and metonymy a few decades ago, metaphtonymy in linguistics is mainly considered only within the framework of traditional linguistics as a trope, which is based on the interaction of two stylistic devices: metaphor and metonymy. At the conceptual level, the metaphtonymy can be seen as the interaction of two cognitive mechanisms (metaphor and metonymy), which acts as a central aspect of our conceptual apparatus and is a leading cognitive processes while expanding the meaning of words.
Thus, although basically metonymy, metaphor and cognitive processes are different, there are cases in which these two phenomena are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, they may interact in the linguistic expression. Louis Goosens, considering the designation of a person through the body, faced with cases of interaction between metaphor and metonymy and assigns this phenomenon the term "metaphtonymy" [5]. In describing and classifying "metaphtonymy", L. Goosens agrees with John Taylor, stating that metonymy is the dominant cognitive process and is often the basis of metaphorical transposition to the effect of metonymic. Following L. Goosens, let us consider metaphtonymy in terms of gestalt structure that combines the properties of the components, namely metaphor and metonymy. And for this, we consider the metaphor and metonymy as independent cognitive operation. Most modern linguists consider metaphor and metonymy as two different designs, originating from two different cognitive operations, although they are similar as a container for particular source of expression (the source domain), which offers the implied purpose (the target domain).
In terms of the traditional linguistic metaphors — "this is transposition of identifying vocabulary intended to refer to the subject of the speech, in the scope of predicate intended to indicate its characteristics and properties" [1]. Therefore, in the process of metaphor we establish communication between distant concepts that are in different conceptual domains.
A process of metaphor is a specific operation over knowledge, often resulting in a change of ontological status of knowledge when the unknown becomes known and famous — brand new.
In the 80s — 90s ofthe 20th century the study ofmet-onymic process began (Croft;. 1993; Dirven, 1993; Langacker,. 1993; Kovecses, Radden, 1998, 1999) and in current metonymy has become widely regarded as an effective remedy for conceptualization of the elements of reality. Metonymy is a transfer based on contiguity association. From the standpoint ofcognitive, transfer is considered as a set of operations on knowledge within the same frame or a script — namely, the transfer of the contents from one slot to another slot, elimination of content, joining the other slot. But all these operations, unlike metaphorical transfer, are performed within one frame.
This fact is the main significant difference between the conceptual metaphor and metonymy. Since the imposition of metonymy is implemented within the same model, one replaces the other category; therefore the main function of a metonymic expression is to activate a cognitive category that relates to another within the same model.
So, summing up the research above, the main difference between metaphor and metonymy is that a cognitive process which involves transferring metaphorically two different ontological regions, while in the metonymic transfer, the proj ection takes place within a single domain.
Recent studies demonstrate the close relationship between metaphor and metonymy [3; 11]. As we mentioned above, you cannot always make a clear distinction between metaphor and metonymy, which is explained by a number of common features. Metaphor and metonymy:
1. are conceptual by nature;
2. include a conceptual system and hence can be used automatically, unconsciously;
3. significantly expand the vocabulary due to the fact that in the process of transferring linguistic expression field the source is used to indicate the field-goal.
The fact that a huge number of new values cannot be described in terms of pure metonymy or metaphor led Louis Goossens, as we noted above, to the understanding of the need to consider these values as the complex structures that fall under its definition of metaphtonymy. L. Goossens postulates the existence of a number of combinatorial processes of transmission: a metaphor from metonymy, metaphor within metonymy, metaphor and metonymy in demetonymization in a metaphorical context.
1. The metaphor from metonymy: the essence of this phenomenon is following: within the domain of the
source metonymic process occurs, further metonym is metaphorically reinterpreted and becomes a part of the target domain.
For example: an anorak — a derogatory term for a person who pursues an interest with obsessive dedication. Such a person is popularly caricatured as wearing an anorak (clothes traditionally considered to be unfashionable and boring) (Oxford Dictionary ofNew Words in 1997). In this case, we can talk about the phenomenon of the metaphor from metonymy. Within the domain of the source occurs identification of a person with the clothes that he wears (metonymic process), then we have the target domain element — the person — who is endowed with the qualities that inherent in the clothing, namely, unfashionable, obsessive devotee (metaphorical transfer process).
Unlike H. Riemer [9], we think, that term "metaph-tonymy", proposed by L. Goossens, is correct, and as we will show further example of new vocabulary at the level of metaphor and metonymy, the described process of connecting words successfully operates in modern English.
Let us consider metonymic process on the example of economic texts related to the concept of "economic crisis".
To the basic model of metonymic transfer we include genus-species, portable, coloristic, character transfers. For the concept of an economic crisis, two last models mentioned are used more often. So, coloristic metonymic model is recognized as one of the ways of conceptualization of emotions and is often used to update the evaluation component in the concept of the economic crisis in the discourse: the colors together with the associated FEELING/EMOTION instead of the economic crisis. Color has ambivalence and specific symbolic laden, reflecting the religious, mythological and socio-cultural features of the phenomena of reality in the minds of speakers, thus becoming part of the linguistic world of English and American societies.
