1887
Volume 26, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The article investigates the process of the selection of vehicle concepts in Polish Sign Language (PJM). Why are certain contiguity relations chosen out of many potentially available candidates as the basis for metonymies and why do some other contiguity relations not make felicitous metonymies? The process is certainly influenced by many factors, but the article focuses on several factors related to the dimensions of construal of metonymic concepts (in Langacker’s understanding), including the scope of conception and aspects of perspective (the preference for the observable entities and the distinction between subjectively and objectively construed concepts). Vehicle selection is also constrained by the effective reference requirement and the subjectively perceived vitality of contiguity relations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19031.kow
2021-02-12
2021-10-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, Antonio
    2005 The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. InFrancisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & María Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 313–352. New York-Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bierwiaczonek, Bogusław
    2013Metonymy in Language, Thought and Brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cruse, David Alan
    1979 On the Transitivity of the Part-Whole Relation. Journal of Linguistics15(1). 29–38. 10.1017/S0022226700013086
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700013086 [Google Scholar]
  4. Denroche, Charles
    2015Metonymy and Language: A New Theory of Linguistic Processing. New/York-London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fraassen, Bas Cornelis Van
    1980The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/0198244274.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Goossens, Luis
    1990 “Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Action.” Cognitive Linguistics1(3). 323–340. doi:  10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gordon, Peter
    2004 Numerical Cognition Without Words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science306 (5695). 496–99. doi:  10.1126/science.1094492
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094492 [Google Scholar]
  9. Jarque, Maria-Josep
    2005 Double Mapping in Metaphorical Expressions of Thought and Communication in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language Studies5(3). 292–316. 10.1353/sls.2005.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2005.0008 [Google Scholar]
  10. Kosecki, Krzysztof
    2013 Metonymy as a Form of Expressing Identity in Phonic and Signed Languages. InJanusz Badio & Kamila Ciepiela (eds.), Language, Action, Interaction, 59–74. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2012 Metonymy in Polish Sign Language. InKrzysztof Kosecki & Janusz Badio (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Language, 159–171. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑04562‑8
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04562-8 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kosiba, Olgierd & Piotr Grenda
    2011Leksykon języka migowego. Bogatynia: Wydawnictwo “Silentium” Piotr Grenda.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kowalewski, Hubert
    2018 Heart is for Love: Cognitive Salience and Visual Metonymies in Comics. The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship8. doi:  10.16995/cg.117
    https://doi.org/10.16995/cg.117 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2017 “Is this road lazy or just incompetent?” Conceptual proximity as a parameter of salience in metonymies”. metaphorik.de27/2017. 41–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lakoff, George
    1993 The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. InAndrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1993 Reference-Point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics4(1). 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1991Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Radden, Günter & Zoltán Kövecses
    1999 Towards a Theory of Metonymy. InKlaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 17–60. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  21. Radden, Günter & Linda L. Thornburg
    1999 The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Hungarian. InKlaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 333–357. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rodríguez-Redondo, Laura-Ana
    2018 Metonymy and the dynamics of conceptual operations in Spanish Sign Language. InOlga Blanco-Carrión, Antonia Barcelona & Rosella Pannain (eds.), Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues, 287–310. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.11rod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.11rod [Google Scholar]
  23. Seto, Ken-ichi
    1999 Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche. InKlaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 91–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.06set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.06set [Google Scholar]
  24. Taub, Sarah F.
    2001Language 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]
  25. Tomaszewski, Piotr
    2005 O niektórych elementach morfologii Polskiego Języka Migowego: zapożyczenia (cz. 2). Poradnik Językowy3. 44–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Varzi, Achille
    2019 Mereology. InEdward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/mereology/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Wilcox, Phyllis Perrin
    2004 A Cognitive Key: Metonymic and Metaphorical Mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 197–222. 10.1515/cogl.2004.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.008 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2000Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19031.kow
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19031.kow
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive linguistics; metonymy; PJM; Polski Język Migowy
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