ChapterPDF Available




The present paper, set within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory as originated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), focuses on the figurative expressions in English which contain the word "money" in them, more precisely those of the form adjective/noun + "money" (e.g. dirty money, green money, barren money, pin money, smart money, etc.). The analysis is based on a small data collection of 45 "money" expressions gathered from various online English dictionaries and applying a somewhat modified method for the identification of metaphorically used words (Pragglejaz Group 2007). Our main aim is to establish various conceptualisations of money, which primarily depend on the used adjectival or noun premodifier, as well as to categorise and illustrate the cognitive instruments (metaphors and metonymies, and to a lesser extent, image schemas) on which these expressions are based. The results of our analysis may contribute to the further understanding of the mechanism of coining figurative expressions in English relating to financial vocabulary.
НОВИ САД, 2016
ISBN 978-86-6065-374-3
Тематски зборник
Нови Сад, 2016
UDK 811.111`373.612.2
tatjana Đurović – nadEžda Silaški
The present paper, set within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory as originated by Lakoff and Johnson
(1980), focuses on the gurative expressions in English which contain the word “money” in them, more precisely
those of the form adjective/noun + “money” (e.g. dirty money, green money, barren money, pin money, smart
money, etc.). The analysis is based on a small data collection of 45 “money” expressions gathered from various
online English dictionaries and applying a somewhat modied method for the identication of metaphorically used
words (Pragglejaz Group 2007). Our main aim is to establish various conceptualisations of money, which primarily
depend on the used adjectival or noun premodier, as well as to categorise and illustrate the cognitive instruments
(metaphors and metonymies, and to a lesser extent, image schemas) on which these expressions are based. The
results of our analysis may contribute to the further understanding of the mechanism of coining gurative expres-
sions in English relating to nancial vocabulary.
Keywords: metaphor, metonymy, conceptualisation of money, English
The eld of business and economics is highly rich in gurative expressions and, as already con-
vincingly shown in research so far (e.g. Henderson 2000, Charteris-Black 2000, Alejo Gonzáles 2010,
2011, Silaški & Kilyeni 2014, Herrera-Soler & White 2012, etc.), it makes extensive use of metaphors
and metonymies in order to explain less easily comprehensible and loosely structured concepts. Thus,
for example, in the EconoMy iS a livinG orGaniSM metaphor, the economy is understood and talked about
in terms of an organism – it can grow, decay, be healthy, sick, etc. This metaphor is linguistically realised
by numerous metaphorical expressions, which are the result of conceptual mappings between the target
domain (EconoMy) and the source domain (livinG orGaniSM), e.g. economic growth, healthy economy,
economic disease, economic cure, infant industry, parent company, sister company (Alejo Gonzáles
2010: 1140; see also Silaški & Đurović 2010, Đurović & Silaški 2011).
Among other less structured concepts pertaining to the nancial world is the concept of money.
The various types of money that exist in the economy, due to the fact that they come in various shapes
in their real, physical form and that they are used, spent or invested for different purposes, may also
be conceptualised in a number of different ways, depending on the semantic content that needs to be
conveyed. Thus, for example, as evidenced by scholarly research so far, money can be conceptualised
as one of the three existing states of matter (liquid, solid or gas) (O’Connor 1998, Silaški 2011a, Silaški
& Kilyeni 2011, Silaški & Kilyeni 2014, etc.), shown by the following metaphorical expressions: cash
ow, money infusion, money circulation, round sum, soft currency, price bubble, wage ination, etc.
In this paper we focus on the gurative expressions in English which contain the word “money” in
them, more precisely those of the form adjective/noun + “money” (e.g. dirty money, hush money, barren
money, pin money, pocket money, blood money, etc.) in order to establish, using the theoretical framework
of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (as originally developed by Lakoff & Johnson 1980), various conceptu-
alisations of money, which primarily depend on the used adjectival or noun premodier, as well as to cate-
gorise and illustrate the cognitive instruments (metaphors and metonymies, and to a lesser extent, image
schemas) on which these expressions are based. We believe that the results of our analysis may contribute
Tatjana Đurović – Nadežda Silaški
to the further understanding of the mechanism of coining gurative expressions in English relating to -
nancial vocabulary.
