Metonymy and Euphemisms

In the previous chapter I presented the default cases of metonymy and how cognitive and communicative principles govern the pickaxe of a preferred metonymic vehicle. These principles enable us to understand why we choose certain entities to access a target and why many vehicle-to-target routes contribute been conventionalized in the language. However, it sometimes occurs that cognitive and communicative principles be overridden beca consumption of the speakers expressive needs or a particular social situation.The trespass of the principles in question may result in the use of metonymy ground euphemisms which I will try to explore in the following discussion. As it was mentioned before, on that point are certain cognitive and communicative principles which count for the choice of preferred metonymic vehicles. Among cognitive principles we distinguish for manikin, the HUMAN OVER NON-HUMAN, the CONCRETE OVER ABSTRACT, the intelligent GESTALT OVER POOR GESTALT or the SPECIFIC OVER GENERIC principle. Kovecses and Radden (1998 45-50) notice that cognitive principles mainly contribute to human experience, perceptual selectivity and cultural preference.Most of the sights conceptualizations is affected by our human experiences and perceptions. Thus, we attach greater importance to things that we give the gate easily perceive and interact with. Cultural preferences are also prodigious factors in determining our choice of certain vehicles in metonymy. Therefore, we often select the stereotypical, ideal or typical members of a category to stand for that category. In the example He has a great heart the cognitive principle CONCRETE OVER ABSTRACT is applied.The hearer encounters no difficulty in understanding the metonymy since we hightail it to refer to concrete physical object which are more salient than abstract entities. Thus the hearer knows that the speaker is talking about a mortal who is very harming and not about one whose heart has a large size. T he default selection of a metonymic vehicle is also refractory by two communicative principles, namely the principle of clarity and the principle of relevance. Entities that are clear and relevant are more preferred to those that are slight clear and relevant.Therefore, in a sentence people achieve the intended target effortlessly since the principle CLEAR OVER OBSCURE governs the understanding of the metonymy. Yet, as Radden and Kovecses (1998 53) state, cognitive and communicative principles account for the choice of default routes, they are unable to explain the selection of non-default cases of metonymy. One of the examples of non-default routes are metonymic euphemisms. Radden and Kovecses (1998 53) suggest that what may account for the non-default selection is social considerations.It means that the speaker refrains from uttering a clear, literal expression because he does not want to sound vulgar or indiscrete. The authors (1998 52) also jut out that rhetorical prepares m ay be an some other reason for choosing a non-default route. The examples of these strategies will be presented later in the discussion. First, however, the term euphemism has to be explained and reasons for its incident in language explored. The word euphemism is of a Greek origin and it means good sounding, good auguring, mild. In dictionaries it is shaped as a rhetorical device.Since Polish and position examples of metonymy-based euphemisms will be presented in the paper, I will give some explanations of the term in question coming from Polish and English linguistic sources. Dictionary of Contemporary English (1990 346) gives the following definition the use of a pleasanter, less direct name for something thought to be unpleasant. Allan and Burridge (1991 14) purpose that euphemisms are alternatives to dispreferred expressions and are used to avoid possible loss of face either ones own or, by giving offense, that of the audience, or of some third party.Another explanation com es from Polish. All in all, as Dabrowska (1993 51) summarizes euphemisms are all those words or phrases that bring positive or so-so(p) connotations. They are used to avoid or soothe a name of dispreferred expression and the reasons for the occurrence of euphemisms are paralinguistic (psychological, social, ideological or political). That is to say, euphemisms are widely active in language in response to prohibiteds. Generally speaking, a taboo is prohibition of certain behaviours (including language ones) that can bring harm or perplexity to the hearer.As there is a wide spectrum of areas where the term taboo operates, different definitions of this phenomenon exist. Nevertheless, as Dabrowska (1993 17) points out, almost all the explanations which appear in dictionaries, encyclopaedias and linguistic papers define taboo as a prohibition of a certain type, a phenomenon which should be avoided or treated economic aidfully because of the possession of harmful, dangerous powers. A taboo guards certain human values and social norms.Since a taboo is a ban of certain behaviours it also refers to the linguistic behaviour. It means that some words are forbidden to be communicated or preferred to be avoided. The reasons for the avoidance are mainly connected with