MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF MIXED METAPHOR AS A LINGVO-COGNITIVE PHENOMENON (based on the material of the English language)

MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF MIXED METAPHOR AS A LINGVO-COGNITIVE PHENOMENON (based on the material of the English language)

Author:  M.P. Taymour

Affiliation:  Moscow State Linguistic University

Abstract:  The present study is devoted to investigating of mixed metaphor as a complex linguistic-cognitive phenomenon, which is analyzed by the author at various levels of abstraction (so called levels of image schemas, domains, frames, and mental spaces).

The main aim of this article is to identify the patterns of mixed metaphor and its subtype malaphor meaning formation, where a malaphor is seen as a random or intentional blending of two idioms / aphorisms / clichés. The problem is solved by means of a multilevel analysis of cognitive metaphor [Kövecses 2017, 2019] adapted for the analysis of mixed metaphor.

The examination of the process of the meaning formation of mixed metaphor and malaphor allows us to discover that in a mixed metaphor, conceptual metaphors at all considered levels of abstraction, participating in the formation of the constituents of a mixed metaphor, are present in the final mixed metaphor. That is, there takes place the combination of meanings at the levels of image schemas, domains, frames, and mental spaces.

In a malaphor, the conceptual metaphors of the original idioms that are present at the levels of image schemas, domains, and frames are preserved in the final blend. However, a conceptual metaphor at the level of mental spaces of the final malaphor differs from the conceptual metaphors that are located at the same level in the original expressions that make up the malaphor. This indicates that the general meaning of such malaphors is presumably not the sum of the meanings of its components, as is the case with a mixed metaphor, which may be considered as a certain regularity of meaning formation in malaphor.

Keywords:  mixed metaphor, conceptual metaphor theory, malaphor, cognitive dissonance, image schema,
domain, frame, mental space, linguistic creativity.

References:  Амири Л.П. Контаминация как разновидность окказионального словообразования в языке рекламы // Языковая система и речевая деятельность: лингво-культурологический аспект: материалы Международной научной конференции. М., 2007. С. 13-17. [Amiri L.P. Kontaminatsiya kak raznovidnost' okkazional'nogo slovoobrazovaniya v yazyke reklamy // Yazykovaya sistema i rechevaya deyatel'nost': lingvo-kul'turologicheskiy aspekt: materialy Mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii. М., 2007. S. 13-17.]

Голодов А.Г. Контаминация как средство создания комического в отраслевой лексике // Профессиональная коммуникация: вербальные
и когнитивные аспекты: сборник докладов Международной научно-практической конференции. М., 2007. С. 35-38. [Golodov A.G. Kontaminatsiya kak sredstvo sozdaniya komicheskogo v otraslevoy leksike // Professional'naya kommunikatsiya: verbal'nye i kognitivnye aspekty: sbornik dokladov Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii. M., 2007. S. 35-38.]

Голубкова Е.Е., Таймур М.П. Факторы преодоления когнитивного диссонанса в смешанных метафорах (на материале английского языка) // Когнитивные исследования языка. 2019. Вып. XXXVI. С. 147-153. [Golubkova E.E., Taymur M.P. Faktory preodoleniya kognitivnogo dissonansa v smeshannykh metaforakh (na materiale angliyskogo yazyka) // Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka. 2019. Vyp. XXXVI. S. 147-153.]

Гусейнова Т.С. Пассионарный характер диффузной контаминации фразеологических единиц в современной газете // Известия ДГПУ. 2013. № 4. С. 60-64. [Guseynova T. S. Passionarnyy kharakter diffuznoy kontaminatsii frazeologicheskikh edinits v sovremennoy gazete // Izvestiya DGPU. 2013. № 4. S. 60-64.]

Таймур М.П. Современный английский юмор в смешанных метафорах и малафорах // Иностранные языки в школе. 2019. № 3. С. 40-43. [Taymur M.P. Sovremennyy angliyskiy yumor v smeshannykh metaforakh i malaforakh // Inostrannye yazyki v shkole. 2019. № 3. S. 40-43.]

Fauconnier G. Mental spaces. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Fillmore C. Frame semantics. University of California: Berkeley, 1982.

Harrison L. Searching for Malaphors // The Washington Post. USA: Washington, 1976. P. 4-6.

Hatfield D. He smokes like a fish and other malaphors (Unintentional idiom and word blends). USA: Westford, 2016.

Hofstadter D., Moser D. To Err Is Human; To Study Error-Making Is Cognitive Science. US: Michigan Quarterly Review. Vol. XXVII, 1989. P. 322-334.

Kimmel M. Why We Mix Metaphors (and Mix Them Well) // Journal of Pragmatics. No. 42. University of Vienna, 2009. P. 97-115.

Kövecses Z. Levels of metaphors // Cognitive linguistics, No. 28 (2). 2017. Р. 321-347.

Kövecses Z. Some consequences of a multi-level view of metaphor // Current approaches to metaphor analysis in discourse. I. Navarro (ed.) Berlin / Boston: Walter De Gruyter GmbH. 2019. P. 128-142.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. USA: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Sullivan K. Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013.

For citation:  Taymour, M. P. (2020). Multi-level analysis of mixed metaphor as a lingvo-cognitive phenomenon (based on the material of the English language). Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki, 3, 71-76. (In Russ.).

Pages:  71-76