1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 11, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article is a brief introduction to the theory of conceptual metonymy and a brief survey of research on this area. The first section presents the cognitive-linguistic notion of metonymy, including a discussion of the various problematic aspects of this notion. This is followed by a longer section illustrating some of the main types of metonymies. The section devoted to the ubiquity of metonymy surveys research on its involvement in cognition, grammatical meaning and form, pragmatic inferencing and discourse, linguistic change, and non-linguistic areas like art and gesture; it ends with a brief note on metonymic triggers and chains, and on its multilevel operation. The chapter ends with a reflection on future directions.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00112.bar
2024-06-06
2025-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00112.bar
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (2000a) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2000b) On the plausibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual metaphor. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive approaches (pp.31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2002a) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.207–278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.207
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.207 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2002b) On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. InB. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics today (pp.207–224). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (2003a) Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a few modest proposals. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp.223–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.15bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.15bar [Google Scholar]
  6. (2003b) The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. InK.-W. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.07bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.07bar [Google Scholar]
  7. (2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.313–352). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197716.4.313
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.4.313 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2007a) The multilevel role of metonymy in grammar and discourse: A Case Study. InK. Kosecki, (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference “Perspectives on Metonymy” (pp.103–131). Berlin: Peter Lang Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2007b) The role of metonymy in meaning construction at discourse level: A case study. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.51–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.06bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.06bar [Google Scholar]
  10. (2008) The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of ‘bahuvrihi’ compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 208–281. 10.1075/arcl.6.10bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.10bar [Google Scholar]
  11. (2009a) Motivation of construction meaning and form: The roles of metonymy and inference. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.363–401). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.22bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.22bar [Google Scholar]
  12. (2010) Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. AILA Review, 23(1), 134–154. 10.1075/aila.23.08bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.08bar [Google Scholar]
  13. (2011a) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.7–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011b) Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. InN.-L. Johannesson & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm metaphor festival (pp.3–42). Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015) Metonymy. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.143–167). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-008 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2016) Salience in metonymy-motivated constructional abbreviated form with particular attention to English clippings. Cognitive Semantics, 2(1), 30–58. 10.1163/23526416‑00201003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00201003 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2018a) General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.27–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.01bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.01bar [Google Scholar]
  18. (2018b) Metaphor and metonymy in language and art: The dogma of the Holy Trinity and its artistic representation. InP. Chilton & M. Kopytowska (Eds.), Religion, language, and the human mind (pp.353–385). New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2019) The tripartite typology and the Córdoba Metonymy Database. InM. Bolognesi, M. Brdar & K. S. Despot (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in the digital age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language (pp.49–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.8.03bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.03bar [Google Scholar]
  20. (forthcoming a). Metonymy and discourse comprehension: Five case studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (forthcoming b). Metonymic reasoning: A qualitative study. Lublin Studies in Language and Literature.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Barnden, J.
    (2018) Some contrast effects in metonymy. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.97–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.60.04bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.04bar [Google Scholar]
  23. Benczes, R.
    (2006) Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.19
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.19 [Google Scholar]
  24. Bierwiaczonek, B.
    (2007) On formal metonymy. InK. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp.43–67). Berlin: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Bierwiaczwonek, B.
    (2013) Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Brdar, M.
    (2007) Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Some thoughts on the construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.125–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.09brd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.09brd [Google Scholar]
  28. Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2009) Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.323–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.19brd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.19brd [Google Scholar]
  29. Ciepiela, K.
    (2007) Metonymy in Aphasia. InK. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp.199–208). Berlin: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Croft, W.
    (1993/2002) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dirven, R.
    (1999) Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.275–287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.16dir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.16dir [Google Scholar]
  32. (2002) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.75–112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.75
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.75 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fauconnier, G.
    (1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  34. Feyaerts, K.
    (1999) Metonymic hierarchies: The conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions. InK.-W. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.309–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.18fey
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.18fey [Google Scholar]
  35. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Geeraerts, D.
    (2015) Lexical semantics. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.273–295). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-014 [Google Scholar]
  37. Geeraerts, D., & Peirsman, Y.
    (2011) Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.89–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.05gee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.05gee [Google Scholar]
  38. Gibbs, Jr. R. W.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2007a) Experiential tests of figurative meaning construction. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.19–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.04gib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.04gib [Google Scholar]
  40. (2007b) Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. InM. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp.2–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.18.06gib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.06gib [Google Scholar]
  41. Group, P.
    (2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. 10.1080/10926480709336752
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  42. Gutiérrez-Rubio, E.
    (2014) Metonimia y derivación sufijal en español: Estudio multidimensional de los mecanismos conceptuales que rigen la formación de palabras mediante sufijación en español [Metonymy and suffixal derivation in Spanish. A multidimensional study of the conceptual mechanisms regulating suffixal derivation in Spanish]. Madrid: Liceus.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F.
    (1991) Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hernández-Gomariz, I.
