VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT

APPLIED LINGUISTICS ASSIGNMENT

METONYMY AS THE TRANSFERENCE OF MEANING: A COGNITIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH

AND VIETNAMESE

Supervisor : Prof. Hoàng Văn Vân

Student : Vũ Thị Quyên

Class : K19C

Hanoi, June 2011

[Type text]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale

2. Aims of the study

3. Scope of the study

4. Methods of the study

5. Design of the study

DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1. Word meaning

1.2. Meaning change phenomenon

1.3. Transference of meaning

1.3.1. Definition of meaning transference

1.3.2. Means of meaning transference

CHAPTER 2: METONYMY AS THE TRANSFERENCE OF

MEANING IN ENGLISH

2.1. Definition of metonymy

2.2. Types of metonymy

2.2.1. Direct/Primary metonymy

2.2.2. Indirect/Secondary metonymy

2.2.3. Partial metonymy

2.3. Cases of metonymy

2.3.1. Name of container instead of the things contained

2.3.2. Parts of human body as symbols

2.3.3. The concrete instead of the abstract

2.3.4. Materials instead of the things made of the materials

2.3.5. Name of the author instead of his works

2.3.6. Part for the whole and vice versa

2.3.7. Symbol to refer to representative

2.3.8. Others

1

1

1

1

2

3

3

4

4

5

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

1

i

CHAPTER 3: METONYMY AS THE TRANSFERENCE OF

MEANING IN VIETNAMESE

3.1. Container – contained

3.2. Concrete – abstract

3.3. Name of author – his works

3.4. Part – whole and whole – part

3.5. Owner – things owned

3.6. Specific quantities – general quantities

3.7. Others

CHAPTER 4: SIMILATITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

METONYMY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

4.1. Similarities

4.2. Differences

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

10

10

10

10

11

11

11

12

12

14

15

2ii

INTRODUCTION

I. Rationale

Metonymy is a distinct type of generating new meanings for existing

expressions. A metonymic description of a subject is an essential part of any

language. Therefore, metonymic thinking can be considered as an element of the

cultural identity of a person. However, we use metonymy in everyday life without

realizing it. Even in linguistics, metonymy is often regarded as a subtype of

metaphor and gets little attention. English learners at elementary and pre-

intermediate levels find it hard to understand the sentences like:

The ham sandwich is waiting for his check.

Or they tend to spend a lot of time looking for English equivalents for

Vietnamese expressions like:

Áo chàm đưa buổi chia ly

Cầm tay nhau biết nói gì hôm nay.

These problems are results of learners’ unawareness of metonymy as the

transference of meaning in English and Vietnamese. Therefore, I choose metonymy

as the subject of my study and make a contrastive analysis between metonymy in

English and that in Vietnamese.

II. Aims of the study

The study is aimed at providing a thorough and systematic knowledge of

metonymy as the transference of meaning in English and Vietnamese so that

English learners can enrich their vocabulary, avoid and self-correct mistakes in

communication and translation.

III. Scope of the study

For the limitation of personal knowledge and ability, my study only focuses

on the most common cases of metonymy that are traditionally used in

communication in English and Vietnamese.

IV. Methods of the study

The main research methods include description, translation and deduction.

1

V. Design of the study

This paper is divided into three main parts: Introduction, Development and

Conclusion.

Introduction: briefly introduces the rationale, the aims, the scope, the

methods and the design of the study.

Development: has four chapters.

Chapter 1: Theoretical background

Chapter 2: Metonymy as the transference of meaning in English.

Chapter 3: Metonymy as the transference of meaning in Vietnamese.

Chapter 4: Similarities and differences between metonymy in English and

that in Vietnamese.

Conclusion: briefly sums up the study

2

DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1. Word meaning

Nguyen Hoa in his book “An introduction to Semantics” (2001) has

discussed many theories of meaning, of which I hereby mention some majors ones

as follows.

According to the referential/denotational approach, the meaning of a word or

expression is what it refers to, denotes or stands for.

Linguists follow the ideational/mentalist theory support the idea that the

speaker’s meaning of a word is the idea in the speaker’s mind associated with the

word. Communication is successful when a similar stream of idea is produced in the

hearer’s mind.

The meaning of a word, according to the verification theory is determined by

the verifiability of the sentences, or propositions containing it, i.e. the meaning of a

word is verified by concrete situation.

Whatever the theory is, they share the same feature that word meaning does

not stay the same all the time, but change slightly or clearly in different situations.

