Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 4:2 (2017) ► pp.249–272

Metonymy in human interaction

| University at Buffalo, State University of New York (USA) | Universitat de Barcelona (Spain)
Human communication is based on mutual interaction between participants. Much of this communication is linguistic in nature. Language is structured by grammar and grammar is inherently metonymic (Langacker 2009). Thus, language and interaction must be metonymic. In this article, I explore the metonymic basis of human interaction in both its linguistic and non-linguistic aspects. First, I make a distinction between linguistic and cultural metonymy. Both have a conceptual basis. The former, extensively studied from the view of cognitive linguistics, has a linguistic source. The latter, found in fields as diverse as art, theater, and film, does not necessarily have a linguistic source. The broader concept of cultural metonymy seems to structure human interaction. Second, I delineate distinguishing factors between the two types of metonymies. Those are the nature of the source and the (mis)match in the intentionality of producer and perceiver. Third, I make an overview and provide real examples of what aspects of human interaction are metonymic. Its elements, including the content of the message, the identity, proxemics, and kinesics of the participants, and the context of the interaction, can be metonymic. Its processes, namely those of language production and reception, are as well inherently metonymic. Overall, I show that metonymy, understood as relatedness or association, pervades human interaction and plays an important role in its success.
Keywords: metonymy, interaction, communication, culture, cinema, art, literature
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metonymy
  • 3.Linguistic and cultural metonymy
    • 3.1Distinguishing features of metonymy
  • 4.Elements of human interaction
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Proxemics
    • 4.3Kinesics
    • 4.4Message
    • 4.5Setting
    • 4.6Context or scene
  • 5.Processes of human interaction
    • 5.1Production
    • 5.2Reception
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 16 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00004.jod
References (69)
References
Anderson, S. R. (1971). On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7(3), 387–396.Google Scholar
Aramburu, F. (2016). Patria. Barcelona: Tusquets.Google Scholar
Aristotle [Janko, R.]. (1987). Poetics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ashton, D. (1972). Picasso on art: A selection of views. New York, NY: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
Ault, J. (Ed.) (2006). Felix Gonzalez-Torres. Göttingen: Steidl Publishers.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (Ed.) (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought, and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., & Pannain, R. (2018). Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blunt, A. (1969). Picasso’s Guernica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2007). Metonymy in grammar: Toward motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Josip Juraj StrossmayerUniversity.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.),Style in language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coëgnarts, M., & Kravanja, P. (2015). Embodied cinematic subjectivity: Metaphorical and metonymical modes of character perception in film. In M. Coëgnarts & P. Kravanja (Eds.), Embodied Cognition and Cinema (pp. 221–243). Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Colman, F., & Anderson, J. (2004). On metonymy as word-formation: With special reference to Old English. English Studies, 85(6), 547–565. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dévényi, J. (1996). Metonymy and drama: Essays on language and dramatic strategy. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
Du Marsais, C. C. (1757). Traité des tropes pour servir d’introduction à la rhetorique et à la logique. Leipsic: Gaspar Fritsch.Google Scholar
Dżereń-Głowacka, S. (2007). Beating up intelligence: Metonymy in Terry Pratchett’s novels. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the International Conference “Perspectives on Metonymy” held in Łódź, Poland, May 6–7, 2005 (pp. 335–348). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). Wait for me, roller skate. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 165–188). New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Feld, R. (1988). Guston in time. Arts Magazine, November, 441.Google Scholar
Freed, B. F. (1981). Foreign talk, baby talk, native talk. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 281, 19–39. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2004). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford UniversityGoogle Scholar
Green, D. (2005). Metonymy in contemporary art: A new paradigm. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. & Smith, J. H. (1976).The structure of communication in early language development. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D. (1996). The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Helle, L. J. (1994). Metaphor and metonymy: A theme with variations. Scando-Slavica, 40(1), 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. & Smiley, P. (1987). Early word meanings: The case of object names. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 63–89. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1956). Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In R. Jakobson & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of Language (pp. 55–82). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. D. (2008). “Committing the perfect crime”: Sexuality, assemblage, and the postmodern turn in American art. Art Journal, 67(1), 38–53. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Kirtland-Grech, G. (2014). Música y metonimia en Oriana de Fina Torres. Confluencia: Revista Hispánica de Cultura y Literatura, 30(1), 101–112. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Knapp, M. L. (1972). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2003). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. DOI logo.Google Scholar
(2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. -U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Ozieblo, R. (2016). Adquiriendo ELE a través de los personajes de Almudena Grandes. Revista Foro de Profesores de E/LE, 161, 147–155.Google Scholar
Loring, M. W. (1919). Methods of studying controlled word associations. PhD Dissertation, John Hopkins University. Baltimore, MD: Waverley Press.Google Scholar
Matzner, S. (2016). Rethinking metonymy: Literary theory and poetic practice from Pindar to Jakobson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, D., Frank, M. G., & Hwang, H. S. (2013). Nonverbal communication: Science and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Matute, A. M. (2014). Demonios familiares. Barcelona: Destino.Google Scholar
Newport, E. E. (1975). Motherese: The speech of mothers to young children. Phd dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 109–132. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1971).Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Panther, K. -U., & Thornburg, L. (Eds.) (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Petrenko, V. F., & Korotchenko, E. A. (2012). Metaphor as a basic mechanism of art (painting). Psychology in Russia, 51, 531–567.Google Scholar
Popova, Y. B. (2015). Stories, meaning, and experience: Narrativity and enaction. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, J. E., & Jakes, S. (2004). The contribution of metaphor and metonymy to delusions. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 771, 1–17. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Runia, E. (2006). Presence. History and Theory, 45(1), 1–29. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Ryland, S. (2011). Resisting metaphors: A metonymic approach to the study of creativity in art analysis and practice. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Brighton.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Tomaselli, K. G., & Muller, J. (1987). Class, race, and oppression: Metaphor and metonymy in ‘Black’ South African theatre. Critical Arts: A Journal for Cultural Studies, 4(3), 40–58.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 251, 237–252. DOI logo.Google Scholar
van Herwegen, J., Dimitriou, D., & Rundblad, G. (2013). Development of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in typically developing children and Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(4),1300–1311. DOI logo.Google Scholar
van Veuren, M. J. (2012). Tooth and nail: Anxious bodies in Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 . Critical Arts, 26(4), 570–586. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Ward, G. L. (2004). Equatives and deferred reference. Language, 80(2), 262–289. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Zhang, W. (2016). Variation in metonymy: Cross-linguistic, historical, and lectal perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jódar-Sánchez, José Antonio
2021. Chapter 8. The linguistic landscape of the Raval. In Linguistic Landscape in the Spanish-speaking World [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 35], ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.