?
Linguistic and cognitive basesof differentiation of conceptual metaphors and metonymy
The paper analyzes the interaction of metaphor and metonymy, known as metaphtonymy, and its functioning in
the context on the basis of verbs with semantics “to separate”. It discusses the main models of metaphtonimic
projection: metaphor and metonymy; metonymy–metaphor–metonymy; metaphor based on metonymy (partially
or fully); metonymy based on metaphors. The relevance of this study lies in the lack of study of cognitive values
from the standpoint of metaphor and metonymy interaction in conditions of intersection of verbs close in meaning
with semantics “to separate”. The novelty of this work lies, firstly, in the consideration of the mechanism of
formation of the basic cognitive schemas of metaphtonymic meanings, in how the phrase can acquire a new or
additional meaning depending on the location of words in the context, and secondly, it is the study of the
mechanism of metaphtonymy formation in conditions of intersection of close verbs with the semantics “to
separate”.
Metaphors and metonymies are effective means of conceptualizing new elements of the modern worldview, since
as concepts become more complex, the mechanisms of naming the surrounding reality become more complex too.
Metaphtonymy is an example of such more complex structures. The basis of metaptonymy (the term is proposed
by L. Goossens (1990)) is based on the principles of integration processes of metaphorical and metonymic blending.
Such a complex unit can combine the properties of both metaphors and metonyms. More recent studies have
provided more refined and systematic patterns of interaction between metaphor and metonymy (cf. Ruiz de
Mendoza and Galera-‐Masegosa, 2011). However, our corpus of analysis suggests that further developments are
needed in order to fully account for the complexities of verb with semantics of separation interpretation.
Following J. Lakoff, L. Goossens, metaphor is considered as the projection of elements of different conceptual
domains: the source domain and the target domain, metonymy is understood as a projection of adjacent elements
of one conceptual domain [Lakoff, 1987; Gossens, 2002]. A cognitive approach to analysis of metaphor and
metonymy can be considered as conceptual interaction in the complex and reach to metaphtonimic modeling. Also
this approach reveals the interaction of metaphors and metonymy as a complex mechanism of the formation of
meanings, as realized in context. The results of this study can contribute to the theory of metaphor, metonymy,
secondary language nomination.
In book