1.2. Meaning change phenomenon

Definition of meaning change: meaning change is the phenomenon in which

new meanings of the words appear or old meanings drop out of the language or co-

exist with the new ones

E.g. immoral: not customary unethical

silly: happy, prosperous foolish

Causes of semantic change (meaning change): McMahon (1994) points out

at least two causes of semantic change: structural and referential causes. The former

ones refer to the linguistic structures of lexical items. They are also called linguistic

causes. The later ones refer to the referents. They are also called extra linguistic

causes (connected with the development of society, changes in social, political,

economic, cultural life, in science and technology)

3

Types of semantic change: according to McMahon (1994), the four most

widely recognized types of semantic change are extension, narrowing, amelioration,

and pejoration.

Extension is the widening of a word’s range of meanings, often by analogy

or simplification.

E.g. ready prepared for a ride

prepared for everything.

Narrowing is the reduction in a word’s range of meanings, often limiting a

generic word to a more specialized or technical use.

E.g. meat any food

animal flesh.

Amelioration occurs as a word loses negative meaning or gains positive ones.

E.g. minister servant or attendant

head of a state department.

Pejoration occurs as a word develops negative meanings or loses positive ones.

E.g. villain labourer attached to a farm

a wicked schemer.

1.3. Transference of meaning

1.3.1. Definition of meaning transference

“Transference of meaning refers to the situation when one object is named

and understood in terms of another”. (Nguyen Hoa, 2001)

E.g. He often nods his head to express his agreement.

(“head” means “the top part of a body”)

She is the head of our group.

(“head” means “the leader”)

The average income in this country is about $500 per head per month.

(“head” means “person”)

The three examples above have shown us that one word can be used

differently to name different things because those things and the original referent of

the word have somewhat relation.

4

1.3.2. Means of meaning transference.

There are various means of meaning transference like metaphor, metonymy,

euphemism, hyperbole, irony, and litotes.

Metaphor and metonymy are two basic types of meaning transference.

Metaphor is the transference of meaning from one object to another based on

similarities between these two. For example, in the sentence the internet is an

information superhighway, the internet is compared with the superhighway. On the

other hand, metonymy bases on the contiguity of notions. This means of meaning

transference is the focus of this study and will be discussed in detail later.

Other types of metonymy involve euphemism, hyperbole, irony, and litotes.

Euphemism is the use of a milder expression for something unpleasant. Hyperbole is

an exaggerated statement not meant to be understood literally, but with powerful effect.

Irony expresses meaning by words of the opposite sense. Litotes is an understatement

expressing something in the affirmative by the negative of its contrary.

Sometimes we may find an overlap between the uses of these means of

semantic transference. For example, the phrase lend me your ear can be interpreted

in two ways. First, we can analyse ear metonymically which means attention.

Second, we can analyse lend me your ear metaphorically to mean turn your ear in

my direction.

5

CHAPTER 2: METONYMY AS THE TRANSFERENCE OF

MEANING IN ENGLISH

2.1. Definition of metonymy

Perhaps the most familiar definition of metonymy from the literature is that it

is a figure of speech in which the speaker is “using one entity to refer to another

that is related to it” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980)

Another definition given by Panther and Radden (1999) is that “metonymy is

cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provided mental access

to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same idealized cognitive model”.

Nguyen Hoa (2001) defines metonymy as the transference of meaning from

one object to another based on contiguity of notions, i.e. instead of the name of one

object or notion we use the name of another because these objects are associated

and closely related.

E.g. The crown had absolute power in the middle ages.

(“crown” is used instead of “monarchy”)

In short, metonymy is transference of meaning based on a logical or physical

connection between things. It is an important means of forming new meanings of

words in the language.

2.2. Types of metonymy

In his article “The metonymic way of an attribute description of the aspect:

cultural aspect”, A.L. Alexey divides metonymy into three types: direct/primary

metonymy, indirect/secondary metonymy and partial metonymy.

2.2.1. Direct/Primary metonymy

Direct metonymy is the direct transference of the meaning to the object on

the basis of association with the subject itself.

E.g. "Calm yourself, Hastings. Do not put on that air of injured dignity." [A.

Christie]

The participle "injured" is used with the abstract noun "dignity", although it

characterizes the subject (Hastings).

2.2.2. Indirect/Secondary metonymy

6

Indirect metonymy is the double transference of the meaning to another

object on the basis of association with the manner of action of the subject mediated

by the subject itself.

E.g. "Near them was the parking space, as yet a modest yard..." [F.S. Fitzgerald]

In this sentence, the transference of the meaning is mediated because

"modest yard" is the yard made modestly by a man (i.e. subject), but not necessarily

by a modest man.

2.2.3. Partial metonymy

Partial metonymy employs the use of an attribute which acquires a certain

degree of associativeness with the subject.

"Tyger! Tyger! burning bright

In the forests of the night,

What immortal hand or eye

Could frame thy fearful symmetry?" [W. Blake]

As a matter of fact, the attribute "immortal" only adds to nominative

metonymy in the words "hand" and "eye", and therefore cannot by itself be regarded

as complete and self-sufficient metonymy.