The paper is set within a wider theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics, more precisely
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, Lakoff & Turner 1989, Hampe 2005, Gibbs
2008, Polzenhagen, Kövecses, Vogelbacher & Kleinke 2014, Kövecses 2010, 2015) and Conceptual
Metonymy Theory (Radden & Kövecses 1999, Radden 2000, Barcelona 2000, Panther & Thornburg
2003, Benczes, Barcelona & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 2011, Littlemore 2015). According to Concep-
tual Metaphor Theory, metaphor and metonymy are regarded not only as a textual decoration which
contri butes to the expressiveness of the text, but as having “important roles in structuring thinking and
therefore language” (Deignan 2005: 73). As “metaphor and metonymy often ‘meet’ at conceptual and
linguistic crossroads” (Barcelona 2000: 1), they cannot be easily differentiated. Lakoff and Johnson
(1980) dene metaphor as understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another or as a
partial mapping or set of correspondences between two conceptual domains which they call the source
and target domains (as already mentioned, EconoMy, being the target domain, may be conceptualised
as a livinG orGaniSM, the source domain). Although disagreements still arise among cognitive linguists
concerning many unresolved issues surrounding metonymy as a cognitive mechanism, it has now been
widely accepted that “metonymy plays a crucial part in the motivation of numerous conceptual meta-
phors” (Benczes, Barcelona & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 2011: 2). Metonymy also refers to mappings
between conceptual domains, but unlike metaphor, which entails a mapping between two conceptual do-
mains, where the source is used to structure the target, metonymy, on the other hand, is according to the
standard cognitive linguistic view understood as a conceptual projection whereby one domain is partial-
ly understood in terms of another domain included in the same experiential domain (Barcelona 2000).
It is, therefore, often understood as an intradomain phenomenon. However, unlike metaphor where
mapping from one domain to another is symmetrical, in metonymy mapping is asymmetrical – a more
salient entity provides mental access to a less salient domain or entity within the same domain (Barce-
lona 2011: 12; see also Kövecses & Radden 1998, Radden & Kövecses 1999). Many authors point out
that all metaphors are essentially metonymy-based (see e.g. Barcelona 2000, Radden & Kövecses 1999,
etc.). A metonymy-based metaphor is dened as “a mapping involving two conceptual domains which
are grounded in, or can be tracked to, one conceptual domain” (Radden 2000: 93). Metaphor used to
be claimed to be based on similarities between unlike entities. However, research has shown that some
metaphors “cannot be traced back to experiential correlations, but rather have their basis in perceived
similarities or resemblances” (Semino 2008: 7). Metonymy, on the other hand, is based on conceptual
contiguity, which is in turn grounded in “extralinguistic experiences and connotations and is therefore
culture-dependent” (Niemeier 1998: 123).
In the paper we focus on metaphor and metonymy as very productive conceptual instruments
for coining new words and expressions, as manifested in a number of various conceptual patterns these
instruments use in the process.
For the purpose of the analysis we have formed a small data collection of money expressions
gathered from various specialised online English dictionaries, glossaries and lexicons which specically
deal with the terms (words and phrases) pertaining to the world of business and nance. These sources
are available at,, www.nancial-dictionary.thefreedic-, http://www.teachme, whereas several money expressions were also collected
from The Financial Times lexicon of nancial terms available at All expressions
were of the form adjective/noun + “money”, so that the word ‘money’ serves as a head word, whereas
various adjectives, and much less frequently nouns, were used as premodiers. After applying a some-
what modied and adapted method for identifying metaphorically used words (Pragglejaz Group 2007)
to establish and check the metaphoricity of the dictionary terms as well as to establish their basic and
contextual meaning (where the contextual meaning was established according to the denition of each
entry), we collected a nal list of 45 expressions,1 out of which some will be used to illustrate our points
in the text which follows.
It is also worth mentioning that no difference is made in the paper between whether a particular
expression belongs to a formal or informal register. Therefore, both the expressions which have be-
come established nancial terms and those belonging to slang and/or colloquial language will be treated
equally in our analysis. Upon dening the nal list of gurative money expressions which served as a
basis for the analysis, we classied the expressions into several groups, according to metaphors and
metonymies (as well as image schemas) which participated in the construction of their meaning. In the
sections which follow, we will present some of those categories and explain how the meaning of money
expressions is constructed through the cognitive mechanisms of metaphor and metonymy.