The symbolism of color terms is the use of color to convey its primary content as another form of detention, that is, its correlation with the content of cultural information transmitted to them. "The words with the semantics of color usually receive symbolic meanings by metonymic transfer or by transformation of the traditional artistic character". According to Gibbs, the value of the token "black" includes semantic extension: 1) "unlawful", 2) "Darkness", 3) "sad/depressed/depression" and 4) "profit" that motivate further development of lexical meanings through metonymic transfer. Therefore, black bears exceptional connotations, speaking symbol of death, anger, grief. Within a domain, the economic crisis
signs in black (the token black) motivate the creation of metaphtonymy model scheme + metonymy metaphor: metonymic BLACK instead SADNESS/DEPRESSION metaphor and the economic crisis is depression. Psychologists attribute color with human emotions: each emotion has its own place in the color space, i. e., each emotion corresponds to a specific color, and each color is strictly linked to certain emotions. So, black and its synonyms dull, dullness, gloom, gloomy, dark, darkness, shadow serves as a source of metonymy for the expression of negative emotions (e. g. dull (2,09%) -. in the discourse of the 1930 s and gloom/gloomy (0,81%) — in the 2000 s).
Symptom of black "darkness" is formalized in the discourse with words dull, dullness, dark, darkness, depression — the terms of the economy with the values of "a sluggish market sentiment" about the demand in the market — dull, (few transactions and prices show tendency to downward) — dullness, etc. Metaphtonymy concept of economic crisis, also formed by using names of days, was marked by major stock market crash: Black Monday, Black Friday, Black Thursday, Black Tuesday, Black Wednesday. Semantic transformation is as follows: on the one hand metonymic period of time instead of the event, and on the other side — a consequence, instead of a cause and a result — Black Monday instead of the economic crisis.
The second stage — a metaphor for the economic crisis is a black day, motivated by signs of black "darkness" and "sadness/depression": ... at the end of the week after the "Black Monday" at Berlin, it can be stated that the only obvious reaction of the German crisis on Austria has been practically limited to the closing of the Mercurbank ... (FT, July 25, 1931) This is welcome back to Black Monday (NYT, 12 Sep 2009).
The symbolism is the basis of a series of metonymic transitions formed on the basis of metonymy characters instead of the economic crisis on the basis of the symbolic meanings of black (death, anger, grief) and metaphors of economic crisis as evil (dark, darken, evil, dark days, Dark ages), the economic crisis is destructive (shadow, end, loss), as well as the symbol of GAP — a metaphor for the economic crisis have on the basis of GAP symbolic meanings — abyss, on the brink, black hole, edge, hollow.
For example: the cause of the crisis is money as "an eternal evil", and the crisis has a dark side — hidden, dangerous consequences.
Out of a temporary crisis may he evolve the cure for an age-old evil? Dollar and Cents (NYT, 12 Dec 1929)
neither group really foresaw that the crunch would be accompanied by a soaring oil price. In a sense, high commodity prices have been the dark side of decoupling (ECNM, 7 Aug 2008)
The forecast for the future has gloomy prospects: The economic outlook has darkened significantly even since January. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, said that the recession would end this year only if the financial system stabilizes ... (ECNM, 7 Aug 2008)
Crisis threat is a shadow hanging over the world: It would be futile to inquire, <...> into the precise causes of the world crisis, that great interrogation point which hangs like a shadow over all the countries of the globe, without exception (FT 13 July 1931).
Symptom of black "sad/depressed/depression" motivates metaphtonymy shift in the composition of metonymy (model of part instead of whole) — black instead of printing and metaphor for economic crisis is sadness/depression, which actualized emotive-evaluative component of the concept of the economic crisis as an event that causes the negative emotions.
Depression and its derivatives depressed, depressing contain common semantic features with the black — "depression, discouragement", in the 1930s. it was used more often than in the 2000s: in the ratio of 2.41% and 1.21%, respectively, at the same time we do not take into account the frequency of the Great Depression, which was not used during the crisis of the 1930s, and came into use only in 1934. For example: Depression Again Overhangs (FT, 27 Nov 1931). The last Stock Exchange Account of 1930 has been as depressed as any of those preceding it and has brought no relief to the gloom that has hung over markets for the greater part of the year (ECNM, 16 Nov 1929).
Depressed mood of the crisis period passes expressively using antonyms cheerful, favourable, firm/firmness, which serve as a stylistic device for opposition: The more cheerful tone prevailing in the Stock Exchange was not maintained, and markets once again relapsed into a state of depression (FT, 7 Jan 1931).
The colour model role in domain of the economic crisis is to neutralize the semantic attribute "profit" in black. It does not correlate with the concept of the economic crisis, as the situation of economic crisis implies a lack of profit ("shortage"), which is represented by the red color: be in the red — "to be loss-making" (a mark on losses in the books made in red ink). Metonymic red ink instead of the economic crisis (the model part for the whole) carries additional negative connotation with a high degree of risk, associating with blood and fire,
and, as a symbol — the danger, anger, death.
