1 Metonymy of the Word 'Indonesia' in Phrases
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ELTR Journal, e-ISSN 2579-8235, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2019, pp. 1-19 English Language Teaching and Research Journal http://apspbi.or.id/eltr English Language Education Study Program Association, Indonesia METONYMY OF THE WORD ‘INDONESIA’ IN PHRASES ‘PROUD OF INDONESIA’ USED ON FACEBOOK Jennifer, Paulus Tri Nugroho Putro and Victory Cahya Adi Sanata Dharma University, Indonesia [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] DOI: doi.org/10.37147/eltr.2019.030101 received 26 September 2018; accepted 15 December 2018 Abstract Simply defined, metonymy is a phenomenon in which two things are associated, so that one thing stands for the other, i.e. the source stands for the target. (Evans and Green, 2006, p. 314; Barcelona, 2003) The example from Evans and Green (2006, p. 312) is “England beat Australia in the 2003 rugby World Cup final.” In that example, England and Australia stand for their own national football teams. The example is whole-for-part metonymy. Generally classified, the types of metonymy are whole for part and part for whole. (Barcelona, 2003, p. 239) What it means by “whole for part” is a general thing represents a specific thing. It goes the other way around for “part for whole”. As everyone uses metonymy very often, it is everyone’s awareness towards metonymy that should be increased. Metonymy is a powerful tool (Guan, 2009, p. 179). It is a “cognitive tool for people’s conceptualization of the world” (Guan, 2009, p. 179) and particularly “for guiding inferencing in the interpretation of spoken discourse” (Kriskovic & Tominac, 2009, p. 50). Keywords: metonymy, mapping, Facebook Introduction Metonymy also has many practical and theoretical functions. It is no doubt that in linguistics, metonymy is very important. Bredin argues that metonymy is “one of the great survivors among tropes” (1984, p. 47) If we have to reduce all tropes, metonymy will survive in the reduced list. (Bredin, 1984, p. 47) Metonymy is generaly important in practical language use, language principles, mental processes.(Bredin, 1984; Jakobson, 2003; Barcelona, 2003; Evan and Green, 2006; Song, 2011) In this study, the researchers find that the word “Indonesia” in Facebook users’ posts of “proud of Indonesia” refers to many different things. By studying that, the researchers can elaborate Facebook users’ conceptualization of the word Indonesia when they say “proud of Indonesia”. This study may raise various issues relating to people’s perceptions of Indonesia. Thus, this research aims to elaborate the targets and the domain of the word “Indonesia” in Facebook users’ posts of “proud of Indonesia”. Metonymy Metonymy has been studied for at least two thousand years by rhetoricians, for two hundred years by historical semanticists, and for about ten years by cognitive linguists. It is clear that metonymy existed since thousands years ago. Metonymic thinking was 1 ELTR Journal, e-ISSN 2579-8235, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2019, pp. 1-19 characterized in general terms as that which allows us “to conceptualize one thing by means of its relation to something else" (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:39) Kövecses dan Radden in Evans dan Green (2006, p. 312) argue, “Metonymy is a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same domain” Kövecses dan Radden use the term vehicle, while Barcelona uses the term source. Both of the terms do not have radical difference and can replace each other. Source/vehicle is something in utterances and writing. Meanwhile, target is the intended meaning. In the research, the researchers use the term source and refer to Barcelona’s definition. Barcelona states, “Metonymy is a mapping of a conceptual domain, the source, onto another domain, the target. Source and target are in the same functional domain and are linked by a pragmatic function, so that the target is mentally activated.” (2003, p. 246) For part-for-whole metonymy, the source is the subcategory while the target is the category. (For whole-for-part metonymy, it is the other way around.) Metonymy is different from a metaphor. A metaphor draws resemblance between two different things as in “You are sunlight and I moon” – Sun And Moon from Miss Saigon. Sunlight (and moon) and human are two different things without any association but it attempts to describe one thing in terms of another based on a supposed similarity. Metonymy, however, develops relation on the grounds of close associations (contiguity) as in “The White House is concerned about terrorism.” The White House here represents the people who work in it. (Barcelona, 2003) Context and domain are very important in metonymy. Barcelona (2003, p. 246) mentions the words domain and pragmatic function in the definition of metonymy. Barcelona also explains in a different page of the same