1. DR PARASKEVI THOMOU UNIVERSITY OF CRETE Metonymy within metaphor: evidence from the Modern Greek Language

2. Metaphor Bis A target domain source domain (Lakoff 1993, Croft and Cruse 2004, Grady 2007, K ӧ vecses 2010) THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) Your theory needs support Foundation of the theory

3. Metonymy (1/2) BFOR A (in the same domain) (Croft 1993, Ruiz de Mendoza 2000, Panther & Thornburg 2007, Barcelona 2010, K ӧ vecses 2010) I noticed several new faces tonight face (source) for person (target) “part for the whole” type of metonymy (Croft & Cruse 2004)

4. Metonymy (2/2) Usual metonymic mappings part for whole, whole for part, part for part? 1. source in target metonymy The ham sandwich is waiting for his check 2. the target is in the source I broke the window (Ruiz de Mendoza 2000 in Panther & Thornburg 2007, Ruiz de Mendoza & Galera-Masegosa 2011)

5. similarity source domain target domain ‘distant’ from each other within the same domain source target Metaphor and metonymy in comparison Metaphorical relationship (K ӧ vecses 2010: 175) Metonymic relationship I’m reading Shakespeare (K ӧ vecses 2010: 175)

6. Metaphor and metonymy in interaction Metaphtonymy (Goossens 1995) Metaphor and metonymy can be intertwined  4 types of metaphtonymy Metonymy within metaphor: bite one’s tongue off types of metaphor-metonymy interaction  metonymy is subsidiary to metaphor (Ruiz de Mendoza & Galera-Masegosa 2011)

7. Metaphor and metonymy interaction in Modern Greek actual language data:  ‘regular’ linguistic metaphors, not idioms, fixed expressions  realizations of a metaphorical schema + metonymic schema  lexical co-occurrences Metaphor  ABSTRACT ISHUMAN (personification: K ӧ vecses 2010) Metonymy  ACTION FORAGENT source in target  PROPERTY FORPOSSESSOR (Ruiz de Mendoza 2000)

8. Analysis of the data (1/3) Piretoδis prospaθies γia na perioristi i katastrofi tu perivalondos Fever (adj) efforts/tries so that restricted the destroy of environment (noun gen.) Fevered efforts so that the destroy of environment is restricted Metaphorical schema/pattern ABSTRACTIS HUMAN Efforts/tries are on fever Persons are on fever Metonymy within metaphorical pattern ACTION FORAGENT Efforts is the agent (person who makes the effort)

9. Analysis of the data (2/3) I aretes efiγan apo tin kinonia mas The virtues gone from the society ours (pronoun) Moral virtues are gone from our society. Metaphorical schema/pattern ABSTRACTIS HUMAN Virtues are gone Persons are gone Metonymy within metaphorical pattern PROPERTYFORPOSSESSOR Virtues are the possessor (person who owns them)

10. Analysis of the data (3/3) Γemise ta efivika tis xronia me to orama kapju γaliniu ke triferu politizmu Filled the teenage (adj) her years with the vision a quiet and tender civilization (gen.) (A world) filled her teenage years with the vision of a quiet and tender civilization Metaphorical schema/pattern ABSTRACTIS HUMAN Civilization is quiet and tender Persons are quiet and tender Metonymy within metaphorical pattern PROPERTYFORPOSSESSOR Civilization is the possessor (persons who have/own the civilization)

11. Discussion (1/3) Two interaction schemata:  ABSTRACT IS HUMAN + ACTION FOR AGENT  ABSTRACT IS HUMAN + PROPERTY FOR POSSESSOR Resemble the ‘metonymy within metaphor’ type (Goossens 1995): Metaphors with a built-in metonymy Two main differences:  The metonymy involved is not a built-in metonymy  The MG language data do not form fixed expressions

12. Discussion (2/3) A. Metaphoricity co-occurrences of words: piretoδis (on fever) prospaθies (efforts), aretes (virtues) efiγan (gone), triferos (tender) politizmos (civilization) two is domains ABSTRACT : ACTION, PROPERTY HUMAN B. Metonymy two domains blended in one HUMAN ABSTRACT

13. Discussion (3/3) Fusion or blending of two cognitive processes:  Metaphor and metonymy interact simultaneously  Same domains interact in a metaphorical schema and a metonymic schema  Metonymic schema: two domains blended in one: the human being Interaction: fusion of processes + fusion of domains The borderline between metaphor and metonymy is blurred (in Panther & Thornburg 2007)

14. The end Thank you!