Page 352 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 352
What Do We Know about the World?
tion (using causal relationships, spatial or temporal relations, part-whole
relations5 etc.). In short, metonymy is a trope that relies on the conti-
guity, while metaphor relies on similarity. Cognitive linguistics adopt-
ed this generalized difference but tried to connect metonymy with the
concept of “reference point” where one conceptual entity provides men-
tal access to another conceptual entity (Krišković and Tominac, 2009;
Radden and Kövecses, 1999).
When analyzing conceptual metaphors and metonymies it is im-
portant to distinguish the source domain (physical entity), from which
the cognitive processes transfer the similarity/contiguity relations, and
the target domain (abstract entity) to which these concepts are applied.
In the concept sport is fight the targets like athletes or clubs (the
conceptual target is sport) obtain their metaphorical expressions from
the source domain concerning fights, especially using words with a his-
torical meaning (gladiators, musketeers, cavalry etc.). A similar method
is used for analyzing metonymies. For example, the target “substitute”
uses the source/vehicle “reserve bench” because they are connected by
the concept container for the content, and as a result we get the
expression: A good coach is judged by the good bench.
Classical antonomasias created inside sports discourse are not
strictly metonymic in their origin. Although the context establish-
es them as an unambiguous substitute for a particular proper name,
the word or phrase used in substitution are often created through the
same concepts as metaphors.6 Metaphoric antonomasias use the gen-
eral concept sport is war/battle/fight to derive particular sub-
stitutions for athletes, clubs or national teams. The sources, therefore,
must belong to the physical reality which corresponds to the general
concept of conflict. When we approach antonomasia in this manner
then there is no surprise that most “nicknames” belong either to pred-
ators (the Eagles, the Barracudas, the Wolves), armed conflict “profes-
sions” (the Musketeers, the Cowboys, the Gunners) or entities connect-
ed with aggression and destruction (the Fiery Ones, the Red Devils, La
Furia).
A similar classification can be done for metonymic antonomasias
but the general concept which is used in their creation can be described
5 Although classical rhetoric connects part-whole relations with synecdoche, we decided to stay in
concordance with the cognitive linguistic approach to metonymy.
6 It is obvious that the uncritical transfer of the metonymy/metaphor relation to the classical/Vos-
sian antonomasia dichotomy can be more than just misleading. The origin of classical antonomasia
can be found in both metonymic and metaphoric conceptualization.
tion (using causal relationships, spatial or temporal relations, part-whole
relations5 etc.). In short, metonymy is a trope that relies on the conti-
guity, while metaphor relies on similarity. Cognitive linguistics adopt-
ed this generalized difference but tried to connect metonymy with the
concept of “reference point” where one conceptual entity provides men-
tal access to another conceptual entity (Krišković and Tominac, 2009;
Radden and Kövecses, 1999).
When analyzing conceptual metaphors and metonymies it is im-
portant to distinguish the source domain (physical entity), from which
the cognitive processes transfer the similarity/contiguity relations, and
the target domain (abstract entity) to which these concepts are applied.
In the concept sport is fight the targets like athletes or clubs (the
conceptual target is sport) obtain their metaphorical expressions from
the source domain concerning fights, especially using words with a his-
torical meaning (gladiators, musketeers, cavalry etc.). A similar method
is used for analyzing metonymies. For example, the target “substitute”
uses the source/vehicle “reserve bench” because they are connected by
the concept container for the content, and as a result we get the
expression: A good coach is judged by the good bench.
Classical antonomasias created inside sports discourse are not
strictly metonymic in their origin. Although the context establish-
es them as an unambiguous substitute for a particular proper name,
the word or phrase used in substitution are often created through the
same concepts as metaphors.6 Metaphoric antonomasias use the gen-
eral concept sport is war/battle/fight to derive particular sub-
stitutions for athletes, clubs or national teams. The sources, therefore,
must belong to the physical reality which corresponds to the general
concept of conflict. When we approach antonomasia in this manner
then there is no surprise that most “nicknames” belong either to pred-
ators (the Eagles, the Barracudas, the Wolves), armed conflict “profes-
sions” (the Musketeers, the Cowboys, the Gunners) or entities connect-
ed with aggression and destruction (the Fiery Ones, the Red Devils, La
Furia).
A similar classification can be done for metonymic antonomasias
but the general concept which is used in their creation can be described
5 Although classical rhetoric connects part-whole relations with synecdoche, we decided to stay in
concordance with the cognitive linguistic approach to metonymy.
6 It is obvious that the uncritical transfer of the metonymy/metaphor relation to the classical/Vos-
sian antonomasia dichotomy can be more than just misleading. The origin of classical antonomasia
can be found in both metonymic and metaphoric conceptualization.
