Contrastive Analysis of Metonymy in Persian and French Journalistic Texts

Document Type : Research

Authors

Uu

Abstract

Journalistic texts are decorated with metonymy in all the fields especially in the political texts. Understanding this figure of speech and its translation in the target language is a challenge with which interpreters usually encounter. In this study, we attempt to explore the role of metonymy in some samples of journalistic texts of Persian and French with the aim of detecting the similarities and differences of the use of this figure of speech in these two languages.
The findings indicate that metonymy is not exclusively used to adorn journalistic texts; rather, it can have various functions such as language enrichment, avoidance of repetition, implication, etc. Besides, in French and Iranian rhetoric, there are disagreements among experts about this figure of speech, which makes the contrastive analysis of metonymy more difficult. It should be noted that definitions put forward by both French and Iranian rhetoricians suffer from some shortcomings. French and Persian rhetoricians classify metonymy in terms of contiguity and similarity respectively. There are disagreements about certain means of expression such as epanodos among French and Iranian rhetoricians. On the other hand, according to cognitive linguists, metonymy is linked to cultural patterns. Different syntactic structures and semantic fields and above all cultural differences between French and Persian make the translation of metonymy complicated. In addition, translation and its study which belong to the field of comparative linguistics can be crucial to detect cultural similarities and differences between the two languages. The results of translation suggest that metonymies linked to the different cultural patterns may not have metonymic equivalents in the target language and the translator is thus obliged to appeal to direct referents. But concerning metonymies linked to the different cultural patterns which have metonymic equivalents of the same class or another class with the same implied value in the target language, using cultural metonymic equivalents may lead to misunderstanding among the speakers of the target language. Thus, it is better to appeal to semantic substitution.
 

Keywords

References

Afrasiabi, GH.R. ; Jafari, M.M. & Bahtouei, H. (2006). «A study of metonymy». Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities of Shiraz University, 25, 3, pp.1-16.
- ALIC, L. (undated). « Le langage des médias: unité dans la diversité». ˂http://www.upm.ro/Lucrari3/franceza˃
 
- Arnaud, P.J.L. (2011). «Détecter, classer et traduire les métonymies (anglais et français)». ˂ https://perso.univ-lyon2.fr˃
- Barcelona, A. (2011). «The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy». In Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads a cognitive perspective (pp. 7-48). (Translated by T. Amrollahi). Tehran: Naghshejahan.
- Bonhomme, M. (2006) .Le discours métonymique. Berne: Peter Lang.
-                            (1987). Linguistique de la métonymie. Berne: Peter Lang.
- Dad, S. (2006). Dictionary of literary terms. Tehran: Morvarid.
-Ðǎng, N.Q.N. (2011). «Étude de la rhétorique dans des titres d'articles de presse français». ˂ https://tailieuso.udn.vn/TTH_125 ˃
-Djalili Marrand, N. (2011). Dictionnaire du langage des médias (français-persan). Téhéran: Université Alzahra.
- Golriz, H. (2001). A dictionary of money, banking and international finance. Tehran: Farhangmoaser.
- HOUBERT, F. (2001). «Problématique de la traduction économique et financière». ˂http://translationjournal.net/ journal>
- Karimi, L. (2012). «Comparing and contrasting English-Persian literary terms assumptions and limitations». Erfaniyat Dar Adab Farsi, 3, 10, pp. 111-126.
 
- Kokelberg, J. (2003). Les techniques du style (vocabulaire, figures de rhétorique, syntaxe, rythme). Paris: Nathan.
- Larson, M. L. (2008). Meaning-based translation: a guide to cross- language equivalence. (Translated by A. Rahimi). Tehran: Jangal.
- LECOLLE, M. (2003). Métonymies et figures de référenciation dans la presse écrite généraliste. Analyse sémantique et rhétorique. ˂ ftp://ftp.scd.univ-metz.fr>
 
- Le Guern, M. (1973). Sémantique de la métaphore et de la métonymie. Paris: Larousse.
 
- Radden, G. (2011). «How metonymic are metaphors? ». In Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads a cognitive perspective (pp.157-179). (Translated by L. Sadeghi). Tehran: Naghshejahan.
 
- Reiss, K. (2002). La critique des traductions, ses possibilités et ses limites.(Translated from German by Catherine Bocquet). Arras: Artois Presses Université.
- Roushan, B. ; Ardabili, L. (2012). An introduction to cognitive semantics. Tehran: Elm.
 
- RYDNING, A. (2003). «La métonymie conceptuelle». ˂ http://www.duo.uio.no>
 
- Safavi, K. (2011). An introduction to semantics. Tehran: Sooremehr.
- Shamisa, S. (2013). Figurative language. Tehran: Mitra.
- Sharifi, Sh.; Hamedi Shirvan, Z. (2014). «The effect of lexical elements on the extent of explication or implication in literary texts». Culture-Communication Studies, 15, 25, pp. 171-196.
- Tajlil, J. (1991). Maani va Bayan. 5th ed. Tehran: IUP.
 
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 10, Issue 26
April 2018
Pages 7-23

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics