tailieunhanh - The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 28

The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 28. In the past decade, Cognitive Linguistics has developed into one of the most dynamic and attractive frameworks within theoretical and descriptive linguistics The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics is a major new reference that presents a comprehensive overview of the main theoretical concepts and descriptive/theoretical models of Cognitive Linguistics, and covers its various subfields, theoretical as well as applied. | 240 klAus-uwe panther and linda l. thornburg and the relation between Concept-Form and Thing Event . the relation between the form house or the concept house and the actual referent . a concrete house or the set of houses and iii the relation between one sign Concept-Form and another sign Concept-Form which they call concept metonymy . bus-bus standing for bus driver-bus driver . To these types the authors add other relations such as the substitution of one form for another . euphemisms like shoot for shit or gosh for God . In what follows the focus will be on type iii of Radden and Kovecses s typology concept metonymies that is those cases that most cognitive linguists would recognize as genuine instances of metonymy. 4. Metonymy as a Contingent and Defeasible Relation A common denominator of the work reported on in section 3 is that metonymy is a cognitive process that operates within one cognitive domain or domain matrix and links a given source content to a less accessible target content. What constitutes one domain has to date not been satisfactorily elucidated in the literature and certainly remains a topic for further research see section 12 . An interesting proposition has been put forth by Barcelona 2003 231 who proposes that speakers rely on conscious folk models of what constitutes a single domain versus two separate domains for the purposes of metonymy and metaphor respectively. In this perspective the decision of what constitutes a single domain cannot be made a priori on logicose-mantic grounds alone but has to be based on empirical research on how speakers and more generally speech communities conceptually structure their universe. The source content and the target content of a metonymy are linked by conceptual contiguity see Dirven 1993 . Metonymies that satisfy this criterion are henceforth called conceptual metonymies. Content should be understood in its broadest sense including lexical concepts words but also thoughts propositional .