4.1. Human being
The following adjective + “money” expressions from our data – ‘barren money’, ‘mad money’,
dead money’, smart money’, earnest money’ and ‘idle money’ are all instantiations of the MonEy iS
huMan metaphor. This huMan or PErSon metaphor is one of the most persuasive ways of structuring
abstract concepts in the language of business and economics (see e.g. Charteris-Black & Musolff 2003,
Charteris-Black 2004, Đurović & Silaški 2011, Herrera-Soler & White 2012, etc.). All these money
expressions are grounded on personication, which may be conceived of as a form of ontological meta-
phor providing a certain existential status for the target domain (Kövecses 2006: 128), that of intangible
phenomenon of money. Personication allows us to “comprehend a wide variety of experiences with
nonhuman entities in terms of human motivations, characteristics, and activities” (Lakoff & Johnson
1980: 33). Hence the abstract concept of money, when compounded with human qualities, is made an-
thropomorphic thus easier to comprehend and deal with, since “personication makes use of one of the
best source domains we have – ourselves” (Kövecses 2010: 39).
The common target gurative meaning of the three money expressions – barren money’, idle
money’ and dead money’ – as EarninG no intErESt is activated when the notions of being unable to
have offspring, unwillingness to do any activity that requires effort, and demise or the termination of
life, all deeply founded on human physical and mental states, begin to modify the abstract concept of
money in such a way which enables us to conceive of money as a person. In other words, the MonEy iS
huMan metaphor evokes the EarninG no intErESt iS a barrEn/idlE/dEad PErSon mappings, respectively.
The semantic ‘load’ of these adjectival premodiers when pertaining to money proles money such that
1) it is unproductive, similar to a person who is childless; 2) it does not earn any appreciable amount of
interest and gradually loses its value resting on conceptualising money via one of the behavioural traits
of humans – laziness; and 3) it is unable to turn around and start to bring back the interest and the lost
value, drawing on viewing money in terms of the termination or the end of life.
The ‘mad money’ expression tends to impart the meaning of one among many human attributes
– anger or upset. Originally, the meaning of ‘mad money’ is highly context-dependent as it pertains to
money that a woman has if she gets mad at her date so that she can get herself home. Since it is usually
linked to rather small amounts, it has developed a new meaning which relates to the sum used for small
1 A full list of 45 “money” expressions is provided in the Appendix.
Tatjana Đurović – Nadežda Silaški
purchases, eventually resulting in the sense of the sum of money to be spent frivolously, in a mad way,
on the spur of the moment, like the one involved in impulse buying. We may assume here that the ‘mad
money’ expression, since it relates to one of the emotional states of humans, that of anger whose one
of the source domains, according to Kövecses (1986, 2000), Lakoff and Kövecses (1987), is inSanity
(anGEr iS inSanity), besides the general MonEy iS huMan metaphor, also connotes a loss of control and
judgement, reminiscent in the present meaning of mad money’ of losing control as to the way how
money is spent. Hence, attributing animate characteristic of being mad to inanimate object of money is
more than evident.
Human-like characteristics are also attributed to viewing money as smart in the expression ‘smart
money’. Its meaning again borrows two of the human traits – intelligence and smartness. These traits, at-
tached to the concept of money, give rise to the meaning of this metaphorical expression as investments
made by those considered to be sophisticated, experienced and well-informed, who may have better
understanding of the nancial markets than others.
Athropomorphism of money is also witnessed in the last example of the MonEy iS huMan meta-
phor, that of ‘earnest money’, which is dened as “a deposit paid by a buyer to a seller to demonstrate
intention to complete the purchase”. The attribute of being earnest and serious about the purchase meta-
phorically stands for reliability and honesty in the earnest money’ expression. This metaphorical ex-
pression, together with the previous ones belonging to the MonEy iS huMan metaphor, is yet another evi-
dence that “the abstract is made tangible and given meaning through the use of conventional know ledge
about the existence and behaviour of living things” (Charteris-Black 2000: 158-159). In personifying
and conceiving of money as a human being, we can comprehend this nonhuman concept in a better,
more structured way.
4.2. Money as an object
Another mode of mental representation of money in terms of accessible experience is by viewing
it as an object. Conceptualising money in this way is experientially grounded in our physical (and so-
cial) interaction with our own bodies and with other entities in the world. The majority of our examples
belonging to the MonEy iS an objEct metaphor relate to perceiving money as a solid matter stretch
money’, ‘tight money’, hard money’, ‘soft money’, and ‘heavy money’, which conjures up the qualities
of solid substances, such as taking up space, three-dimensionality, weight, shape, volume, cohesion, i.e.
