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

According to Antonio Barcelona (2012), metonymy is more than just a lexical phenomenon. It is a conceptual mechanism (an inferential schema) operating under the lexicon, in the lexicon, and above the lexicon. In light of the fact that “lexical metonymies are often at the same time grammatical and discourse metonymies” (Barcelona 2012: 254), we realize that metonymy is “a ubiquitous, multilevel phenomenon.” This is also in keeping with the Equipollence Hypothesis (Ricardo Mairal-Usón & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 2009; Ruiz de Mendoza & Alba Luzondo Oyón 2012), according to which cognitive and linguistic processes found to be at work in one domain of linguistic inquiry are expected to be active in other domains, too. The hypothesis is here extended to apply to all modes of communication, including pictorial and visuo-kinetic modalitites. This article first shows that, unsurprisingly, metonymy is also pervasive in signed languages and that it occurs at several levels or layers. Secondly, the study demonstrates that many of these metonymies are complex. Thirdly, the study argues that a number of metonymies are (no longer) recognized as such due to reductions of an excessively structuralist approach to sign languages.

© 2026 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00146.brd
2026-04-17
2026-05-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00146.brd
    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.
    (2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & 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]
  2. (2007) 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]
  3. (2012) Metonymy in, under and above the lexicon. InS. M. Alegre, M. G. Moyer, E. P. Ballester & S. T. Muntañá (Eds.), At a time of crisis: English and American studies in Spain (pp. 254–271). Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona/AEDEAN, Barcelona.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Battison, R.
    (1974) Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 5(1), 1–19. 10.1353/sls.1974.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1974.0005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brdar, M.
    (2009) Metonymy-induced polysemy and the role of suffixation in its resolution in some Slavic languages. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 58–88. 10.1075/arcl.7.03brd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.03brd [Google Scholar]
  6. (2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2018) Novel metonymies, wine and wineskins, old and new ones. InS. Gudurić & B. Radić-Bojanić (Eds.), Jezici i kulture u vremenu i prostoru VII/1 [Languages and cultures in time and space] (pp. 123–134). Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet/Pedagoško društvo Vojvodine.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2019) On the regularity of metonymy across languages (exemplified on some metonymies in medical discourse). ExELL. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 7(1), 52–69. 10.2478/exell‑2020‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.2478/exell-2020-0006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Some thoughts on online 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]
  10. (2025) Metonymy typologies revisited: Adding cumulativity to the picture. InH. L. Colston (Ed.), What makes a Figure: Rethinking figurativity (pp.160–193). John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.19.06brd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.19.06brd [Google Scholar]
  11. Brentari, D.
    (1998) A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, W. P.
    (1885) The Indian sign language: With brief explanatory notes of the gestures taught deaf-mutes in our institutions. Philadelphia: L. R. Hamersly & Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T.
    (1995) Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12(1), 15–67. 10.1093/jos/12.1.15
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.1.15 [Google Scholar]
  14. Duke, I.
    (2009) The everything sign language book: American sign language made easy. Avon: Adams Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Einsteinhands Thrive
    Einsteinhands Thrive (2018) SASL: A teacher, friend & family resource for beginners: Quick and easy reference to learning South African signs with SASL, English, Zulu, & Afrikaans. Johannesburg: Wits Centre for Deaf Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fass, D.
    (1991) Met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 49–90. 10.5555/971738.971741
     https://doi.org/10.5555/971738.971741 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fass, D. C.
    (1997) Processing metonymy and metaphor. Greenwich: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferrand, Jacques
    (ca. 1784) Dictionnaire à l’usage des sourds et muets. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
    (1999) Speaking and thinking with metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.04gib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.04gib [Google Scholar]
  20. Gillon, B. S.
    (1999) The lexical semantics of English count and mass nouns. InE. Viegas (Ed.), Breadth and depth of semantic lexicons (pp. 19–37). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑0952‑1_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0952-1_2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Brentari, D.
    (2017) Gesture, sign, and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 401, e46. 10.1017/S0140525X15001247
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15001247 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hilpert, M.
    (2007) Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body-part 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]
  23. (2010) Chained metonymies. InJ. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research (pp. 181–194). Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lai, Y.-D., & Yang, C.-L.
    (2009) Iconicity and arbitrariness in Taiwan Sign Language: A psycholinguistic account. MingDao Journal, 5(2), 159–187. 10.6953/MJ.200912.0159
     https://doi.org/10.6953/MJ.200912.0159 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1987) The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. InD. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607660.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.009 [Google Scholar]
  28. Langacker, R. W.