    (2018) Analysis of metonymic triggers, metonymic chaining, and patterns of interaction with metaphor and with other metonymies as part of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.75–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.03her
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.03her [Google Scholar]
  45. Hilpert, M.
    (2007) Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body terms. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.77–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.07hil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.07hil [Google Scholar]
  46. (2015) Historical linguistics. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.346–366). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑017
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-017 [Google Scholar]
  47. Holme, R.
    (2009) Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230233676
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230233676 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C.
    (1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kos, P.
    (2023) The role of metonymy in naming: If longhair then apple tree and teacher. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 86–114. 10.1075/rcl.00128.kos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00128.kos [Google Scholar]
  50. Kosecki, K.
    (2007b) Some remarks on metonymy in compounding. InK. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp.241–251). Berlin: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kwiatkowska, A.
    (2007) Pre-linguistic and non-linguistic metonymy. InK. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp.297–307). Berlin: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  59. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2009) Metonymic grammar. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  61. 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]
  62. Markert, K., & Nissim, M.
    (2003) Corpus-based metonymy analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 175–188. 10.1207/S15327868MS1803_04
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1803_04 [Google Scholar]
  63. Martsa, S.
    (2013) Conversion in English: A cognitive semantic approach. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D.
    (2001) Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 245–272. 10.1075/jhp.2.2.04ner
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.04ner [Google Scholar]
  65. Palmer, G. B., Rader, R. S., & Clarito, A.
    (2009) The metonymic basis of a ‘semantic partial’: Tagalog lexical constructions with ka-. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona, (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.111–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.08pal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.08pal [Google Scholar]
  66. Panther, K.-U.
    (2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197716.4.353
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.4.353 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2022) Introduction to cognitive pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.4 [Google Scholar]
  68. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2000) The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. (2002) The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.279–322). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.279
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.279 [Google Scholar]
  71. (2003a) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113 [Google Scholar]
  72. (2003b) Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.03pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.03pan [Google Scholar]
  73. (2007) Metonymy. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
    (2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.121–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.60.05pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.05pan [Google Scholar]
  75. Papafragou, A.
    (1996) On Metonymy. Lingua, 99(4), 169–195. 10.1016/0024‑3841(96)00016‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(96)00016-2 [Google Scholar]
  76. Paradis, C.
    (2004) Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264. 10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1 [Google Scholar]
  77. (2011) Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.61–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.04par
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.04par [Google Scholar]
  78. Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
  79. Pluciennik, J.
    (2007) Princess antonomasia, individualism, and the Quixotism of Culture: A case of ‘Tristram Shandy’ by Laurence Sterne. InK. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp.349–366). Berlin: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Portero-Muñoz, C.
    (2018) Are smartphone face and Googleheads a real or a fake phenomenon? The current role of metonymy in semantic exocentricity. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.261–286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.60.10por
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.10por [Google Scholar]
  81. Radden, G.
    (2002) How metonymic are metaphors?. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.407–434). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.407
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2005) The ubiquity of metonymy. InJ. L. O. Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp.11–28). Castellón (Spain): Universitat Jaume I.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. (2009) Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.199–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.13rad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.13rad [Google Scholar]
  84. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. (2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.103–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  86. (2014) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. InJ. Littlemore & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp.143–166). London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Masegosa, A. G.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  88. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal-Usón, R.
    (2007) High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.33–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.05rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.05rui [Google Scholar]
  89. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Campo, J. L. O.
    (2002) Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Comares.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Cervel, M. S. P.
    (2005b) Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations, and projection spaces. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.249–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197716.3.249
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.3.249 [Google Scholar]
  91. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez-Hernández, L.
    (2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. InK.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.23–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.05rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.05rui [Google Scholar]
  92. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  93. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2008) Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Thornburg, L. L., & Panther, K.-U.
    (1997) Speech act metonymies. InW.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. R. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp.205–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  95. Tóth, M.
    (2018) Linguistic metonymy: Implicitness and co-activation of mental content. Berlin: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b14806
     https://doi.org/10.3726/b14806 [Google Scholar]
  96. Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
    (2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G.
    (2000) Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.133–145). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Wilcox, P. P.
    (2004) A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 197–222. 10.1515/cogl.2004.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.008 [Google Scholar]
  99. Wilcox, S.
    (2015) Signed languages. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.668–689). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-034 [Google Scholar]
  100. 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]
  101. Zhang, W., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2011) Variation in the (non)metonymic capital names in Mainland Chinese and Taiwan Chinese. Metaphor and the Social World, 1(1), 90–112. 10.1075/msw.1.1.09zha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.1.1.09zha [Google Scholar]
  102. Ziegeler, D.
    (2007) Arguing the case against coercion. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.99–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.08zie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.08zie [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00112.bar
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognition; cognitive linguistics; definition of metonymy; discourse-pragmatic inferencing; grammar; linguistic form; metonymy chaining; metonymy triggers; research methods; semantics; types of 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