This article analyses the interaction between language and thought through conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) and conceptual metonymy theory. Furthermore, it proves the argument by saying that conceptual metaphors –introduced by Lakoff and Johnson in 1980 –are thought to be a certain type of cognitive frames with a purpose to help people to understand by means of mapping abstract concepts onto more concrete ones, for instance, ‘time’ and ‘money’. Metonymy relates similar ideas within the same sphere; In this sense, the cognitive processes evidenced in the research can really be said to have illuminated the roles of both kinds of processes in thought and language on culture. The analysis of the interaction between metaphor and metonymy is an evidence of the relationship between the two in constructing human experience and perception. Indeed, it brings the conclusion that it is better to know about these kind of cognitive processes to have better insights on the patterns of language and the human situations
This article analyses the interaction between language and thought through conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) and conceptual metonymy theory. Furthermore, it proves the argument by saying that conceptual metaphors –introduced by Lakoff and Johnson in 1980 –are thought to be a certain type of cognitive frames with a purpose to help people to understand by means of mapping abstract concepts onto more concrete ones, for instance, ‘time’ and ‘money’. Metonymy relates similar ideas within the same sphere; In this sense, the cognitive processes evidenced in the research can really be said to have illuminated the roles of both kinds of processes in thought and language on culture. The analysis of the interaction between metaphor and metonymy is an evidence of the relationship between the two in constructing human experience and perception. Indeed, it brings the conclusion that it is better to know about these kind of cognitive processes to have better insights on the patterns of language and the human situations
| № | Муаллифнинг исми | Лавозими | Ташкилот номи |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sharifova D.S. | student | SamDCHTI |
| № | Ҳавола номи |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1.Barcelona, A. (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 1-24). Mouton de Gruyter.2.Evans, V. (2004). The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning, and Temporal Concepts.3.Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. 4.Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding.5.Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Speaking and Thinking with Metaphor. In Metaphor in Discourse (pp. 133-148). 6.Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 7.Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About theMind. 8.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By.9.Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (1999). Metonymy in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Perspective. In Metonymy in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Perspective (pp. 1-15). 10.Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In Metonymy in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Perspective (pp. 1-20). |