“[t]he dening features for solid” (O’Connor 1998: 142). Perceiving money as an object made of solid
substance is a type of ontological metaphor which permits us to “give[s] shape to abstract concepts and
help[s] us view them in terms of entities, allowing us to speak of them as objects or bounded spaces”
(Silaški & Kilyeni 2014: 75). Similarly to the previous MonEy iS huMan metaphorical expressions, in
all these expressions which ‘objectify’ money, individual premodiers by way of pinpointing various
attributes of objects, here texture (‘stretch money’ vs. tight money’), rmness (‘hard money’ vs. soft
money’), and weight (‘heavy money’), lend meaning to these metaphorically-based money expressions.
The rst set of “money” expressions – ‘stretch money’ and ‘tight money’ are linguistic realisations of the
MonEy iS ElaStic SubStancE/MattEr mapping. Thus, ‘stretch money’ refers to economising so that one’s
money lasts longer, which rests on viewing money as an elastic, exible fabric which may be stretched
beyond its original size. Hence the idea of ‘elasticity’ in spatial terms is mapped onto ‘elasticity’ in tem-
poral terms as manifested in a metaphorical sense of ‘stretch money’ expression, where a high degree
of elasticity may be viewed as accessibility and availability. In contrast, tight money’, by connoting
money or loans which are very difcult to obtain (because of the high interest rates), communicates the
idea of losing elasticity and being close in texture, which in turn stands for inaccessibility.
The composite, metaphorical meaning of ‘hard money’ and ‘soft money’ dwells on the aspects
of cohesion and rmness of an object or substance, which when mapped onto money, give rise to the
MonEy iS a tanGiblE hard/SoFt MattEr mapping (see Silaški & Kilyeni 2014: 77). ‘Hard money’, which
refers to money in the form of bills and coins, as opposed to checks or credit cards, underscores the
quality of rmness and solidity of a substance which metaphorically relates to stability and reliability.
Moreover, the fact that the money such as bills and coins is tangible and visible “somehow adds not only
to its reliability and safety but also to its availability, as the access to it is easy and instant” (Silaški &
Kilyeni 2014: 77). Conversely, the softness of material, as reected in either one or the other meaning of
soft money’ – paper currency, as opposed to gold, silver, or some other coined metal or the “one-time”
funding from governments and organisations for a project or special purpose – is viewed as intangible,
unstable and unreliable, presupposing a degree of risk. By mapping the aspect of weight onto the aspect
of amount leads to metaphorical expression of ‘heavy money’ as yet another realisation of MonEy aS an
objEct metaphor. Though being founded on another dening feature of an object, that of mass instead
of rmness, ‘heavy money’, referring to impressive sums of money, similarly to ‘hard money’ also con-
notes stability, certainty and reliability.
The last two linguistic realisations of the MonEy iS an objEct metaphor are a pair dirty money’
and ‘clean money’, referring to money obtained unlawfully or immorally, and converting money gained
through illicit activity into a form that can be used legitimately, respectively. There are two underlying
mappings involved in the resultant meaning of these two expressions – iMMoral iS dirty (as composed of
iMMoral iS bad and bad iS dirty) and Moral iS clEan (Moral iS Good + Good iS clEan). Since the concept
of morality is concerned with well-being, which may result in different correlations: morality as cleanli-
ness and purity and immorality as rot (see Lakoff & Johnson 1980, Lakoff 1995), among other things,
dirty money’ and clean money’ expressions adopt this evaluative connotation as well. More speci-
cally, the scale or degree of cleanliness is mapped onto a scale of moral goodness, reected in lawful or
unlawful character of money.
Due to space constraints, we have presented only two metaphors,2 one where money is anthro-
pomorphised – MonEy iS huMan, and another where money is objectied – MonEy iS an objEct, which
nevertheless allows us not only to understand the concept of money in a more accessible and structured
way, but also to systematically analyse how the meaning of the selected money expressions is activated
by metaphor. In the section which follows we try to show how this systematicity of meaning is achieved
by another cognitive mechanism metonymy, and to illustrate the metonymic grounding of several
other money expressions.
Metonymy is also known to be very productive in the word formation and the meaning con-
struction processes. In our data collection, various types of metonymy are at work, each functioning
differently depending on the saliency of attributes or the typicality of various categories involved in a
particular conceptualisation of money.
