GYULA DVID - Debreceni Egyetem

238 Pages·2005·0.79 MB·English

GYULA DÁVID

SPATIALITY UNDERLYING THE CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM OF FIGURATIVE ENGLISH
DEBRECENI EGYETEM KOSSUTH EGYETEM KIADÓJA

DEBRECEN, 2002
GYULA DÁVID

Spatiality Underlying the Conceptual System of Figurative English
DEBRECENI EGYETEM

GYULA DÁVID

Spatiality Underlying the Conceptual System of Figurative English
DOKTORI ÉRTEKEZÉSEK
15.
Készült:
a Debreceni Egyetem BTK Doktori Tanácsa, az Angol-Amerikai Intézet
és az Angol Nyelvészet doktori program támogatásával.

Témavezető:
Dr. Pelyvás Péter

Bírálók:
Dr. Komlósi László
egyetemi tanár,
Dr. Csapó József
adjunktus
Fedélterv:
Varga József
ISSN 1416-0455
ISBN 963 472 621 6
Kiadta: a Debreceni Egyetem Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadója
Felelős kiadó: Cs. Nagy Ibolya főszerkesztő
Műszaki szerkesztő: Takács László
Készült: a Debreceni Egyetem sokszorosítóüzemében, 2002-ben
Terjedelem: 16,45 A/5 ív
Table of contents

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................v
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................................vi
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 6
ORGANIZATION..........................................................................................................................................17
2. THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: COGNITIVE SEMANTICS.............................................19
2.1 COMPOSITIONALITY VS. NON-COMPOSITIONALITY ...........................................................26
2.2 IMAGE SCHEMATA AND DOMAIN SHIFT .................................................................................. 37
2.2.1 Definition image schemata...................................................................................................................38
2.2.2 Components of image schemata ..........................................................................................................40
2.1.3 Classification image schemata.............................................................................................................41
2.2.4 The relationship of schemata and prototypes........................................................................................43
2.2.5 Schematic conversion in metaphorization.............................................................................................45
2.3 METAPHORIZATION AND METONYMICAL EXTENSION............................................................47
2.4 METONYMY ..........................................................................................................................................49
2.5. METAPHOR............................................................................................................................................54
2.5.1 Metaphor, simile and analogy ...............................................................................................................61
2..5.2 How are metaphors created and understood? .....................................................................................62
2.5.3 The role of images in metaphorizalion.................................................................................................64
2.5.4 Varieties of metaphor............................................................................................................................ 66
2.5.5. Social and cultural aspects of metaphors.............................................................................................70
2.6 LITERAL VS. FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE............................................................................................72
2.7 PROTOTYPE THEORY................................................................................ .........................................81
2.8 MEANING, SENSE AND SENSE RELATIONS.....................................................................................87
2.9 THE ROLE OF POLYSEMY IN LINKING SENSES OF LEXICAL ITEMS ....................................... 92
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 96
3. FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE......................................................................................................................98
3.1 COLLOCATIONS ...................................................................................................................................101
3.1.1 Classification of collocations..................................................................................................................103
3.1.2 Syntactic features....................................................................................................................................104
3.1.3 Semantic features. .......................................................................... .......................................................107
3.1.4 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................110
3.2 PHRASAL VERBS.....................................................................................................................................111
3.2.1 Definition of phrasal verbs.......................................................................................................... ........... 112
3.2.2 Adverbial particles vs. prepositions.........................................................................................................115
3.2.3 The diachronic development of phrasal verbs..........................................................................................117
3.2.4 Definition and classification of particles: ................................................................................................125
3.2. S Altering semantic dominance of phrasal verb constituents......................................................................128
3.2.6. Phrasal verbs and their synonyms ............................................................................................................131
3.2.7. The particle DOWN...................................................................................................................................136
3.2.8 UP...............................................................................................................................................................147
3.2.9 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................162
3.3 IDIOMS ..........................................................................................................................................................164
3.3.1 Definition .....................................................................................................................................................166
3.3.2 Semantic features..........................................................................................................................................171
3.3.3 Analyzability............................................................................................................................................... ..173
3.3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... ................175
3.4 METAPHOR…………………………...........................................................................................................176
3.4 1 Examples for metaphorization......................................................................................................................176
3.4.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................... .............................................................181
3.5.1Metaphor vs. metonymy.............................................................................................................................. ..185
3.5.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................189
4. IMAGE SCHEMATA..............................................................,.....................................................................189
4.1 IMAGE SCHEMATIC ANALYSIS OF PARTICLES ............................................................................190
1.1 UP...................................................................................................................................................................192
4.1.3 DOWN......................................................................................................................................................... 193
4.1.2 OVER......................................................................................................................................................... 193
4.2 SCHEMATIC DENOTATION IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF SPEECH CONTAINING OVER.................195
4.2.1 Preverbal element........................................................................................................................................195
4.2.2 Preposition...................................................................................................................................................197
4.2.3Adverbial article...........................................................................................................................................200
4.3 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................. 201
5.TRACES OF SPATIALITY IN ENGLISH AND HUNGARIAN IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS...........203
5.1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................205
5.2 MEANING AND DOMAIN SHIFT ..............................................................................................................209
5.3 PROTOTYPICAL MEANING PRESENT IN SENSE RELATIONS...........................................................210
5.4 PHRASAL VERBS.........................................................................................................................................210
5.5. IDIOMS......................................................................................................................................................... 210
5.6 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................................213
6.CONCLUSION OF RESEARCH......................................................................................................................213
REFERENCE........................................................................................................................................................217
Acknowledgements

I wish to express my gratitude to some scholars whose help and advice have contributed to
this dissertation.

I am most grateful to Péter Pelyvás, my supervisor, who has helped with his guidance and
critical remarks.
I have been fortunate to learn from a handful but enthusiastic group of scholars who taught
me at Kossuth University;
Béla Korponay, whose encouragement and support have helped many other researchers as
well, and László
Imre Komlósi and József Andor, who encouraged me in the PhD course to carry on with
my work.
Abstract

In my dissertation I attempt to analyze and systematize figurative language.
The major interest behind the analysis is to see whether a comprehensive approach to
various components of figurative language shows a unified picture or not. Though
Borne of them have already been analyzed successfully, no one that I know of has
attempted to examine several of them with the same tools in one book.
Another aim is to find out whether English and Hungarian figurative
expressionsare completely different, or they reveal certain signs of resemblance.
Though the database examined is of rather limited size, it may allow insight into
tendencies of language development. The analysis is based on cognitive semantics,
which has elaborated various theories and tools for efficient language analysis, and was
the first linguistic discipline to take on the task of processing figurative language in a
promising and comprehensive way.
The analysis comprises various'components of figurative English, searches for
links between various domains, and seeks an answer to how spatiality has contributed
to the evolvement of figurative language. The various components are, to some extent,
paralleled with each other by reason of the fact that spatial schemata are operatiönal in
them all, and that part of the conceptual system linking them is detectable.
After the Introduction, Chapter 2 examines different aspects of cognitive
semantics which are important for the analysis, and it describes why they can be
effective means of a semantic approach. This chapter highlights those elements of
cognitive grammar that are vital in analyzing metaphorical extension and thereby the
extension of the lexicon.