article, "The identification of the metonymic the target is dependent on the context "(2003, p. 215) Another important thing in metonymy is contiguity. “The metaphoric is based upon substitution and similarity, the metonymic upon predication, contexture and contiguity.” (Jakobson, 2003, p. 41) Contiguity is a direct or close relation between two entities. (Evans dan Green, 2006) It should be understood that being close is not the same as being similar. Mapping Lakoff and Turner in Ibanez and Velasco (2003, p. 493) elaborate the difference between mapping in metonymy and mapping in metaphor: (i) In metaphor there are two conceptual domains, while metonymy involves only one conceptual domain. (ii) Metonymies, but not metaphors, involve a 'stand-for' relationship between the source and target domains… (iii) In metaphor a whole schematic structure, called the source domain, is mapped, together with its accompanying logic, onto another whole schematic structure, called the target, and its logic; the function of the mapping is to allow us to understand and reason about the target in terms of the source. In contrast, a metonymy is primarily used for reference: we refer to an entity by means of another entity. 2 ELTR Journal, e-ISSN 2579-8235, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2019, pp. 1-19 Fauconnier in Evans dan Green (2006) identified three types of mapping, projection mapping, pragmatic function mappings, and schema mappings. Mappings in this research are pragmatic function mappings since mapping processes in metonymy are pragmatic function mappings: Pragmatic function mappings are established between two entities by virtue of a shared frame of experience. For example, metonymy, which depends upon an association between two entities so that one entity can stand for the other, is an instance of a pragmatic function mapping. (Evans dan Green, 2006, p. 167) Evans dan Green use the term shared frame of experience while Goossens uses the term same (structured) conceptual domain, “For a metonymy the mapping is from an element A to an element B within the same (structured) conceptual domain.” (Goossens, 2003, p. 368) Experience and concept will be elaborated in the discussion about domain. Metonymy sometimes being compared with metaphor, the use of the metaphor and the metonymy or the characteristics. Friedrich and Schmid (2006), compared with metaphor, the range of source and target concepts in metonymies is normally restricted to concrete concepts. Although metonymies are only restricted in concrete concepts, metaphor strengthen the concept of metonymy by adding more sources. Friedrich and Schmid (2006) also added, in addition, metonymies are also more straightforward than metaphors: their major goal is to refer to an entity, prototypically a person, denoted by the target concept by means of the source concept. Mapping in metonymy is asymmetrical (Barcelona, 2003, p. 226) What is meant by the symmetrical mapping are two elements that are not in the same circle, two things are matched according to their basic structures as happened in the diagram 2.2.1.1.1. Basic structures which are matched must be parallel. Unlike the diagram 2.2.1.1.1, what happens in diagram 2.2.1.1.2 is asymmetrical mapping. Asymmetrical mapping does not consider the basic structural similarities but it considers the closeness between the two elements.Non-parallel lines can possibly happen from A to AB, AB to A, and A to B. It is stated by Barcelona in his article: A mapping, "in its most general mathematical sense, is a correspondence between two sets that assigns to each element in the first a counterpart in the second" (Fauconnier 1997: 1)…Mapping, in this sense, is facilitated if both structures have a basic degree of structural "match."…This match does not seem to occur in metonymy. In metonymy, the projection proceeds from a whole onto a part, a part onto a whole, or a part onto a part of a domain (2003, p. 225) 3 ELTR Journal, e-ISSN 2579-8235, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2019, pp. 1-19 In conclusion, mappings in metonymy are pragmatic function mappings which should consider a pragmatic function mainly context. The mappings occur in one domain, are asymmetrical, and basically have the function of inference but some of them serve as a reference. Domain Regarding domain, Barcelona argues, "In sum, the notion of domains must flexibly understood in either its taxonomic or its functional sense" (2003, p. 239) Regarding the term taxonomy, Croft and Cruse (2004, p. 148) further explains, “It is not difficult to find cases where a satisfactory taxonomy seems to be founded on a single-property division. Take the case of spoons: These are taxonomized on the basis of what they are used in connection with (a teaspoon, coffee spoon, spoon, soup spoon etc)” The most important thing of spoons is their utility, so the types of spoons based on the use are considered to be the taxonomy of “spoon”.