Diskursmetaphorik und ihre sprachlichen Indikatoren sowie Textmuster im literarischen Diskurs „Ich und Kaminski“ von Daniel Kehlmann

• Authors: Péter-Szabó Renáta

Title variants

EN

Discourse Metaphors and their Linguistic Indicators as well as their Textual Patterns in the German Literary Discourse “Ich und Kaminski” by Daniel Kehlmann

• Languages of publication: DE

Abstracts

EN

Metaphors were considered the research privilege of literary studies for a long time. However, with the cognitive turn of the 1980s a new approach emerged in modern linguistics, and linguists, for the first time, turned sharply away from the classic rhetorical understanding of metaphor. With Lakoff and Johnson’s cognitive metaphor theory („Metaphors we live by,” 1980), a new linguistic discipline emerged that recognized metaphors as conventionalized linguistic units and even extended their capacity for understanding the human cognition. Although the cognitive approach brought an innovative direction to linguistics, it was viewed critically mainly by discourse linguists, who, unlike cognitive linguists, argued for a contextual interpretation of linguistic metaphors. As a result of the lively critical exchange between the two approaches, the metaphor analysis of the discourse dynamics framework emerged, which examines linguistic metaphors in their discourses in a context-dependent manner and conceptualizes them on the basis of their discourse metaphoricity. This study analyzes metaphors in this discourse metaphorical sense and aims to elaborate discourse metaphoricity of the source domain darkness and to represent the identified discourse metaphoricity with the help of linguistic indicators. In doing so, the paper addresses the so-called gradability of metaphoricity, which, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been explored in the sense of this study. The paper analyzes discourse metaphors based on the cognitive tension between their source and target domains, answering the following questions: Are the identified metaphors strong and active ones („first-level metaphors”) or linguistically (strongly) conventionalized ones, whereby they unfold their metaphoricity only through discourse dynamics („second-level metaphors”)? By which linguistic indicators do metaphors become noticeable and how are these indicators to be described? Methodological means of the analysis are the metaphor identification method MIPVU with my own study-specific operationalizations, working methods of the discourse dynamics framework and discourse linguistic results on discourse dynamics. The corpus is the German literary text „Ich und Kaminski” by Daniel Kehlmann. As a result of the analysis, it was found that discourse metaphors also manifest below the text surface and are capable of becoming noticeable through a variety of indicators.

Keywords

EN

metaphor; discourse metaphor; discourse textual patterns; metaphor identification

• Publisher: Oficyna Wydawnicza ATUT – Wrocławskie Wydawnictwo Oświatowe
• Journal: Linguistische Treffen in Wrocław
• Year: 2021
• Issue: 19
• Pages: 449-462

Dates

published

2021-06-17

Contributors

author

Péter-Szabó Renáta

• Universität Erfurt, Erfurt

References

• Kehlmann, Daniel. Ich und Kaminski. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2015. Print.
• Binal, Irene. Der Biograf und sein Opfer. 7.3.2003. www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/schriftsteller-daniel-kehlmann-der-biograf-und-sein-opfer-a-239045.html. 21.1.2021.
• Bolinger, Dwight. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press, 1971. Print.
• Cameron, Lynne. „Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research“. Researching and applying metaphor. Hrsg. Lynne Cameron und Graham Low. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 3–28. Print.
• Cameron, Lynne. „The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor“. Metaphor analysis. Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. Hrsg. Lynne Cameron und Robert Maslen. London, Oakville: Equinox, 2010, 77–94. Print.
• Cameron, Lynne und Alice Deignan. „Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse“. Metaphor and Symbol 18 (2003): 149–160. Print.
• Cameron, Lynne und Juurd H. Stelma. „Metaphor clusters in discourse“. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (2004): 107–136. Print.
• Dorst, Aletta G. „Textual patterning of metaphor“. The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language. Hrsg. Elena Semino und Zsófia Demjén. London, New York: Routledge, 2017, 178–192. Print.
• Goatly, Andrew. The language of metaphors. London: Routledge, 1997. Print.
• Hampe, Beate. „Embodiment and discourse: Dimensions and dynamics of contemporary metaphor theory“. Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse. Hrsg. Beate Hampe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, 3−23. Print.
• Kittay, Eva. Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Print.
• Koller, Veronika. „Businesswomen and war metaphors. ‘Possessive, jealous and pugnacious?’“. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8 (2004): 3–22. Print.
• Kövecses, Zoltán. Metaphor. A practical introduction. Second edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.
• Lakoff, George und Mark Johnson. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. Print.
• Müller, Cornelia. Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking. A dynamic view. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Print.
• Péter-Szabó, Renáta. „Sprachliche Asymmetrien von Diskursmetaphern des Themenkomplexes „Dunkelheit“ im literarischen Kontext“. Sprache – Diskurs – Kontext. Auslandsgermanistik im 21. Jahrhundert. Komorner Germanistische Beiträge. Band 1. Hrsg. Anita Braxatorisová, Erzsébet Drahota-Szabó, Attila Mészáros und László V. Szabó. Komárno: 2020. www.pf.ujs. sk/documents/books/05_BRAXATORIS_et_al_Sprache.pdf. 9.3.2021.
• Semino, Elena. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print.
• Siefkes, Martin. „Wie wir den Zusammenhang von Texten, Denken und Gesellschaft verstehen. Ein semiotisches 4-Ebenen-Modell der Diskursanalyse“. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 35 (2013): 353–391. Print.
• Steen, Gerard. „Metaphor and literary comprehension. Towards a discourse theory of metaphor in literature“. Poetics 18 (1989): 113–141. Print.
• Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr und Trijntje Pasma. A method for linguistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010. Print.
• Tourangeau, Roger und Robert J. Sternberg. „Aptness in metaphor“. Cognitive Psychology 13 (1981): 27–55. Print.
• Vollers, Elisabeth. „Metapher“. Metzler Lexikon Sprache. 5., aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage. Hrsg. Helmut Glück und Michael Rödel. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2016, 428–429. Print.
• Werth, Paul. Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. First edition. Baskerville: Longman, 1999. Print.
• Wheelwright, Philip. The burning fountain. A study in the language of symbolism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1954. Print.
• Zinken, Jörg. „Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies“. Cognitive Linguistics 18 (2007): 445–466. Print.

Identifiers

DOI

10.23817/lingtreff.19-28