1887
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article starts by looking at the various ways metonymic and metaphoric thinking, as independent phenomena, organize text at discourse level. The literature on metaphor in discourse is classified under three broad categories, ‘metaphor clusters’, ‘metaphor chains’ and ‘extended metaphor’, while the less extensive body of research on metonymy in discourse is analyzed into parallel categories, ‘metonymy clusters’, ‘metonymy chains’ and ‘extended metonymy’. The article goes on to look at the ways in which metonymy-in-discourse and metaphor-in-discourse phenomena combine in making meaning at text level. The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse, referred to here as ‘text metaphtonymy’, is explored under headings adapted from Goossens (1990) , namely, ‘metaphor within metonymy’ and ‘metonymy within metaphor’. The ways in which metonymy and metaphor combine at discourse level are shown to be varied and intricate. This has implications for applied linguists working with text. The direction further work in this area might take is indicated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.16011.den
2018-05-07
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Sharafi, A.
    (2004) Textual metonymy: A semiotic approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave. doi: 10.1057/9781403938909
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403938909 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Benczes, R. , Barcelona, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
    (Eds.) (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]
  4. Biernacka, E.
    (2013) A discourse dynamics investigation of metonymy in talk. Unpublished PhD thesis. Milton Keyes: The Open University.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brdar-Szabó, R. , & Brdar, M.
    (2011) What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy?In R. Benczes , A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.217–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.28.12brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.12brd [Google Scholar]
  6. Cameron, L.
    (1999) Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse data. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp.105–132). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524704.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524704.009 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2008) Metaphor and talk. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.197–211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.013 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities (pp.77–94). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cameron, L. , & Deignan, A.
    (2006) The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671–690. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml032
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml032 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cameron, L. , & Low, G.
    (2004) Figurative variation in episodes of educational talk and text. European Journal of English Studies, 78(3), 355–377. doi: 10.1080/1382557042000277430
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1382557042000277430 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cameron, L. , Low, G. , & Maslen, R.
    (2010) Finding systematicity in metaphor use. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities (pp.116–146). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cameron, L. , & Maslen, R.
    (Eds.) (2010) Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cameron, L. , Maslen, R. , Todd, Z. , Maule, J. , Stratton, P. , & Stanley, N.
    (2009) The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89. doi: 10.1080/10926480902830821
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480902830821 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cameron, L. , & Stelma, J.
    (2004) Metaphor clusters in discourse. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 107–136. doi: 10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.107
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.107 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dancygier, B. , & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Darian, S.
    (2000) The role of figurative language in introductory science texts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 163–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2000.tb00147.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00147.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Deignan, A.
    (2005a) A corpus linguistic perspective on the relationship between metonymy and metaphor. Style, 39(1), 72–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2005b) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  20. Deignan, A. , Littlemore, J. , & Semino, E.
    (2013) Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Denroche, C.
    (2015) Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York/London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dirven, R.
    (2002) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.75–111). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.75 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dirven, R. , & Pörings, R.
    (Eds.) (2003) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197 [Google Scholar]
  24. Forceville, C.
    (2008) Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.462–482). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.028
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.028 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Issues in multisemiotics (pp.56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gibbs, R.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1999) Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.61–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.04gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.04gib [Google Scholar]
  28. Goatly, A.
    (1997) The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203210000
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000 [Google Scholar]
  29. Goossens, L.
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2003) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.349–377). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Halliday, M. , & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Handl, S.
    (2011) Salience and the conventionality of metonymies. In S. Handl & H. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending. (pp.85–114). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110238198.85
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238198.85 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hidalgo, L. , & Kraljevic, B.
    (2011) Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In F. Gonzálvez-García , S. Peña , & L. Pérez (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the contemporary theory of metaphor. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 153–178.10.1075/rcl.9.1.08hid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.08hid [Google Scholar]
  34. Hilpert, M.
    (2010) Chained metonymies. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Experimental and empirical methods in cognitive functional research (pp.181–194). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jakobson, R.
    (1956) Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In R. Jakobson & M. Halle , Fundamentals of language (pp.53–82). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kimmel, M.
    (2010) Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 97–115. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.017 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2012) Optimizing the analysis of metaphor in discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1–48. doi: 10.1075/rcl.10.1.01kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.10.1.01kim [Google Scholar]
  38. Koller, V.
    (2003) Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: Analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. metaphorik. de, 5, 115–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kress, G.
    (2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lodge, D.
    (1977) The modes of modern writing: Metaphor, metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Low, G.
    (2008) Metaphor and positioning in academic book reviews. In M. Zanotto , L. Cameron & M. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach (pp.79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.173.06low
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.173.06low [Google Scholar]
  45. Musolff, A.
    (2000) Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(3). 216–229. doi: 10.1080/01434630008666402
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630008666402 [Google Scholar]
  46. Panther, K. , & Radden, G.
    (Eds.) (1999) Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4 [Google Scholar]
  47. Panther, K. , & 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]
  48. Panther, K. , Thornburg, L. , & Barcelona, A.
    (Eds.) (2009) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25 [Google Scholar]
  49. Pérez-Sobrino, P.
    (2016) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-based account. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(2), 73–90.10.1080/10926488.2016.1150759
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150759 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. doi: 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  51. Reddy, M.
    (1993) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.164–201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012 [Google Scholar]
  52. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. , & Diez Velasco, O.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  53. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Semino, E. , Deignan, A. , & Littlemore, J.
    (2013) Metaphor, genre, and recontextualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 41–59. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2013.742842
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.742842 [Google Scholar]
  55. Seto, K.
    (1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.91–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.06set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.06set [Google Scholar]
  56. Steen, G.
    (2002) Identifying metaphor in language: A cognitive approach. Style, 36(3) 386–407.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. (2007) Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.10 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2014) Why figurative thought and language are not enough: On the crucial role of metaphor in communication. Paper given at1st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language. April 25–26, 2014, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Steen, G. , Dorst, A. , Berenike Herrmann, J. , Kaal, A. , Krennmayr, T. , & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  60. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, S.
    (2006) Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199895
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199895 [Google Scholar]
  61. Stirling, L.
    (1996) Metonymy and anaphora. In W. de Mulder & L. Tasmowski (Eds.), Coherence and anaphora (pp.69–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.16011.den
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): chains , clusters , discourse , extended metaphor , extended metonymy , metaphor , metaphtonymy , metonymy and text
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