1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 13, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The article explores the relationship between conceptual metonymy and the use of cardinal numbers in Spanish and English. Real instances of language have been used to describe this conceptual relation. The metonymic mappings identified in the use of some cardinal numbers exhibit different levels of conceptual organization in terms of meaning and form. The two main metonymies that we observed in the semantics of the expressions analyzed are and . The expressions studied use the domain of as source in order to arrive at two slightly different but similar domains of experience which are - and -. Furthermore, the form of some of the expressions analyzed is motivated by the high-level metonymy .

© 2026 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00144.nie
2026-04-17
2026-05-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00144.nie
    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.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110894677
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2003) 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]
  3. (2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. Peña-Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197716.4.313
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.4.313 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2009) 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]
  5. (2011) 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. https://www.benjamins.com/catalog/hcp.28.02bar. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  6. (2017) On the constructional status of interstate and highway names. International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 141. Tartu, Estonia.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2011) Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., & Pannain, R.
    (Eds.) (2018) Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
    (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brdar-Szabó, R. & Brdar, M.
    (2005) Scalar models in a cognitive approach to hyperbolic expressions: With a little help from metonymy. InP. Cap (Ed.), Pragmatics today (pp. 75–94). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brugman, C. M.
    (1988) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Nueva York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G.
    (1988) Cognitive topology and lexical networks. InS. L. Small, G. W. Cottrell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspective from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 477–508). San Mateo: Morgan Kauffman. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑051013‑2.50022‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dehaene, S., & Mehler, J.
    (1992) Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition, 43(1), 1–29. 10.1016/0010‑0277(92)90030‑L
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90030-L [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans, V.
    (2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107340626
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340626 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fauconnier, G.
    (1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  16. (1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Galton, A.
    (2011) Time flies but space does not: Limits to the spatialisation of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 695–703. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  19. Giora, R.
    (2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goossens, L.
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–342. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goossens, L., Pauwels, P., Rudzka-Ostyn, B., Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Vanparys, J.
    (1995) By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.33
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.33 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grady, J. E.
    (1997) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Doctoral dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.
  23. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (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]
  28. 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]
  29. Martín, A., & Guerra, J.
    (2010) Cognitive linguistics and the poetics of time: Is 9/11 a conceptual metaphor, a conceptual metonymy or both?. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 411, 56–76. 10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20109292
     https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20109292 [Google Scholar]
  30. Moore, K. E.
    (2006) Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts, 17(2), 199–244. 10.1515/COG.2006.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.005 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pannain, R.
    (2017) Metonymy in numerals. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 102–120. 10.1075/rcl.15.1.05pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.05pan [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G.
    (1999) Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4 [Google Scholar]
  34. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2007) Metonymy. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 236–263). New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0010 [Google Scholar]
  36. Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
    (Eds.) (2009) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25 [Google Scholar]
  37. 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]
  38. Peña-Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2017) Construing and constructing hyperbole. InA. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 41–73). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.56.02pen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.02pen [Google Scholar]
  39. (2022) Figuring out Figuration: A cognitive linguistic account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.14 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pöppel, E.
    (2004) Lost in time: A historical frame, elementary processing units and the 3-second window. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis (Wars), 64(3), 295–301. 10.55782/ane‑2004‑1514
     https://doi.org/10.55782/ane-2004-1514 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2009) Pre-semantically defined temporal windows for cognitive processing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1525), 1887–1896. 10.1098/rstb.2009.0015
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0015 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (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]
  43. Radden, G.
    (2000) How metonymic are metaphors?. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 93–108). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (2002) How metonymic are metaphors?. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219197.407
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rosch, E.
    (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
    (2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 109–132). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (2007) High level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behaviour. InK. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Sigurd, B.
    (1988) Round numbers. Language in Society, 17(2), 243–252. 10.1017/S0047404500012781
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012781 [Google Scholar]
  49. Taylor, J. R.
    (1995) Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 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. 205–222). Amsterdam: Jonh Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  51. Walsh, V.
    (2003) A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(11), 483–488. 10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00144.nie
Loading
Conceptual metonymy in the use of cardinal numbers in Spanish and English
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 13, 145 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00144.nie
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00144.nie
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00144.nie
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cardinal number; conceptual metaphor; conceptual metonymy; conceptual metonymy as multilevel mechanism; functional domain

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