5.1. Colours
Not surprisingly, having in mind that “[c]olours [...] can be regarded as a concept widely inter-
nalised and widely shared within a language community [...] prone to give rise to numerous meaning
extensions in diverse types of metonymy” (Niemeier 1998: 124), in a number of gurative money ex-
pressions, the premodier is the name of a colour (e.g. black money’, white money’, blue money’,
yellow money’, ‘green money’, ‘grey money’, ‘pink money’). In these expressions there is an exten-
sion of the basic meaning of colours via metonymy, whereas these metonymic mappings form the basis
2 Another metaphor also worth mentioning here is StartinG uP a buSinESS iS GrowinG a Plant, on which the expression ‘seed
money’ is based, resting on to Start or crEatE a coMPlEx SyStEM iS to Sow a SEEd metaphor (Kövecses 2010: 128), originating
from a more general metaphor thE coMPlEx abStract SyStEMS arE PlantS (Kövecses 2010: 126).
Tatjana Đurović – Nadežda Silaški
for understanding the money expressions containing a colour term as metaphors. As Philip (2006: 59)
points out, “all colours have a prototypical realisation – the focal point on the spectrum at which the hue
is deemed to be the ‘best example’ of the colour.” Thus, the most basic meaning of green in English re-
fers to items which are green in nature, such as green leaves, green grass and green trees. This universal
meaning of the colour green has found its place in many expressions in business and economics vocabu-
lary where green metonymically stands for nature, ecology, concern for the environment, the conserva-
tion of natural resources, and the like. This “environmental and ecological meaning of green” (Philip
2006: 83) is reected in the expression green money, money used for ecological purposes and invested
in ecologically sound projects. According to Niemeier (1998: 131-134), this metonymy is relatively new
as “it only developed with the ecological movement”, in the mid-1980s.3
The expression yellow money’ derives its meaning from the fact that gold, a precious metal of
intrinsic value once used as a medium of exchange, was frequently used in trade in the past. Therefore,
the colour yellow metonymically stands for gold and attributes the meaning to the expression ‘yellow
money’, a colloquial name for gold money.
Another example of this kind is an antonymic pair of expressions, namely black money and white
money. In these two expressions, we also witness a major role that metonymy plays in the construction
of meaning. Namely, the black For illEGal metonymy forms the basis for the construction of meaning
of the expression ‘black money’, where the colour ‘black’ stands for any illegal activity through which
money is earned and, as such, is not taxed. Quite the opposite, the whitE For lEGal metonymy is re-
sponsible for the meaning of the expression ‘white money’ – money that is earned legally, or on which
the necessary tax is paid. The colour grey lies in-between the two opposite extremes, black and white,
and therefore presents a milder form of the concept ‘illegal’ – ‘grey money’ is the money derived from
tax evasion and is similar to but still distinct from ‘black money’, which is the revenue from a criminal
enterprise, such as drug dealing. Thus, grey does stand for illegal, but the illegal act through which ‘grey
money’ is derived is less severe than the activity which helps in generating ‘black money’. The choice of
the colour grey here is probably due to the concept of indeterminability, which is one of the connotations
of the colour grey, as evidenced by the expressions grey area or grey economy. Finally, the expression
pink money’ describes the purchasing power of the gay community, often especially with respect to
political donations. As already established by research, a metonymic link may be affected by cultural
context, i.e. culture-based knowledge (Benczes 2006). Namely, the most prominent connotation of the
colour pink in Anglo-Saxon culture is that of femininity. Being traditionally the colour of little girls, as
opposed to blue for little boys, pink is thought of as a feminine, delicate colour and is often associated
with gay community. Hence the meaning of ‘pink money’.
5.2. The PART-FOR-WHOLE relationship
The Part-For-wholE metonymy,4 a relationship which is motivated by the cognitive principle tyPi-
cal ovEr non-tyPical (when “typical members of a category are picked out when a category as a whole
is described” [Radden & Kövecses 1999: 45]), plays a major role in the construction of meaning of the
expressions such as ‘key money’, ‘pin money’, ‘pocket money’, etc. where “key”, “pin” and “pocket”
stand for a salient feature which needs to be emphasised.
Thus, the expression ‘key money’, meaning “money that someone renting a house or at gives to
the owner as a deposit”, is a an outstanding example of the Part-For-wholE metonymy, where the “key”,
without which one cannot enter a house, stands for the entity (a at or a house, or any property for that
matter) the buyer wants to pay for to secure the sale. The expression ‘pin money’, on the other hand,
also resting on the tyPical ovEr non-tyPical cognitive principle, needs a historical explanation in that it
3 For a more detailed account of the gurative uses of colours in some business-related expressions in English see Silaški
4 The Part-For-wholE metonymy has traditionally been referred to as synecdoche.
originates from the late 17th century and originally denoted an allowance made to a woman for dress and
other personal expenses by her husband, including hair pins, hence the expression ‘pin money’. Here,
the “pin” stands for a typical member of category (pin for beauty accessories).
Finally, the term pocket money’ involves the containEr For containEd type of metonymy, which
rests upon the in-out image schema. As Kövecses (2010: 183) points out, “[a]s a rule, we are more interes-
ted in the content of a container than in the mere container, so that we commonly nd metonymies that
target the content via the container rather than the reverse metonymic relationship.” In the metaphorical
expression “pocket money”, the pocket, functioning as a containEr, stands for the containEd, the money
in the pocket, thus alluding to keeping small sums of money in one’s pocket and using it for incidental or
minor expenses. This is a prime example of a metaphorically based metonymy (Kövecses 2010: 184).
Our main aim in this paper was to establish various conceptualisations of money, which primarily
depend on the used adjectival or noun premodier, as well as to categorise and illustrate the cognitive
instruments on which these expressions are based. Judging from our small-scale analysis, it turned out
that quite an array of different conceptual tools is used in conceptualisations of money and we have pre-
sented and illustrated, due to space constraints, only a very limited number of them. We rmly believe
that the results we obtained from our analysis of the data collection containing money expressions may
contribute to a further understanding of how conceptualisations and meanings are constructed as well as
help further explain and exemplify the functioning of the mechanism of coining gurative expressions
in English through metaphor and metonymy, especially in the eld of business and nance.
Alejo Gonzáles, R. (2010). Where does the money go? An analysis of the container metaphor in economics: the
market and the economy. Journal of Pragmatics 42(4), 1137-1150.
Alejo Gonzáles, R. (2011). The container schema in economics and its discourse. International Journal of Innova-
tion and Leadership in the Teaching of Humanities 1(1), 64-79.
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In: Dening metonymy in
cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (R. Benczes, A. Barcelona and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza
Ibáñez, eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 7-57.
Barcelona, A. (ed.) (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Benczes, R. (2006). Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-
noun combinations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (eds.) (2011). Dening metonymy in cognitive linguis-
tics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Charteris-Black, J. (2000). Metaphor and vocabulary teaching in ESP economics. English for Specic Purposes
19(2), 149-165.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave
Charteris-Black, J., Musolff, A. (2003). ‘Battered hero’ or ‘innocent victim’? A comparative study of metaphors
for euro trading in British and German nancial reporting. English for Specic Purposes 22, 153-176.
Deignan, A. (2005). A corpus linguistic perspective on the relationship between metonymy and metaphor. Style
39(1), 72-91.
Đurović, T., Silaški, N. (2011). The EconoMy iS huMan metaphor in business and economic discourse. In: Academic
days of Timişoara: Language education today (G. Raţă, ed.), Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 506-513.
Gibbs, R. W. (ed.) (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Tatjana Đurović – Nadežda Silaški
Hampe, B. (ed.) (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Henderson, W. (2000). Metaphor, economics and ESP: some comments. English for Specic Purposes 19, 167-
Herrera-Soler, H., White, M. (eds.) (2012). Metaphor and mills: Figurative language in business and economics.
Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion. Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge/New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor. A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford/New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kövecses, Z., Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9, 37-
Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, morality, and politics, or, why conservatives have left liberals in the dust. Social
Research 62(3), 177-213.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In: Cultural models
in language and thought (D. Holland and N. Quinn, eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195-
Lakoff, G., Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A eld guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: Chicago Uni-
versity Press.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Niemeier, S. (1998). Colourless green ideas metonymise furiously. Rostocker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft
O’Connor, K. T. (1998). Money and nance as solid, liquid, and gas in Spanish. Metaphor and Symbol 13(2),
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. (eds.) (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Philip, G. (2006). Connotative meaning in English and Italian colour-word metaphors. 10/2006,
Polzenhagen, F., Kövecses, Z., Vogelbacher, S. & Kleinke, S. (eds.) (2014). Cognitive explorations into metaphor
and metonymy. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: а method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and
Symbol 22(1), 1-39.
Radden, G. (2000). How metonymic are metaphors? In: Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive
perspective (A. Barcelona, ed.), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 93-108.
Radden, G., Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In: Metonymy in language and thought (K.-U.
Panther and G. Radden, eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17-59.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silaški, N. (2011a). The StatE oF MattEr metaphors for money and nance – a contrastive analysis of English and
Serbian. In: Academic days of Timişoara: Language education today (G. Raţă, ed.), Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 227-235.
Silaški, N. (2011b). Adding colour to the teaching of English – Figurative uses of colours in business-related vo-
cabulary. Primenjena lingvistika 12(2011), str. 152-159.
Silaški, N., Đurović, T. (2010). The conceptualisation of the global nancial crisis via the EconoMy iS a PErSon
metaphor – a contrastive study of English and Serbian. Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Litera-
ture 8(2), 129-139.
Silaški, N., Kilyeni, A. (2011). The MonEy iS a liquid metaphor in economic terminology – a contrastive analysis
of English, Serbian and Romanian. In: Professional communication and translation studies, Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference, Vol. 4 (1-2)/2011 (R. Superceanu and D. Dejica, eds.), Timișoara: Po-
litehnica University of Timișoara Press, 63-72.
Silaški, N., Kilyeni, A. (2014). The MonEy iS Solid metaphor in economic and business terminology in English.
Professional Communication and Translation Studies 7(1-2), 73-80.
Pod okriljem teorije pojmovne metafore začete u radu Lejkofa i Džonsona (1980) u radu se bavimo gurativnim
izrazima na engleskom jeziku koji sadrže reč »money«, i to oblika pridev/imenica+«money« (npr. ‘dirty money’,
green money’, barren money’, pin money’, smart money’, itd.). Analizu zasnivamo na 45 takvih izraza pri-
kupljenih iz različitih englesko-engleskih onlajn rečnika nansijskih termina. Nakon što smo primenili unekoliko
modikovan postupak utvrđivanja metaforičnosti izraza (Pragglejaz Group 2007), predstavili smo nekoliko glav-
nih metafora i metonimija koje učestvuju u građenju značenja gorepomenutih izraza da bismo ispunili osnovne
ciljeve analize – da klasikujemo i primerima ilustrujemo načine konceptualizacije novca u engleskom jeziku,
koji u našem slučaju zavise od premodikatora, imenice ili prideva, tj. da ukažemo na kognitivne instrumente
(metafore i metonimije) na kojima se zasnivaju ti izrazi. Smatramo da rezultati naše analize manjeg obima mogu
doprineti boljem razumevanju mehanizma pomoću kog se tvore gurativni izrazi u engleskom jeziku, posebno u
poslovnom i nansijskom vokabularu.
Ključne reči: metafora, metonimija, konceptualizacija novca, engleski
Tatjana Đurović
Univerzitet u Beogradu, Srbija
Ekonomski fakultet
Nadežda Silaški
Univerzitet u Beogradu, Srbija
Ekonomski fakultet
A list of 45 “money” expressions
1. barren money
2. black money
3. blood money
4. blue money
5. broad money
6. clean money
7. danger money
8. dead money
9. dear money
10. dirty money
11. earnest money
12. easy money
13. even money
14. found money
15. fresh money
16. front money
17. fun money
18. funny money
19. grey money
20. green money
21. hard money
22. heavy money
23. hot money
24. hush money
25. idle money
26. key money
27. love money
28. mad money
29. monopoly money
30. narrow money
31. near money
32. new money
33. old money
34. pin money
35. pink money
36. pocket money
37. push money
38. ready money
39. seed money
40. smart money
41. soft money
42. stretch money
43. tight money
44. white money
45. yellow money
... Komunikacija i kultura online, Godina VIII, broj 8, 2017. 1982, Herrera-Soler & White 2012, Koller 2004, Littlemore 2006, Velasco Sacristan 2004, a kod nas Đurović 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, Silaški 2011a, Silaški & Đurović 2010a, 2010b, 2010c. ...
Full-text available
Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads is a collection of essays, most of them written from a cognitive linguistics standpoint by leading specialists in the fields of conceptual metaphor and metonymy, and conceptual integration (blending). The book has two main goals. One of them is to discuss in new, provocative ways the nature of these conceptual mappings in English and their interaction. The other goal is to explore by means of several detailed case studies the central role of these mappings in English. The studies are, thus, concerned with the operation of metaphor and metonymy in discourse, including literary discourse or with the effect of metaphorical and/or metonymic mappings on some aspects of linguistic structure, be it polysemy or grammar. The book is of interest to students and researchers in English and linguistics, English literature, cognitive psychology and cognitive science. © 2000, 2003 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.
Aims and Scope The 1987 landmark publications by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson made image schema one of the cornerstone concepts of the emerging experientialist paradigm of Cognitive Linguistics, a framework founded upon the rejection of the mind-body dichotomy and stressing the fundamentally embodied nature of meaning, imagination and reason - hence language. Conceived of as the pre-linguistic, dynamic and highly schematic gestalts arising directly from motor movement, object manipulation, and perceptual interaction, image schemas served to anchor abstract reasoning and imagination to sensori-motor patterns in the conceptual theory of metaphor. Being itself informed by preceding crosslinguistic work on semantic primitives in the linguistic representations of spatial relations (carried out by L. Talmy, R. Langacker, and others), the notion has inspired a large amount of subsequent research and debate on diverse issues ranging from the meaning, structure and acquisition of natural languages to the embodied mind itself. From Perception to Meaning is the first survey of current image-schema theory and offers a collection of original and innovative essays by leading scholars, many of whom have shaped the theory from the very beginning. The edition unites essays on major issues in recent research on image-schemas - from aspects of their definition and linguistic formalization, their psychological status and neural grounding to their role as semantic universals and primitives in language acquisition. The book will thus not only be welcomed by linguists of a cognitive orientation, but will prove relevant to philosophers, psychologists, and anthropologists interested in language, and indeed to anyone studying the embodied mind. © 2005 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved.
Aims and Scope While the role of metaphor in economics and business has produced multiple research articles, no comprehensive book-length study has yet appeared. The present book is a timely attempt to fill this gap, giving a global coverage of the role of metaphor in business and economics. It spans time (from Classical Greece to the current business network meeting-room), space (from Europe through the Americas to Asia), cultures and languages (from continental European languages, Brazilian Portuguese to Chinese). The theoretical grounding of the book is the Conceptual Theory of Metaphor taken in a dynamic sense as evolving with on-going research. The theory is thus used, adapted and refined in accordance with the evidence provided. Metaphor is shown to be theory constitutive in the elaboration of economic thinking down through the ages while, at the same time, the emphasis on evidence open to historical, cross-cultural and cross-linguistic considerations align with the current notion of situatedness. The book is a rich source of information for researchers and students in the fields of Metaphor Studies, Economics, Discourse Analysis, and Communication Studies, among others. © 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston. All Rights Reserved.
In a stimulating and novel approach, this book explains why metaphors are persuasive, suggesting that they are ideologically effective because they are cognitively plausible and evoke an emotional response. ‘Critical Metaphor Analysis’ is then developed in a series of corpus-based studies in which analysis of collocations provides insight into the cognitive motivation and expressive connotation of metaphor. By unifying traditional and cognitive semantic with pragmatic approaches, the reader becomes aware of the importance of metaphor in persuasive language.
The book argues that the use of metaphors does not depend simply on preestablished metaphorical structures in the conceptual system. Instead, metaphors arise as a result of contextual influences. The mind is in constant interaction with the situational, discourse, conceptual-cognitive, and bodily contexts.
The book shows the many interrelations between language, mind, and culture from a cognitive linguistic perspective. Each chapter contains several exercises.
Conceptual Metaphor Theory holds that many metaphors have an experiential basis that can be interpreted as metonymic. This has led to the current widely held view that metonymy and metaphor overlap and interact with each other, rather than being opposed, as previously believed. Writers such as Louis Goossens have traced different ways in which the metonymic and metaphorical mappings interact to result in complex linguistic expressions. In this paper, corpus evidence is used to investigate such linguistic expressions in order to trace the interactions of metaphor and metonymy that they realize. Three groups of linguistic expressions are identified, each group realizing a different type of mapping: one is metaphorical, and the other two are different interactions of metonymy and metaphor. Concordances of the lexical structures of the target domain are examined, and it is argued that the different mappings result in different lexical patterns in their respective target domains.