”Må jeg se din plet?”
En undersøgelse af den overførte brug af ordet plet som både metafor og metonymi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v1i64.141690Nøgleord:
metafor, metonymi, kognitiv metaforteori, kropslig forankring, terapi, skamResumé
Denne artikel præsenterer en undersøgelse af den overførte brug af ordet plet (og relaterede former) via en mindre korpusundersøgelse samt en næranalyse af uddrag fra en terapisession. Korpusundersøgelsen i KorpusDK peger på to overordnede tendenser i brugen af plet i overført betydning som noget, der enten refererer til nederlag i sport eller som noget, der omhandler moralske problematikker i relation til ens sociale omdømme. I de første tilfælde er pletten noget, der hurtigt kan fjernes, mens pletten i de sidstnævnte tilfælde er af mere permanent karakter. Analysen af terapisessionen viser, hvordan plet bruges som et udtryk for social skam i samtalen mellem patient og terapeut. Plet virker både som en metafor, der trækker på den konceptuelle metafor DÅRLIGT ER BESKIDT, og som en metonymi af typen VIRKNING FOR ÅRSAG. Metaforisk vækkes der associationer til det beskidte og snavsede, mens plet som en metonymi fungerer via dens funktion som et tegn, der peger på det, som har forårsaget det. Samlet viser analysen, hvordan metafor og metonymi er tæt relaterede på både et kognitivt og et socialt niveau, hvilket bidrager til en international tendens inden for metaforforskningen til at forstå metafor og metonymi som sammenvævede størrelser snarere end adskilte typer af billedsprog.
Referencer
Banerjee, P., P. Chatterjee & C. Sinha. 2012. Is it light or dark? Recalling moral behavior changes perception of brightness. Psychological Science 24. 407–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432497.
Barnden, J. 2010. Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics 21. 1–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.001.
Benczes, R., A. Barcelona & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (red.). 2011. Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.
Bilz, K. 2012. Dirty hands or deterrence? An experimental examination of the exclusionary rule. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 9. 149–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01250.x.
Cameron, L. 2007. Confrontation or complementarity?: Metaphor in language use and cognitive metaphor theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5(1). 107–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.5.06cam.
Deignan, A. 2006. Metaphor in corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6.
Ding, F., X. Tian, X. Wang & Z. Liu. 2019. The consistency effects of the clean metaphor of moral concept and dirty metaphor of immoral concept: An event-related potentials study. Journal of Psychophysiology. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000249.
Gibbs Jr., R.W. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs Jr., R.W. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Jr., R. W. 2013. Why do some people dislike Conceptual Metaphor Theory? Journal of Cognitive Semiotics 5(1–2). 14–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.14.
Gibbs, Jr., R.W. 2017. Metaphor wars. Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350.
Gibbs Jr., R.W. 2022. Metaphorical experience: Contiguity or cross-domain mappings? Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20(1). 7–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00099.gib.
Grady, J.A. 1999. Typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. R.W. Gibbs & G. Steen (red.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, 79–100.
Hampe, B. 2017. Embodiment and discourse: Dimensions and dynamics of contemporary metaphor theory. B. Hampe (red.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse, 3–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.010.
Hilpert, M. 2005. Chained metonymies. J. Newman & S. Rice (red.), Experimental and empirical methods, 181–194. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ibáñez, R.D.M. & A. Galera-Masegosa. 2011. Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value 3. 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2.
Ibáñez, R.D.M. & L. Hernández. 2011: The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol 26. 161–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189.
Jensen, T.W. & M. Skov (red.). 2007. Følelser og kognition. København: Museum Tusculanums Forlag.
Jensen, T.W. & E. Cuffari. 2014. Doubleness in experience: Toward a distributed enactive approach to metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbol 29(4). 278–297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.948798.
Jensen, T.W. & L. Greve. 2019. Ecological cognition and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 34(1). 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591720.
Johnson, M. 1994. Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226223230.001.0001U.
