How do Chinese Antonymous Cognate Words Emerge? A Study From the Perspective of Metonymy and Metaphor
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1306.26Keywords:
Chinese antonymous cognate words, metonymy, metaphor, “Embodied-cognitive” linguisticsAbstract
“Dialectics” and “contradiction theory” from philosophy are almost the only theoretical resource that can be cited to explain the reason for the formation of Chinese antonymous cognate words. However, this paradigm does not come from the law of thinking, and therefore cannot display the dynamic process of the formation of the phenomenon fundamentally. Metonymy and metaphor could be applied as thinking mechanisms to reveal the rules of the generation of Chinese antonymous cognate words. Briefly, the mechanism of metonymy activates the fission of etymology; while the metaphorical mechanism makes the basic image schemas mapping between different conceptual domains to help this particular type of cognate words to multiply in quantity. Furthermore, the reasons for the formation of metonymic and metaphorical mechanisms are explored under the theoretical framework of “Embodied- cognitive” linguistics while emphasizing the influence of “cognitive-cultural” factors in forming this unique linguistic phenomenon.
References
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. R. d. M. Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. pp. 7–58): John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Barcelona, A. (2019). Metonymy. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Foundations of Language. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics, Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2019). Metophor. In D. Ewa & D. Dagmar (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics - Foundations of Language (pp. 195-220): De Gruyter Mouton.
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. 6(4), 347-378.
Hampe, B. (2005). Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics: Introduction. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1-14): De Gruyter Mouton.
Hedblom, M. M., Kutz, O., Peñaloza, R., & Guizzardi, G. (2019). Image Schema Combinations and Complex Events. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz, 33, 279 - 291.
Humboldt, W. v. (1997). On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and Its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind (Y. Xiaoping, Trans.). Beijing: Commercial Press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason: University of Chicago Press.
Karaman, B. I. (2008). On Contronymy. International Journal of Lexicography, 21(2), 173-192. doi:10.1093/ijl/ecn011
Kövecses, Z. (2010a). Metaphor, language, and culture. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 26(SPE): 739-757.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Context in Cultural Linguistics: The Case of Metaphor. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp. 307-323). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Kövecses, Z. n. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. n. (2008). Conceptual metaphor theory: Some criticisms and alternative proposals. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6, 168-184.
Kövecses, Z. n. (2010b). Metaphor and Culture. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae: Philologica, 2, 197-220.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff , G. (2010). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2016). Language and emotion. Emotion Review, 8(3), 269-273.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff , G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction: Oxford University Press.
Lehrer, A., & Lehrer, K. (1982). Antonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5(4), 483-501. doi:10.1007/BF00355584
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, L., & Zhang, J. (2009). The Influence of Spatial Metaphors of Time on Time Cognition of Chinese Native Speakers. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4, 266-271+320.
Lu, Z. (1981). The General Theory of Shuowen Jiezi. Beijing: Beijing Publishing House.
Mandler, J., & Cánovas, C. P. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4), 510-532.
Murphy, G. L., & Andrew, J. M. (1993). The conceptual basis of antonymy and synonymy in adjectives. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 301-319.
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 214-235). New York: Oxford University Press.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2008). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In J. R. d. M. I. Francisco & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (pp. 353-386): De Gruyter Mouton.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2012). Antonymy in Language Structure and Use. In M. Brdar, M. Ž. Fuchs, & I. Raffaelli (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Between Universality and Variation (pp. 159-186): Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59).
Szwedek, A. (2019). The Image Schema: A Definition. In C. M. Cmeciu (Ed.), Styles of communication (Vol. 11, pp. 7-27): University of Bucharest Publishing House.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Verhagen, A. (2010). 48 Construal and Perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 48-81): Oxford University Press.
Vosshagen, C. (1999). Opposition as a Metonymic Principle. In K.-U. Panther & G. n. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 289-308): John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wang, N. (1996). Principles of Exegesis. Beijing: China International Broadcasting Press.
wang, W. (2019). The Temporality of English and the Spatiality of Chinese: A Contrastive Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wang, Y. (2007). Cognitive Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Wang, Y. (2015). Embodied-Cognitive Linguistics - A Localization Study of Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Commercial Press.
Wu, S. (2010). research on Auto-antonyms from the Perspective of Metonymy. Journal of West China Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 6, 77-82.
Wu, T. (1986). A discussion on the homology of antonyms and auto-antonyms. Foreign Language Teaching and Research: Foreign Languages Bimonthly, 2, 23-33.
Ye, H. (2017). Embodied Cognition—Principles and Applications. Beijing: Commercial Press.
Zhang, S. (1984). Collection of Zhang Shilu's Linguistics. Nanjing: Xuelin Press.
Zhang, Y. (2009). Semantics, Cognition, Interpretation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
