| Although metonymy has been studied for a very long time, it has not been attached much importance to until recent years. Nowadays, the study of metonymy has been broadened and furthered. Referential metonymy is a sub-branch of metonymy (The other two are predicational metonymy and illocutionary metonymy), and it is what people have long been studying. The realization of referential metonymy in language is nouns in lexicon. Referential metonymy is the focus of cognitive semantics and lexical semantics as a main way of semantic change in lexicon. The role of referential metonymy has definitely been discussed in works on linguistics or lexicology by linguists and lexicologists at home and abroad. (Wang Rongpei, Lu Xiaojuan, 1997; Wang Rongpei, 2002; Wang Rongpei, Wang Zhijiang, Wu Xiaowei, 2005; Wang Xijie, 2004; Taylor, 1995;Behrens & Zaefferer,2002;Croft & Cruse,2004; etc.) In their view, scholars are shifting their studies from the rhetorical function to the cognitive function in lexical semantic change. The dissertation agrees to the classification of metonymy carried out by Panther & Thornburg (1999), and with referential metonymy as the object of investigation it attempts to explore the roles of referential metonymy in lexical semantic change and its corresponding functions from the perspective of cognitive schema.A relevant survey of the studies on referential metonymy shows that the studies from the rhetorical, structuralist and cognitive perspectives have something in common, that is, focusing on the part of referential metonymy in delivering meaning and transmitting information. There appear to be some overlaps in the studies of referential metonymy in the field of rhetoric and cognitive semantics, the rhetorical study of vocabulary and the lexical semantic study in lexicology. In other words, the study of referential metonymy is part of lexical semantic and rhetorical study of vocabulary. It is obvious that to study referential metonymy merely from the perspective of structural rhetoric or semantics is not enough to meet the demands of the development of lexical semantics. Referential metonymy is not simply considered as a stand-for relationship between words any longer, but as a mapping relationship. It is conceptual in nature.(Lakoff & Johnson,1980; K?vecses,2002; Panther & Thornburg,2003; etc.)As a matter of fact, cognitive linguistics should be considered to be cognitive lexicology and cognitive linguists cognitive lexicologists to a certain extent. The relationship between language and reality studied in cognitive linguistics ultimately comes down to investigating the relationship between words and reality. Studies (for example, prototype theory, categorization, metaphor) carried on by cognitive linguists and their corresponding results mostly begin with the study of words, and words act as the main data in their research. The data of sentences and texts are only the extension of studies based on words, and so does the study of referential metonymy. Metonymic expressions, to some extent, not only engender the research results of referential metonymy but also embody our metonymic way of thinking. Lexical semantics has always triggered the attention of scholars in the field of lexicography, referential metonymy is a cognitive approach in lexical semantic change(Croft & Cruse, 2004),and its further study will be of great importance and necessity to our understanding of lexical semantic change and development. In spite of the fact that lexical semantics has been and will be under the influence of various factors, all the factors reflect how the cognitive subjects cognize and understand the world around them. Therefore, knowledge of the cognitive approach of the cognitive subjects to lexical semantic change will be of extreme necessity and significance for the development of lexicology in the 21st century. In terms of materialistic epistemology, though things change time and again, they stay much the same. As long as we have in hand the key to changes in things (lexical semantics), we will definitely find their laws or principles, and cope with them by sticking to a fixed principle.The role of referential metonymy in lexical semantic change having not been completely ignored, it has not attracted much attention. Since the end of the 20th century, we have gradually come to realize that metonymy, like metaphor, is grounded in our bodily experience and constructs the way we think and live.(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Radden & K?vecses, 1999; Shu Dingfang,2000; etc.)Currently, the different perspectives in which referential metonymy is positioned have created a discordance among scholars with regard to the notion of referential metonymy. Some tend to apply various terms in their books to describe referential metonymy, while others even prefer to use different terms in the same book. In virtue of the vagueness of the previous description, referential metonymy has caused much confusion in itself.With reference to the research concerning cognitive schema together with some pertinent schema theories from the psychological angle, and on the basis of some metonymic expressions in English and Chinese poetry as textual data, the dissertation tries to figure out the cognitive process of referential metonymy as well as the relationship between referential metonymy and schemata in texts. The understanding process of referential metonymy, as a type of conceptual metonymy, is consistent with its cognitive process. Apart from the impacts of personal schema, social schema and cultural schema possessed by the cognitive subject, the understanding process of referential metonymy is also influenced and conditioned by language schema (word schema) and text schema. In most cases, the understanding process of referential metonymy is one that requires the cognitive subject to pragmatically infer and dynamically construe in connection with some cognitive schemata. In other words, only on the condition that the cognitive subject takes into consideration all the cognitive schemata, are they capable of having a full understanding of the world schema reflected by metonymic expressions, the realization of referential metonymy in language. On the ground of the above analysis, the dissertation makes a detailed survey of the conceptualizing, inferencing, rhetorical and social power of referential metonymy. Last but not the least, the implications of the research of referential metonymy are discussed in the last part of the dissertation, which is of vital significance not only for the lexical instruction but for dictionary compilation.
|
PDF Full Text Request