Applying Cognitive Linguistics
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Figurative language can present both difficulties and opportunities in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural communication. Previous studies have focused on difficulties in metaphor comprehension by speakers of different languages, but metonymy comprehension is a relatively under-researched area. In this paper, we describe a two-part study exploring metonymy comprehension by Japanese learners of English. In the first part of the study, ten Japanese learners of English were asked to explain the meanings of twenty expressions instantiating a range of metonymy types. Comprehension problems included: the missing of, or misuse of, contextual clues; positive and negative interference from Japanese; ‘underspecification’; and a tendency to interpret metonyms as if they were metaphors. The second part of the study focused on the functions performed by metonymy. Twenty-two Japanese learners of English were asked to interpret a set of twenty metonyms, each of which performed a particular function. Metonyms involving humour and irony appeared to be more difficult to understand than ones serving other functions, such as indirect reference and evaluation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barcelona, A
    (2002) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.207-277). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnden, J
    (2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1-34. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brdar, M. , & Brdar-Szabó, R
    (2003) Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian. In K.U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.241-266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.17brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.17brd [Google Scholar]
  4. British national corpus at Brigham Young University (BYU-BNC)
    , accessed viacorpus.byu.edu/bnc/
  5. Chen, Y.C , & Lai, H.L
    (2012) EFL learners’ awareness of the metonymy-metaphor continuum in figurative expressions. Language Awareness, 21(3), 235-248. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2011.598527
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.598527 [Google Scholar]
  6. Deignan, A.H
    (2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dirven, R
    (2003) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation [1993]. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.75-112). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197 [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldberg, A
    (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Goossens, L
    (2002) 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]
  10. Kövecses, Z
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kövecses, Z. , & Radden, G
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37-78. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lakoff, G
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Langacker, R.W
    (2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  14. Littlemore, J
    (2001) The use of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas students. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 333–351. doi: 10.1080/13562510120061205
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120061205 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  16. Littlemore, J. , Chen, P.T. , Koester, A. , & Barnden, J
    (2011) Difficulties in metaphoric comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 1-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Littlemore, J. , & Low, G
    (2006) Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230627567
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627567 [Google Scholar]
  18. Piquer-Piriz, A
    (2008) Reasoning figuratively in early EFL: Some implications for the development of vocabulary. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp.219-240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Radden, G. , & Kövecses, Z
    (1999) Towards and theory of metonymy. In K U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): intercultural communication; language learning; metonymy; rhetorical functions
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