2.3. Cases of metonymy

2.3.1. Name of container instead of the thing contained.

The kettle is boiling. (“kettle” instead of “water in the kettle”)

He drank a glass. (“glass” instead of “some beer or water”)

2.3.2. Parts of human body as symbols

She has a really clever head.

(“clever head” is the symbol of an intelligent person)

Everyone loves her because she has a kind heart.

(“kind heart” is the symbol of a kind person)

2.3.3. The concrete instead of the abstract.

He lived here from the cradle to the grave.

(“from the cradle to the grave” instead of “all his life”)

I can’t understand this book at all.

(“this book” instead of “the content of the physical book”)

7

2.3.4. Materials instead of the things made of the materials.

May I borrow your rubber? I can’t find mine.

(“rubber” instead of “eraser”)

There is a glass in the cupboard.

(“glass” instead of the “container” made of glass)

2.3.5. Name of the author instead of his works.

I like to read Dickens.

(“Dickens” means “Dickens’ books)

Jane loves reading plays before going to bed. Oscar Wilde is her favorite one.

(“Oscar Wilde” means “Oscar Wilde’s plays”)

2.3.6. Part for the whole and vice versa.

First, let’s look at the examples of part for the whole.

In Vietnam three or four generations often live in the same roof.

(“roof” is used to refer to “house”)

He’s always running after a skirt.

(“skirt” here means “girl/young woman”)

However, the whole object can be used to refer to a part of the object.

My camera can’t be recharged.

(“camera” refers to “camera’s battery”)

Don’t sit down! The chair has been broken. It has three legs now.

(“chair” refers to “a leg of the chair”)

2.3.7. Symbol to refer to representative.

The crown had absolute power in the middle ages.

(“crown” refers to “monarchy”)

The White House has made a decision.

(“White House” refers to “U.S president”)

2.3.8. Others

Other cases of metonymy can be found in English including spatial relation,

causal relation, functional relation and transfer of geographical names.

He was elected chair of the city council.

(spatial relation – “chair” means “the person who holds the position”)

8

Fear of failure was bred into him at an early age.

(causal relation – “fear” means “the bad feeling you have when you are in danger”)

He penned a letter to the local paper.

(functional relation - “pen” means “write”)

She has bought a new pair of morocco shoes.

(transfer of geographical name – “morocco” means “leather”)

It can be concluded from the above information that metonymy is a powerful

way to transfer meaning of a word to refer to another referent. By simply using the

contiguity between notions basing on metonymical relations, English people have

changed their language.

9

CHAPTER 3: METONYMY AS THE TRANSFERENCE OF

MEANING IN VIETNAMESE

Metonymy is used in many different contexts and becomes very familiar with

Vietnamese people without any questions about the existence of it. As in English, in

Vietnamese there is a system of metonymic relations which can help to transfer the

meaning of many words. In this study, the author will attempt to list some most

common cases from the theories of Diep Quang Ban (1999) and Dinh Trong Lac

(1997).

3.1. Container – contained

Ăn ba bát

(“ bát” (bowls) means “bowls of rice/noodle”)

Ấm nước đang sôi.

(“ấm nước” (kettle) means “water in the kettle”)

3.2. Concrete – abstract

Nhận lại của quá khứ những con đê vỡ, những nạn đói, ta đã làm nên các

mùa vàng năm tấn, bẩy tấn.

(“Đê vỡ” (broken dyke), “nạn đói” (starvation) are concrete things to refer to

the abstract noun “damage and trouble” made by the war. The concrete term “mùa

vàng năm tấn, bẩy tấn” (good crops) is used to refer to the abstract term “the new

comfortable life”).

3.3. Name of author – his works.

Đọc Nguyễn Tuân người ta dễ bàng hoàng với cách sử dụng ngôn ngữ hết

sức độc đáo và truyền cảm.

(“Nguyen Tuan” means “Nguyen Tuan’s works)

3.4. Part – whole and whole – part.

Part – whole

Đầu xanh đã tội tình gì

Má hồng đến quá nửa thì chưa thôi.

(“Đầu xanh” (green head) is used to refer to a young person. “Má hồng”

(pink cheek) refers to a girl or a young woman).

Whole – part

10

Bao nhiêu năm đã qua, đầu đã muối tiêu mà hắn vẫn còn cái tính trăng hoa ấy.

(“Đầu” (head) refers to “hair”).

3.5. Owner – things owned.

Áo chàm đưa buổi phân ly

Cầm tay nhau biết nói gì hôm nay.

(“Áo chàm” (a kind of clothes) refers to people in the north east of Viet Nam).

3.6. Specific quantities – general quantities

Trăm công nghìn việc.

Làm dâu trăm họ.