religious beliefs, superstitions, death, end up or politics. Thus, what the speaker can do is either not to use a prohibited expression or to substitute it for another one euphemism. In other words, a euphemism is a linguistic response to a ban of uttering certain words.Let us now discuss the reasons that stand behind the appearance of a linguistic taboo and therefore, the occurrence of euphemisms. In the past, people were afraid of referring directly to the names of certain supernatural beings and to the names of certain animals. They believed that those creatures possessed some magical and supernatural powers. Thus, people matt-up fear and anxiety for them and did not mention directly the names of God or such animals as a bear or a lion. It resulted in expressions the Lord or the All-Mighty.Ullmann (1967 205-6) calls this phenomenon taboo of fear. Dabrowska (1993 27-8) observes that this kind of motivation was stronger in the past but it cannot be stated that it is not present currently. Nowadays, euphemistic expressions do by fear are those associated with the devil. Holders (1987 ) gives such instances as Lord of the flies, black gentleman, Old Scratch and Ullmann (1967 205) lists Nick and Hangie. Many scholars notice that the use of euphemisms is determined by courtesy, kindness and delicacy.The speaker avoids expressions that can offend or distress the hearer. Ullmann and Kany (1967 206-7) call this phenomenon taboo of delicacy. Due to the existence of taboo of delicacy we do not talk explicitly about death, diseases, physical and mental defects or criminal actions, especially when they directly involve our interlocutors. For example, instead of adopting very explicit verb to die we may substitute it for a euphemistic phrase to pass away which seems to be a milder and more appropriate form in many cases.In other situations the use of euphemisms is motivated by taboo of propriety (Ullmann, 1967 207-8). Norms of decency make people avoid a direct reference to such topics as sex, swearing or certain body parts and their functions. The speakers decency, modesty and sometimes his embarrassment refrain him from mentioning troublesome subjects directly. Therefore, one can talk about having sex using a euphemistic expression to sleep with. It is also very common that people ask about the location of a place where they can wash their hands or powder their nose, meaning a toilet.Leszczynski (1988 22) observes that avoiding certain expressions is caused also by the speakers disapproval of some words or phrases. Thus, the speaker does not use these words or tries to communicate them in a milder and more pleasant way. Leszczynski (1988 22) emphasizes that a very s ignificant factor which motivates the use of euphemisms is on the one hand, the protection of hearers feelings and sensitivity and on the other, the protection of the speaker himself. The former situation results from the speakers echt care about his interlocutor or his false concern which only aims at avoiding peoples disapproval.With respect to the protection of the speaker, he either believes in what he is saying or wants to meet with the acceptance of society. As Dabrowska (1993 26-7) points out, the speakers use of euphemisms in response to the taboo of propriety may be an effect of hypocrisy. The author (1993 26-7) claims that people sometimes do not make a direct reference to certain body parts and bodily functions not because of their real need but because of being prudish. Dabrowska (1993 27) also observes that the speakers cunning and his self-interest is a highly common factor for euphemizing.In order to take a shit the hearers positive attitude, that is necessary to at tain certain goal, the speaker emphasizes the value of certain things. He presents himself and his actions in the most favourable light and raises their prestige. This kind of behaviour aims at bewitching hearers and making them, for instance, to buy certain advertised products or, in politics, to believe in politicians good intentions. Motivation based on cunning and the speakers self-interest is characteristic for euphemisms present in the language of advertising, politics, propaganda and diplomacy.For example, it is politically correct to use an expression excess of exertion force instead of unemployment. In the language of politics we frequently hear about price regulation which is a gentler phrase for rise in prices. As it was presented, there are numerous factors that school the use of euphemistic expressions. Similarly, a wide spectrum of linguistic ways for euphemizing exist. One of them is metonymy which is commonly used to employ euphemisms in language.Just to remind, We bsters Third New International Dictionary ( ) defines metonymy as a substitution of the name of one entity for the name of another entity on the condition that these entities are related to each other. Radden and Kovecses (1999 18) add that the substitution of entities is not enough. What is essential is that metonymy interrelates these entities to form a new, complex meaning. Langacker (1993 30) perceives metonymy as a reference-point phenomenon in which a reference point an entity evoked by a metonymic expression makes possible accessing the desired target.