Johnson, M. 2007. The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226026992.001.0001.
Johnson, M. 2014. Morality for humans. Ethical understanding from the perspective of cognitive science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Julich-Warpakowski, N. & T.W. Jensen. 2023. Zooming in on the notion of metaphoricity. Notions, dimensions, and operationalizations. Metaphor and the Social World 13(1). 16–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.00027.jul.
Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: a practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408.
Kövecses, Z. 2013. The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol 28. 75–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768498.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001U
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. A. Ortony (red.), Metaphor and thought, 202–252. Cambridge, MA. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013.
Lakoff, G. 2002. Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think (2. udg.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471006.001.0001.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Littlemore, J. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814.
Littlemore, J. 2017. On the role of embodied cognition in the understanding and use of metonymy. B. Hampe (red.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse, 160–177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.010.
Mariau, B. 2015. Writing dramas on television news and on the Internet: Evolution of an emotional rhetoric. Journal of Media and Communication Studies 5(1–2). 27–34.
Müller, C. 2008. Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: a dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001.
Negro, I. 2015. Corruption is dirt: Metaphors for political corruption in the Spanish press. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 92. 213–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3828/bhs.2015.15.
Peirce, C.S. 1931/1974. The icon, index, and symbol. C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (red.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, CP 2.277, EP 2. 274. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Radden, G. & Z. Kövecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. K.U. Panther & G. Radden (red.), Metonymy in language and thought, 17–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad.
Rask, K. 2017. Stilistik til tiden. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Schnall, S. 2011. Clean, proper, and tidy are more than the absence of dirty, disgusting and wrong. Emotion Review 3. 264–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402397.
Schnall, S., J. Benton & S. Harvey. 2008. With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgements. Psychological Science 19(12). 1219–1222. DO I: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.
Semino, E. 2008. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.015.
Sobrino, P.P. 2017. Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stage, C. 2019. Skam. Tænkepauser 68. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Steen, G.J. 2015. Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory.
Journal of Pragmatics 90. 67–72. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013.
Stefanowitsch, A. 2011. Cognitive linguistics as a cognitive science. M. Callies, W.R. Keller & A. Lohöfer (red.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences: Avenues, challenges, and limitations, 295–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.30.18ste.
Tay, D. 2017. An analysis of metaphor hedging in psychotherapeutic talk. M. Yamaguchi, D. Tay & B. Blount (red.), Approaches to language, culture, and cognition, 251–261. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137274823_11.
Yu, N., T. Wang & Y. He. 2016. Spatial subsystem of moral metaphors: A cognitive semantic study. Metaphor and Symbol 31(4). 195–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1223470.
Zahavi, D. 2004. Fænomenologi. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Zhong, C. & K. Liljenquist. 2006. Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science 313. 1451–1452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726.
Downloads
Publiceret
Citation/Eksport
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Forfatteren/forfatterne og NyS har ophavsret til de artikler og anmeldelser der bringes i tidsskriftet. NyS har ophavsretten til den udgivne version af tidsskriftet. Forfatteren har ophavsretten til sin egen tekst. Forfattere kan arkivere den publicerede artikel på deres institutions forskningsarkiv (Institutional Repository) eller en privat hjemmeside, når forfatteren samtidig linker til artiklen med den officielle DOI.
For artikler publiceret i NyS tillades at læsere kan downloade, kopiere, udskrive, søge eller linke til og citere fra artikler til ethvert lovligt formål. Artikler kan frit deles og linkes til på forsknings- og undervisningsnetværk (så som Blackboard, Moodle, Canvas o.a.). Link foretrækkes fordi det giver oplysning om brug af tidsskriftets artikler, og fordi det anerkender tidsskriftets redaktionelle arbejde. NyS tillader ikke at læsere bruger artikler eller dele af dem i egne artikler uden at citere, eller at læsere på anden vis anvender dem til kommercielle formål.
