PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF THE CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR „TIME IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY“ IN SERBIAN AND ENGLISH

АУТОР(И): Nina Ž. Manojlović

Е-АДРЕСА: nina.manojlovic@filum.kg.ac.rs

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/LIPAR81.081M

САЖЕТАК:

The conceptual metaphor time  is  money/ (valuable) commodity  is considered to be fairly new and its origins are a matter of debate. Some researchers believe that cultural changes brought about this particular conceptualization, while others claim that the inherent finiteness of time is the basis for viewing time as something valuable. The aim of this paper is to examine the pragmatic aspects of concretizations of the said metaphor in Serbian and English. Namely we aim to investigate, within the framework of cognitive-inferential pragmatics, the possibility of certain expressions being an instance of descriptive and/or interpretative use of language. The theoretical framework is relevance theory and two approaches to metaphoric expressions taken into account are explicature analysis and modified explicature analysis. The analysis comprises examples of conceptual metaphors time is a (limited) resource (since we believe it serves as a basis for further elaboration and profiling value when it comes to mapping on the examined target domain) and time is a valuable commodity with special attention dedicated to examples of the conceptual metaphor time is money. The results show that speakers of English and Serbian conceptualize time in a similar way when it comes to the source domains resource and valuable commodity (attested metaphors include time has a price, time is for sale, etc.). When it comes to the pragmatic aspects of our analysis, the results point to the adequacy of both interpretative and descriptive approach to the interpretation of metaphoric expressions, depending on the entrenchment and routinization of an expression.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:

conceptual metaphor, time, resource, valuable commodity, cross-domain mapping, explicature approach, modified explicature approach, ad hoc concept

ЛИТЕРАТУРА:

Sources:

Serbian Language:

• (Ars) Arsenijević 2008: V. Arsenijević, Predator, Beograd: Samizdat B92. (Bas) Basara 1985: S. Basara, Fama o biciklistima, Beograd: Dereta.
• (Bec) Bećković 1985: М. Бећковић, О међувремену, Београд: Београдски издавачко- графички завод.
• (Bug) Bugarski 1995: Р. Бугарски, Увод у општу лингвистику, Београд: Завод за уџбенике и наставна средства.
• (Dem) Demić 2006: M. Demić, Sluge hirovitog lučonoše, Zrenjanin: Agora. (Pav) Pavić 2014: M. Pavić, Hazarski rečnik, Beograd: Vulkan izdavaštvo. (Pol) Politika, 2001, August; texts by various authors.

English language:

• (Ad) Adams 2005, D. Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, London: Pan Books.
• (Kaz) Ishiguro 2015: K. Ishiguro, The Buried Giant, London: Faber & Faber Ltd.
• (Crys) Crystal 2003: D. Crystal, English as a Global Language, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• (Sim) Simak 1963: C. D. Simak, Way Station, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. (Urs) Le Guin 1975: U. Le Guin, The Dispossessed, New York: Avon Books.
• (Fitz) Fitzgerald 1994: F. S. Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, London: Penguin Books Ltd.
• (NYT) The New York Times, 2001, texts by various authors.
• (UKN) Daily Express and Sunday Express, 2006, texts by various authors.

Dictionaries:

• RMS: Rečnik srpskoga jezika, Novi Sad: Matica srpska (2007).
• MD: Macmillan Dictionary (https://www.macmillandictionary.com). LD: Longman Dictionary (https://www.ldoceonline.com).
• MWD: Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/). CD: Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/).

References

• Bach 1994: K. Bach, Conversational implicature, Mind and Language, 9(2), 124‒162.
• Carston 2002a: R. Carston, Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word meaning–more questions than answers, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 83‒105.
• Carston 2002b: R. Carston, Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Carston 2010: R. Carston, Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3), 295‒321.
• Evans 2003: V. Evans, The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Grady et al. 1999: J. Grady, A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance, in: R. W. Gibbs, G. J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79–100.
• Grice 1989: H. P. Grice, Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Klikovac 1998: D. Klikovac, Metafore naše nasušne, Svet reči: srednjoškolski časopis za srpski jezik i književnost, 6(8), 35‒37.
• Lakoff and Johnson 1980/2003: G. Lakoff, M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live by, Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Manojlović 2021: Н. Манојловић, време као циљни домен у српском и енглеском језику, необјављена докторска дисертација, Крагујевац: Филолошко-уметнички факултет.
• Manojlović 2022: Н. Манојловић, Метафоре у комуникацији – теорија хотимичне метафоре и модификована експликатурна анализа, Српски језик: студије српске и словенске, 27, 215–230.
• Manojlović in print: Н. Манојловић, Метафора и семантичко-прагматички интерфејс, Српски језик: студије српске и словенске, 28.
• Mišković-Luković 2013: M. Mišković-Luković, Od fikcije ka realnosti: leksika kao osnova za generiranje stereotipa, u: B. Mišić Ilić i V. Lopičić (ur.), Jezik, književnost, vrednosti: zbornik radova. Jezička istraživanja, Niš: Filozofski fakultet, 47‒63.
• Mišković-Luković 2014: M. Mišković-Luković, Doslovno i figurativno značenje: pragmatičke perspektive, u: M. Kovačević (ur.), Srpski jezik, književnost, umetnost, Kragujevac: Filološko-umetnički fakultet, 345‒355.
• Mišković-Luković 2015: M. Mišković-Luković, Pragmatika, Kragujevac: Filološko- umetnički fakultet.
• Rasulić and Mišković-Luković 2021: К. Расулић, М. Мишковић-Луковић, Шта спаја а шта раздваја когнитивнолингвистички и когнитивнопрагматички приступ метафори?, Липар, 72, 11–45.
• Reijnierse et al. 2019: W.G. Reijnierse, C. Burgers, T. Krennmayr, G.J. Steen, Metaphor in communication: The distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class, Corpora, 14(3), 30–326.
• Sperber and Wilson 1986/95: D. Sperber, D. Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Steen 2008. G. Steen, The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor, Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213‒241.
• Steen 2011: G. Steen, From three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate metaphor, Metaphorik.de, 21, 83‒110.
• Steen 2015: G. Steen, Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory, Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67‒72.
• Steen, Dorst et al. 2010: G. Steen, A. Dorst, J. Herrmann, A. Kaal, T. Krennmayr, T. Pasma, A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Tendahl 2009: M. Tendahl, A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Tendahl and Gibbs 2008: M. Tendahl, R. W. Gibbs, Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory, Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823‒1864.
• Wilson 2011: D. Wilson, Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics, Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 177‒196.
• Wilson and Carston 2006: D. Wilson, R. Carston, Metaphor, relevance and the ’emergent property’ issue, Mind & Language, 21(3), 404‒433.