Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 6:2 (2019) ► pp.271–294

Metaphtonymy in the naming procedure of technological devices among South Tunisian old people

| University of Gabes
| University of Gabes

The present research studies the naming procedure of technological devices among South Tunisian old people. This study is a reconsideration of the findings of Boubakri (2015) making use of the data collected in an attempt to understand the phenomenon on the basis of a cognitive approach. The data is collected through unintentional observation followed by intentional observation, and it was concluded that old people’s naming procedure is dictated by their internal sensory makeup (Boubakri 2015: 166). On the basis of the collected data and others collected for the purpose of the present research, it is concluded that the cognitive concept of construal lies behind old people’s naming procedure of technological devices, and that the internal cognitive factor involved in the emergence of the construal is metaphor. More precisely, this metaphor is mataphtonymy which is basically motivated by the psychological state of its user.

Keywords: construal, conceptual metaphor, metaphtonymy, cognitive linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Old people’s adaptation to what is unfamiliar to their schemata
    • 2.2The notion of construal in cognitive linguistics
      • 2.2.1Construal and the factors underlying its realization
      • 2.2.2Conceptual metaphor
      • 2.2.3Metaphtonymy
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Findings and discussion
    • 4.1Findings of conceptual metaphor analysis
      • 4.1.1Metaphor 1: “Is there cold in this bus?”
      • 4.1.2Metaphor 2: “She is in her room holding her ‘taktaka’”
      • 4.1.3Metaphor 3: “Yes, open the joy, please”
      • 4.1.4Metaphor 4: “Did you start seeing?”
      • 4.1.5Metaphor 5: “Won’t you leave that ‘wadwda’ and come, Asma?”
      • 4.1.6Metaphor 6: “So you will get out the commotion?”
    • 4.2The psychological state as the experiential cognitive factor underlying the construal
    • 4.3The reaction of the listener to the naming procedure
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 4 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00041.bou
References
Boubakri, F.
(2015) Old people’s adaptation to what is unfamiliar to their schemata. International Journal of Humanities and Culture Studies, 1 (4), 159–70.Google Scholar
Evans, V.
(2007) A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Goossen, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (3), 323–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1993) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortony, (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, D.
(2001) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, I. A.
(1992) New Rhetoric: Multiplicity instrument and metaphor. Journal of Rhetoric Review, 101, 218–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, P.
(2002) Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar