1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 4, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Human communication is based on mutual interaction between participants. Much of this communication is linguistic in nature. Language is structured by grammar and grammar is inherently metonymic ( Langacker 2009 ). Thus, language and interaction must be metonymic. In this article, I explore the metonymic basis of human interaction in both its linguistic and non-linguistic aspects. First, I make a distinction between linguistic and cultural metonymy. Both have a conceptual basis. The former, extensively studied from the view of cognitive linguistics, has a linguistic source. The latter, found in fields as diverse as art, theater, and film, does not necessarily have a linguistic source. The broader concept of cultural metonymy seems to structure human interaction. Second, I delineate distinguishing factors between the two types of metonymies. Those are the nature of the source and the (mis)match in the intentionality of producer and perceiver. Third, I make an overview and provide real examples of what aspects of human interaction are metonymic. Its elements, including the content of the message, the identity, proxemics, and kinesics of the participants, and the context of the interaction, can be metonymic. Its processes, namely those of language production and reception, are as well inherently metonymic. Overall, I show that metonymy, understood as relatedness or association, pervades human interaction and plays an important role in its success.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00004.jod
2018-03-16
2023-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00004.jod
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, S. R.
    (1971) On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7(3), 387–396.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aramburu, F.
    (2016) Patria. Barcelona: Tusquets.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aristotle
    [ Janko, R. ] (1987) Poetics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ashton, D.
    (1972) Picasso on art: A selection of views. New York, NY: Da Capo Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Ault, J.
    (Ed.) (2006) Felix Gonzalez-Torres. Göttingen: Steidl Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Benczes, R. , Barcelona, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2011) Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.28.
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bierwiaczonek, B.
    (2013) Metonymy in language, thought, and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Blanco-Carrión, O. , Barcelona, A. , & Pannain, R.
    (2018) Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Blunt, A.
    (1969)  Picasso’s Guernica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Brdar, M.
    (2007) Metonymy in grammar: Toward motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Josip Juraj StrossmayerUniversity.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown, R. & Gilman, A.
    (1960) The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.),Style in language (pp.253–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Coëgnarts, M. , & Kravanja, P.
    (2015) Embodied cinematic subjectivity: Metaphorical and metonymical modes of character perception in film. In M. Coëgnarts & P. Kravanja (Eds.), Embodied Cognition and Cinema (pp.221–243). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Colman, F. , & Anderson, J.
    (2004) On metonymy as word-formation: With special reference to Old English. English Studies, 85(6), 547–565. doi: 10.1080/00138380412331339279.
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138380412331339279 [Google Scholar]
  16. Croft, W.
    (1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 [Google Scholar]
  17. Denroche, C.
    (2015) Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dévényi, J.
    (1996) Metonymy and drama: Essays on language and dramatic strategy. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Du Marsais, C. C.
    (1757) Traité des tropes pour servir d’introduction à la rhetorique et à la logique. Leipsic: Gaspar Fritsch.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dżereń-Głowacka, S.
    (2007) Beating up intelligence: Metonymy in Terry Pratchett’s novels. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the International Conference “Perspectives on Metonymy” held in Łódź, Poland, May 6–7, 2005 (pp.335–348). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Ervin-Tripp, S.
    (1977) Wait for me, roller skate. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp.165–188). New York, NY: Academic Press.10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑241950‑8.50015‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-241950-8.50015-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1.
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Feld, R.
    (1988) Guston in time. Arts Magazine, November, 44.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Freed, B. F.
    (1981) Foreign talk, baby talk, native talk. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 19–39. doi: 10.1515/ijsl.1981.28.19.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1981.28.19 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Giora, R.
    (2004) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Green, D.
    (2005) Metonymy in contemporary art: A new paradigm. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Greenfield, P. M. & Smith, J. H.
    (1976).The structure of communication in early language development. New York, NY: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hall, E. T.
    (1966) The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hauser, M. D.
    (1996) The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Helle, L. J.
    (1994) Metaphor and metonymy: A theme with variations. Scando-Slavica, 40(1), 37–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Huttenlocher, J. & Smiley, P.
    (1987) Early word meanings: The case of object names. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 63–89. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(87)90004‑1.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90004-1 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hymes, D.
    (1972) Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp.35–71). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jakobson, R.
    (1956) Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In R. Jakobson & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of Language (pp.55–82). The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. (1960) Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Katz, J. D.
    (2008) “Committing the perfect crime”: Sexuality, assemblage, and the postmodern turn in American art. Art Journal, 67(1), 38–53. doi: 10.1080/00043249.2008.10791293.
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00043249.2008.10791293 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kirtland-Grech, G.
    (2014) Música y metonimia en Oriana de Fina Torres. Confluencia: Revista Hispánica de Cultura y Literatura, 30(1), 101–112. doi: 10.1353/cnf.2014.0018.
     https://doi.org/10.1353/cnf.2014.0018 [Google Scholar]
  38. Knapp, M. L.
    (1972) Nonverbal communication in human interaction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kövecses, Z.
    (2003) Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kövecses, Z. , & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Langacker, R. W.
    (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2009) Metonymic grammar. In K. -U. Panther , L. L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan.
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  45. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107338814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  46. López-Ozieblo, R.
    (2016) Adquiriendo ELE a través de los personajes de Almudena Grandes. Revista Foro de Profesores de E/LE, 16, 147–155.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Loring, M. W.
    (1919) Methods of studying controlled word associations. PhD Dissertation, John Hopkins University. Baltimore, MD: Waverley Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Matzner, S.
    (2016) Rethinking metonymy: Literary theory and poetic practice from Pindar to Jakobson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724278.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724278.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Matsumoto, D. , Frank, M. G. , & Hwang, H. S.
    (2013) Nonverbal communication: Science and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Matute, A. M.
    (2014) Demonios familiares. Barcelona: Destino.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Newport, E. E.
    (1975) Motherese: The speech of mothers to young children. Phd dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nunberg, G.
    (1995) Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 109–132. doi: 10.1093/jos/12.2.109.
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  53. Paivio, A.
    (1971).Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Panther, K. -U. , & Thornburg, L.
    (Eds.) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113 [Google Scholar]
  55. Petrenko, V. F. , & Korotchenko, E. A.
    (2012) Metaphor as a basic mechanism of art (painting). Psychology in Russia, 5, 531–567.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Popova, Y. B.
    (2015) Stories, meaning, and experience: Narrativity and enaction. New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Reddy, M. J.
    (1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Rhodes, J. E. , & Jakes, S.
    (2004) The contribution of metaphor and metonymy to delusions. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 77, 1–17. doi: 10.1348/147608304322874227.
     https://doi.org/10.1348/147608304322874227 [Google Scholar]
  60. Runia, E.
    (2006) Presence. History and Theory, 45(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2303.2006.00346.x.
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2303.2006.00346.x [Google Scholar]
  61. Ryland, S.
    (2011) Resisting metaphors: A metonymic approach to the study of creativity in art analysis and practice. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Brighton.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Searle, J. R.
    (1975) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp.344–369). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Tomaselli, K. G. , & Muller, J.
    (1987) Class, race, and oppression: Metaphor and metonymy in ‘Black’ South African theatre. Critical Arts: A Journal for Cultural Studies, 4(3), 40–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Tomasello, M.
    (2008) Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Turner, J. C. , & Oakes, P. J.
    (1986) The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 237–252. doi: 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.1986.tb00732.x.
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x [Google Scholar]
  66. van Herwegen, J. , Dimitriou, D. , & Rundblad, G.
    (2013) Development of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in typically developing children and Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(4),1300–1311. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.017.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.017 [Google Scholar]
  67. van Veuren, M. J.
    (2012) Tooth and nail: Anxious bodies in Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 . Critical Arts, 26(4), 570–586. doi: 10.1080/02560046.2012.723847.
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2012.723847 [Google Scholar]
  68. Ward, G. L.
    (2004) Equatives and deferred reference. Language, 80(2), 262–289. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0102.
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0102 [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhang, W.
    (2016) Variation in metonymy: Cross-linguistic, historical, and lectal perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110455830
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110455830 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00004.jod
Loading
Metonymy in human interaction
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 4, 249 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00004.jod
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00004.jod
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00004.jod
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): art; cinema; communication; culture; interaction; literature; metonymy

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error