Article

Name: The role of metaphtonymy in verbalizing futurological concepts

Authors: E. N. Kovyazina

Perm Institute (Branch) of Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Perm, Russian Federation

In the section Linguistics

Abstract: The paper touches upon the problem of metaphtonymy in futurological discourse as well as its role in verbalizing futurological concepts FUTURE SHOCK, THE THIRD WAVE, and SUICIDE. The investigation aimed to determine the peculiar features of metaphtonymy and define its role in the verbal representation of futurological concepts. The investigation is based on the novels of a prominent American futurologist A. Toffler “The Future Shock,” “The Third Wave” and a famous American publicist P. Buchanan “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”. The techniques employed include conceptual analysis, metaphor, and metonymy modeling. 75 contexts of metaphtonymy of certain types (“metaphor in metonymy,” “metonymy in metaphor,” “metonymy, metaphor in metaphor”, “metaphor, metonymy, metaphor in metaphor,” etc.) were identified, and all of them proved to be involved in the verbal representation of the futurological concepts. The analysis showed that all the metaphtonymic unities had a hierarchical structure with one prevailing component and one or several subordinate elements. Moreover, metaphors are more likely than metonymies to act as a dominant member of the hierarchy, their target domain or/and source domain being motivators for other components emerging in a metaphtonymic unity. As for the forms of metaphor and metonymy thinking in metaphtonymies under analysis, we found extended metaphors and metonymic chains and clusters. Metaphors (their target or/and source domains) turned to be most active in verbalizing the futurological concepts. The variants of verbalization are as follows: “future shock as a disease,” “the third wave as evolution design,” “suicide as ethnomasochism,” etc.

Keywords: conceptual metaphor, metonymy, metaphtonymy, futurological discourse

Bibliography:

Barcelona A. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In: Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective. A. Barcelona (Ed.). Berlin, New York, 2003, pp. 31–58.

Brdar-Szabό R., Brdar M. What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In: Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view. R. Benczes, A. Barcelona and F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds). Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2011, pp. 217–248.

Denroche C. Text metaphtonymy: the interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World. 2018, no. 8 (1), pp. 1–24. DOI 10.1075/ msw.16011.den

Goossens L. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In: Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. R. Dirven and R. Pörings (Eds). Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 2003, pp. 349–377.

Koller V. Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: Analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. Metaphoric.de. 2003, no. 5, pp. 115–134.

Kövecses Z. Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. New York, Oxford University Press, 2002, 285 p.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, Basic Books, 1999, 624 p.

Paducheva E. V. Dinamicheskie modeli v semantike leksiki [Dynamic models in lexical semantics]. Moscow, LRC Publishing House, 2004, 608 p.

Sharmanova O. S. Metaftonimiya kak kontseptualnoye vzaimodeistvie metafori i metonimii [Metaphtonymy as conceptual interaction of metaphor and metonymy]. ISLU Philological Review. 2011, no. 1, pp. 194–200.

Ustarkhanov R. I. Metaftonimiya v angliyskom yazike: interpretatsionno-kognitivniy analiz [Metaphtonymy in the English language: interpretation-cognitive analysis]. Abstract of Cand. philol. sci. diss. Pyatigorsk, 2006, 21 p.