ُShayesteh Sadat Mousavi
Abstract
Among new achievements of cognitive linguistics some have resulted from returning to the concepts of literary traditions, from which one can mention the participation of metaphor, metonymy, and allegory in the process of cognition, and metaphor and metonymy have always had a place of significance. In ...
Read More
Among new achievements of cognitive linguistics some have resulted from returning to the concepts of literary traditions, from which one can mention the participation of metaphor, metonymy, and allegory in the process of cognition, and metaphor and metonymy have always had a place of significance. In the history of Western rhetorics the relation between these two was not at issue as they are disconnected in nature. In subsequent eras, they were even regarded as having a confrontational relation. Unlike Western rhetoricians, Muslim rhetoricians have always maintained a close relation between metonymy and metaphor. They considered metaphor as a type of metonymy. In this paper, we are going to show that the metonymic basis of metaphors, as the Muslim rhetoricians believe, is a provable matter of fact. For this purpose and as the first step, we deal with the evolution of approaches towards metonymy and metaphor in Western and Islamic rhetoric history. Then, we will discuss how the confrontation of these two concepts fades as cognitive studies come to work. Still, the cognitivists mostly do not believe that all types of metaphor rise from metonymy, while the Muslim rhetoricians firmly believe that all types of metaphor have a metonymic basis. We are going to show that not only some but all kinds of metaphors have a metonymic basis and all types of conceptual metaphors are constructed upon conceptual metonymy. The theory of Categorization which is one of the most significant ones in cognitive studies has been part of our argumentation framework.
Introduction
Among new achievements of cognitive linguistics, some have resulted from returning to the concepts of literary traditions and the roles that they play in the constituting of the process of thinking. From these achievements one can mention the participation of mechanisms like metaphor, metonymy, and allegory in the process of cognition, among those metaphor and metonymy have always had the place of power and significance. During the history of Western rhetoric, these two concepts have been for a long time regarded as two independent ornamental figures of speech and the correlation between them was not at issue. In subsequent eras, these two were even regarded as having a confrontational relation. Unlike Western rhetoricians,
Muslim rhetoricians have always maintained a close relation between metonymy and metaphor. They considered all types of metaphors derived from metonymy. Interestingly, in very recent linguistic research of metaphor, particularly Cognitive studies, the correlation between metaphor and metonymy was drawn forward. Still, not all but only parts of metaphors were acknowledged to be related to metonymies.
In this research, I am going to show if the metonymic basis of metaphors, as the Muslim rhetoricians believe, is a provable matter of fact.
Literature Review
Metaphor and its cognitive weight is discussed by a significant number of Western rhetoricians. In this regard, the metaphor-oriented ideas of Western rhetoricians from Aristotle (1987) to Vico (1968), Burke (1969), Lacan (1977), Foucault (1970), Vico (1968), White (1978), Jacobson (2002) and etc, are discussed. Then, the comments of cognitive rhetoricians like Lakeoff (1987), Lakeoff and Johnson (1980), and Kövecses (2013) show that the confrontation of metaphor and metonymy tends to fade in some part. Kövecses (2013) has the closest literature to this paper, since he precisely shows why some parts of metaphors are derived from metonymy. Jurjani (1991) and his followers also discuss how the metaphor must be regarded as a production of metonymy.
Methodology
Through applying cognitive linguistics approaches and by taking a deductive approach, I will show that not only some but, as Muslim rhetoricians maintain, all kinds of metaphors have a metonymic basis and all types of conceptual metaphors are constructed upon conceptual metonymy. The theory of Categorization which is from the most significant ones in cognitive and pre-cognitive studies has been part of our argumentation framework.
Discussion
While Linguists like Jacobson consider a confrontational relation between metaphor and metonymy, cognitive linguists believe that the metaphors based on resemblance are made of metonymy but those based on correlation are not metonymic. Muslim rhetoricians, following Jurjani (1991), assert that all types of metaphors are metonymic in basis. They believe that metaphor is not only a lexical replacement but a new conceptual production; So, when we use a word in metaphorical concept, we are transforming it from the previous domain (matter or Jins ـ جنس ـ in Islamic texts) to a new one. Indeed, the factor of resemblance permits us to correlate a concept with concepts of a new domain so that the concept becomes different in essence and evolves into a new meaning. As an example, when we call a brave person a "lion" it is not a mere simile or resemblance but for us the brave person is actually a lion. In this meaning, the brave person and lion are gathered in a new domain while in the previous meaning animals and humans do not belong to a unit domain or category. Here by referring to the cognitive function of "category", with special attention to the new concept of category in philosophies like Wittgenstein's (1953), we can deduce that all resemblances derive from the correlation of concepts in a new category. Contrary to classical approaches to categorization, such as Aristotle's, new ones do not take that categories are founded on common characteristics
among their members. Members of a category may be way different in appearance and quality, since categories are all lingual in the essence. So, we can apply a word in metaphorical concept just because it can state in a new category with adjacency of essences it did not use to be homogenous with. When the brave man states in the new category with adjacency/ correlation of warrior animals, we can use the word "lion" for him.
Conclusion
According to Kövecses (2013), correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Correlation metaphors are based on two connected concepts from a unit domain. They can be attached due to adjacency or coincidence. But he claims that resemblance metaphors are not based on metonymy because two attached concepts in this type of metaphor are not from the same domain, so adjacency can't be a matter of fact.
The late approaches to categorization prove the inaccuracy of Kövecses' hypothesis about resemblance metaphors. Recent linguistic studies argue that categories are not bonded to factual common characteristics of the members but they are all lingual/mental in nature, so they can collect non-homogenous objects. In this view, the resembled item, despite of its heterogeneity with other members, can stay on with them in the same category. Here one can see the accuracy of Jurjani's idea of the resembled word (metaphor) entering a new domain (Jins).
Being in a unit category provides the adjacency, even though mentally not factually. So, the resemblance metaphors are also based on metonymy. Kövecses and his followers considered metonymic basis only for correlated metaphors because they regarded
metonymies as confined to factual adjacency. But regarding the lingual/mental nature of categorization, we can determine that the resembled item is also in adjacency with the other items of the category i.e. domain. So, all types of metaphors must be regarded as metonymic in the basis.