On the second stage ofconceptualizing the economic crisis on the basis of metonymy red becomes the basis for metaphors, motivated by the sign "loss" — the economic crisis is a red color. For example: Scottish and Southern pension liabilities come out about £ 350m lower than if it had used United's rate — a material difference for a fund that in 2007 was £ 92m in the red (ECNM, 7 Aug 2008)
• failure of banks is described as "spilling red ink": But of the ten banks to have spilt the most red ink over the past year <.> five have the same chief executives in place (ECNM, 7 Aug 2008)
• deepening of the crisis — the economy dipping into the red (ink): ... the credit crunch plunged the overheated Icelandic economy deep into the red (GrDn, 28 Dec 2008)
• as a result of loss business is transferred literally "expires in red ink" (bleeding updates the symbolic meaning of red — blood): The impetus for the deal came from DHL. Its American express-delivery business is bleeding red ink (ECNM, 7 Aug 2008)
• red is the signal of the possible bankruptcy: The authors identify several red flags that indicate a looming financial crisis <...> many of which were visible in the run up to Lehman's demise and the panic that followed (ECNM, 7 Aug 2008)
• employees affected by the bankruptcy of the company can be found by the "red eyes" (red-eyed) and exchanges of devices (tickers), transmitting the quotations of securities "red marks", i. e. with a loss: Lehman employees decamping from headquarters with their belongings in boxes; red-eyed traders staring at red-flecked stock tickers (WSJ, 16 Sep 2008).
Summary data on the incidence of metonymy and metaphtony models suggest that the most frequent model in economic discourse, in relation to the sphere of the economic crisis, is a metonymic FEELING/EMOTION instead of the economic crisis, which indicates the dominance of the value component of the studied concept.
Conclusions. As a result of the analysis in the paper, it can be concluded that all types of transactions, which are based on the regular rules for converting the basic cognitive structure of economic discourse, are exploited in the development of a new unit metaphtonymy values. However, the most common cognitive mechanisms underlying the formation of a new metaphtonymy values are: replacing the content subslot to uncharacteristic and the reduction of frame to a slot with uncharacteristic subslot, introduction of uncharacteristic slot with its usual con-
tent of the source frame, replacing the content of the slot, the integration of multiple frames into one, reflecting the essence of cognitive conceptual metaphtonymy process.
Based on the analysis of new words and meanings of modern English language, we were able to identify changes in the conceptual picture of the world of English-speaking community and the different mechanisms of representation of these changes by means of metaph-tonymy — phenomenon, that is used as experience basis, which is engaged in the development of human consciousness in our rapidly changing world.
The cognitive approach to the study of the metaphtonymy allowed submitting a multi-step process of formation of new metaphtonymy values in economic discourse to a deeper level. The process of forming a new metaphtonymy value can be described by means of cognitive areas, models and metaphtonymy projection mechanisms.
There is a clear correlation between the direction of the vector of metaphtonymy projection and certain types of neologisms which is a particular direction of values.
The development of values of metaphtonymy type occurs in cognitive models, which are based on dual schemes that presuppose the existence of the source and target domains.
The results of linguistic research of recent years clearly show that at the present stage of development of the English language metaphtonymy innovations, along with the metonymic and metaphorical, are the most representative group among the units belonging to the semantic and syntactic (morphological) neologisms type, which is characterized by embedding a new value to an already available in the language, so that the innovations are considered to be weak, but at the same time, they are distinguished by a high degree of "acceptability" in linguistic society.
References:
1.
Barselona A. 2003 Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy//Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective/Ed. by A. Barselona -Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, P. 1-28. Eco, Umberto. 2007. From the tree to labyrinth: historical studies on the sign and interpretation, Milan, Bom-piani, P. 95-171.
Gibbs R. W. Jr. 1999 Speaking and thinking with metonymy//Metonymy in Language and Thought/Ed. by K.-U. Panther and G. Radden. - Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins,. - P. 61-76.
Goossens L. 1990. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics1, P. 323-340.
Goossens L. 1995. Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Figurative Expressions for Linguistic Action//by word of mouth: metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. -Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamin's, P. 158-174.
McLean H. 1999. Jacobson's Metaphor/Metonymy Polarity: A Retrospective Glance//PoMaH Якобсон: Тексты, документы, исследования. - М. - С. 725-732.
Radden, G., & Kovecses Z. 1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In K-U. Panther &G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins P. 17-59. [33]
8. Radden, G. 2005. The ubiquity of metonymy. In Otal, C. J. L. et al. Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Publications de la Universitat Jaume I. P. 17-28.
9. Riemer, Nick 2001 Remetonymizing methapor: hypercategories in semantic extention. Cognitive Linguistics 12: 379-401.
10. Riffaterre M. 1982. Trollope's Metonymies//Nineteenth-century Fiction, - № 37.
11. Shixiong WU. G. 2007 A Corpus-Based Synchronic Comparison and Diachronic Interpretation of Lexicalized Emotion Metaphors in English and Chinese: Ph. D. Dissertation/Wu George Shixiong. - Lingnan University. -376 p.
12. Warhol R. 1994-spring. Narrating the Unnaratable: Gender and Metonymy in the Victorian Novel//Style. Vol. 28, No. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
