- Volume 1 (2017)
- Vol. 1 (2017)
- >
- Issue 1
- No. 1
- >
- Pages 382 - 383
- pp. 382 - 383
Non-literal Language Use and Part-Whole Relations
Pages 382 - 383
Traditionally a distinction is made between the literal and the nonliteral or figurative use of language (but cf. Ortony ed. 1979; Lakoff & Johnson 1980; 1999; Panther et al. 2009). The two major strategies employed to extend the basic, literal meaning of a word are metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor is based on analogy and essentially involves the transfer of certain features from one conceptual domain to another (e.g. ‘John is a pig’ or ‘She was consumed with rage’). Metonymy (from Greek
1 Burke, K., (1945), A Grammar of Motives, New York: Prentice Hall.
2 Cruse, A., (2004), Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics (2nd edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3 Fass, D., (1997), Processing Metonymy and Metaphor, Greenwich CT: Ablex.
4 Hilpert, M., (2007), “Chained Metonymies in Lexicon and Grammar: a Cross-linguistic Perspective on Body-part terms” in Radden, G. et al. (eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 77-98.
5 Lakoff, G.; Johnson, M., (1980), Metaphors we live by, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6 Lakoff, G.; Johnson, M., (1999), Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought, New York: Basic Books.
7 Ortony, A. (ed.), 1979, Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8 Reddy, M. J., (1979), “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in our Language about Language”, in Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284-310.
9 Panther, K.-U.; Thornburg, L. L.; Barcelona, A. (eds.), (2009), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