    (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]
  29. (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]
  30. Liddell, S. K.
    (1984) Think and believe: Sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language, 60(2), 372–399. 10.2307/413645
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413645 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mairal-Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. InC. S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  32. McKee, R., & Vale, M.
    (2017) Sign language lexicography. InP. Hanks & G.-M. de Schryver (Eds.), International handbook of modern lexis and lexicography (pp. 1–22). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑45369‑4_34‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45369-4_34-1 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mittelberg, I.
    (2019) Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, 101, article 254. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. O’Brien, J.
    (1999) Metaphoricity in the signs of American Sign Language. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(3), 159–177. 10.1207/S15327868MS140301
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS140301 [Google Scholar]
  36. Occhino, C., & Wilcox, S.
    (2017) Gesture or sign? A categorization problem. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 401, e66. 10.1017/S0140525X15003015
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15003015 [Google Scholar]
  37. Padden, C. A., & Perlmutter, D. M.
    (1987) American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 51, 335–375. 10.1007/BF00134553
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134553 [Google Scholar]
  38. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2003) 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]
  39. (2009) Introduction: On figuration in grammar. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.03pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.03pan [Google Scholar]
  40. Portero Muñoz, C.
    (this volume). Metonymy in morphological recategorization: The case of Spanish body-part verbs. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 13(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  42. Reddy, M. J.
    (1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Rodríguez-Redondo, A.-L.
    (2018) Metonymy and the dynamics of conceptual operations in Spanish Sign Language. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 287–310). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.11rod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.11rod [Google Scholar]
  44. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2007) High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. InK. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Luzondo Oyón, A.
    (2012) Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. InM. Brdar, I. Raffaeli & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. Shaw, E., & Delaporte, Y.
    (2015) A historical and etymological dictionary of American sign language: The origin and evolution of more than 500 signs. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2938
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2938 [Google Scholar]
  49. Siple, P.
    (1978) Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies, 191, 95–110. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26203269. 10.1353/sls.1978.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1978.0010 [Google Scholar]
  50. Stokoe, W. C.
    (1960) Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American deaf studies in linguistics. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers 8. Buffalo: University of Buffalo Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B.
    (1999) The linguistics of British sign language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167048
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167048 [Google Scholar]
  52. Taub, S. F.
    (2001) Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American sign language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wilcox, P. P.
    (2000) Metaphor in American sign language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (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]
  55. Wilcox, S.
    (2004) Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed language. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 119–147. 10.1515/cogl.2004.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  56. Wilcox, S., & Martínez, R.
    (2021) Signed languages and cognitive linguistics. InX. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 500–511). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑33
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-33 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wilcox, S., & Occhino, C.
    (2017) Signed languages. InB. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 99–117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.008 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wilcox, S., & Wilcox, P. P.
    (2010) The analysis of Signed Languages. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 739–760). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Wilcox, S., Wilcox, P. P., & Jarque, M. J.
    (2003) Mappings in conceptual space: Metonymy, metaphor, and iconicity in two signed languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 139–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Woll, B.
    (1985) Visual imagery and metaphor in British sign language. InW. Paprotté & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 603–630). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.29.22wol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.29.22wol [Google Scholar]
  61. Zwitserlood, I.
    (2012) Classifiers. InR. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (pp. 158–186). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.158
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.158 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00146.brd
Loading
Metonymies we sign by
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 13, 205 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00146.brd
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00146.brd
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00146.brd
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): complex metonymy; grammatical metonymy; lexical metonymy; metonymy; motivation; sign language

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