(“trăm” (hundred) and “nghìn” (thousand) do not mean the exact number

hundred or thousand but many).

3.7. Others

In daily life metonymy is used very creatively by Vietnamese people and its

meaning depends much on the context of its existence. Some metonymic meanings

are just understood by Vietnamese people and people who have a rich knowledge of

Vietnam and its people.

Huyện đã đồng ý rồi nhưng xã thì cứ chần trừ chưa giải quết. Cả làng bức

xúc lắm.

(“Huyện” (district) and “xã” (commune) are local authorities in those places.

Meanwhile, “làng” (village) is used to refer to all the people who are living in the

village).

11

CHAPTER 4: SIMILATIRIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

METONYMY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

4.1. Similarities

The main similarity is that Vietnamese people and English people use some

same relations as the means of metonymy like part – whole, container – things

contained, concrete – abstract, author name – his works and parts of body as

symbols.

Relations English Vietnamese

Part - whole In Vietnam three or four generations

often live in the same roof

Chúng ta cùng sống chung

dưới một mái nhà

Container –

contained

The kettle is boiling Ấm nước đang sôi.

Concrete –

abstract

He lived here from the cradle to the

grave

Nhận lại của quá khứ những

con đê vỡ, những nạn đói…

Author name

– his works

I like to read Dickens Đọc Nguyễn Tuân người ta

dễ bàng hoàng…

Part of body

as symbol

She has a really clever head Đầu xanh đã tội tình gì

Má hồng đến quá nửa thì

chưa thôi.

The second similarity is that metonymy in both English and Vietnamese

share some common in the use of particular words

Two heads are better than one = Hai cái đầu thì tốt hơn một cái

Have you read Dickens yet? = Anh đã đọc Dickens chưa?

The third similarity is that metonymy is used very creatively by both English

and Vietnamese people.

4.2. Differences

The first difference lies in the use of different words to name a thing.

He is always running after the skirt. = Hắn luôn chạy theo những bóng hồng.

An English word and its equivalent in Vietnamese can be used as an

alternative for different things.

Can I have some sweets, please? (“sweets” means “candy”)

12

Chọn (quả) ngọt vào nhé! (“ngọt” (sweet) refer to a kind of fruit)

The difference can also be seen in very particular cases. For example, when

taking the part – whole relation to transfer the meaning of a word, English people and

Vietnamese ones have different choices of what part can be used to refer to the whole.

There are about three thousand trunks in that forest.

(“trunk” refers to “trees”)

Có khoảng ba ngàn ngon/gốc (cây) trong khu rừng đó.

(“ngọn” (top part)/ “gốc” (root) refers to “trees”)

The same thing happens when metonymy bases on concrete – abstract relation.

Another difference is that some cases of metonymy which are very typical in

English but rare in Vietnamese. For example, in Vietnamese we hardly find the

name of objects called by the material which they are made from/of.

The differences in language environment, culture and people’s habit of using

language have caused all those differences between metonymy in English and

Vietnamese in particular and the two languages in general.

13

CONCLUSION

This paper has briefly revised some most common cases of metonymy as the

transference of meaning in English and Vietnamese. It also points out some

similarities and differences in terms of metonymy between these two languages.

The similarities and differences presented here can partly help Vietnamese learners

in avoiding misinterpretation during the process of learning English.

However, because of limited time and my limited knowledge, this study is

not satisfactory enough. It may not meet the demand of all readers. Therefore,

further research in this area should be done to investigate its various aspects.

14

REFERENCES

ENGLISH

Alexey, A.L. (2004), “The metonymic way of an attribute description of the subject:

cultural aspect”, http://www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/04_09/lukyanov15.htm

Driven, R. (2002), Metaphor and Metonymy in comparison and contrast, De

Gruyter, Berlin.

Gregory, H. (2000), semantics, Routledge, London.

Jackendoff, R. (1990), Semantics and Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors we live by, University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

Lobner, S. (2002), Understanding Semantics, Arnold Pubishers, London.

McMahon, A.M.S. (1994), Understand Language Change, CUP, Cambridge.

Nguyen, H. (2001), An Introduction to Semantics, VNU Press, Hanoi.

Panther, K.U. & Radden, G. (1999), Metonymy in Language and Thought, John

Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

VIETNAMESE

Diệp Quang Ban (1999), Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, Nxb Giáo Dục, Hà Nội.

Lê Hạnh (2005), Ca dao, tục ngữ Việt Nam, Nxb Lao Động, Hà Nội.

Đinh Trọng Lạc (2004), Phương tiện và biện pháp tu từ Tiếng Việt, Nxb Giáo Dục, Hà Nội.

Đinh Trọng Lạc (1997), Phong cách học Tiếng Việt, Nxb Giáo Dục, Hà Nội.

15