英语论文网

tual factors and cognitive pragmatic functions, which is complementary to the study of pure metonymy and can make a finer advancement of multimodal metonymy theory to a certain extent.  

Secondly, this study is expected to bring a brand new theoretical perspective to the analysis of public service advertising. At present, the research of multimodal metonymy mainly focuses on advertising and comics. In terms of advertising, researchers pay more attention to commercial advertising and less to public service advertising. PPSAs are full of multimodal metonymy. Therefore, the research on PPSAs can contribute to the expansion and development of multimodal metonymy application on the one hand and shed new light on the cognitive mechanism of public service advertising.

Chapter Two Literature Review

2.1 Previous Studies on Conceptual Metonymy

The study of metonymy can be traced back to Aristotle’s time when metonymy was covered in metaphor theory and only regarded as a figure of speech at the linguistic level. Cicero, a rhetorician in ancient Rome, first made a special definition of metonymy. He points out that metonymy is not a direct and accurate way to say something but a rhetorical device expressed by borrowing the meaning of another thing closely related to it (Cai, 2009). From that period until the emergence of cognitive linguistics, metonymy was only regarded as a rhetorical device at the linguistic level. 

Since Lakoff and Johnson point out in their book Metaphors We live by (1980) that metonymy, like metaphor, is a way of our daily thinking and a cognitive means and tool to form our conceptual system, cognitive linguists began to study metonymy as a cognitive and conceptualization tool, and gradually constructed the conceptual metonymy theory.

The research results of metonymy abroad are mainly reflected in the study of the nature of metonymy and the classification of metonymy. Foreign linguists’ understanding of the essence of metonymy is mainly from the cognitive domain (Lakoff & Turner, 1989), domain matrix (Croft, 1993), and idealized cognitive model (Radden & Kövecses, 1999). At present, the academic circles have not reached a consensus on the classification of metonymy, and the classification standards are also different. For instance, Radden & Kövecses (1999) suggest that the types of metonymy-producing relationships may be subsumed under two general conceptual configurations:(1) Whole ICM and its part(s) (2) Parts of an ICM according to the interaction between target and vehicle in the same idealized cognitive model. Panther & Thornburg (1998) divide metonymy into referential metonymy, predicative metonymy, and illocutionary metonymy from the perspective of pragmatic function. Ruiz de Mendoza (2000) classifies metonymy into source-in-target metonymy and target-in-source metonymy according to the interaction between the target domain and the source domain in metonymy. Peirsman & Geeraerts (2006) propose the classification of metonymy from the perspective of prototype theory.

2.2 Previous Studies on Multimodal Metonymy

In the 1990s, a group of scholars, represented by Forceville, extended the study of conceptual metaphor from the purely linguistic level to the pictorial level and conducted a systematic study of pictorial metaphor. Later, For本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。