Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Approaches to Mind, Language, and Society: Theory and description
Edited by Mario Serrano-Losada and Daniela Pettersson-Traba
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1] 2024
► pp. 51–74

Trends in cognitive-linguistic research on metonymy

ORCID logo | University de Córdoba
This article is a brief introduction to the theory of conceptual metonymy and a brief survey of research on this area. The first section presents the cognitive-linguistic notion of metonymy, including a discussion of the various problematic aspects of this notion. This is followed by a longer section illustrating some of the main types of metonymies. The section devoted to the ubiquity of metonymy surveys research on its involvement in cognition, grammatical meaning and form, pragmatic inferencing and discourse, linguistic change, and non-linguistic areas like art and gesture; it ends with a brief note on metonymic triggers and chains, and on its multilevel operation. The chapter ends with a reflection on future directions.
Keywords: definition of metonymy, cognitive linguistics, types of metonymy, cognition, semantics, grammar, linguistic form, discourse-pragmatic inferencing, metonymy triggers, metonymy chaining, research methods
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction. The notion of metonymy
  • 2.Main types of metonymies in terms of semantic-pragmatic function, generality and metonymy category, and prototypicality
    • 2.1Types of metonymies in terms of semantic-pragmatic function
    • 2.2Types in terms of generality and metonymy category
      • 2.2.1Generic level: whole for part metonymies
      • 2.2.2Generic level: part for whole metonymies
      • 2.2.3Generic level: part for part metonymies
      • 2.2.4Example of a more detailed hierarchy
    • 2.3Types in terms of prototypicality
  • 3.The ubiquity of metonymy in cognition, oral language and beyond
  • 4.Future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00112.bar
References (102)
References
Barcelona, A. (2000a). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2000b). On the plausibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive approaches (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2002a). 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. 207–278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002b). On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics today (pp. 207–224). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2003a). Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a few modest proposals. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 223–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003b). The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K.-W. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007a). The multilevel role of metonymy in grammar and discourse: A Case Study. In K. Kosecki, (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference “Perspectives on Metonymy” (pp. 103–131). Berlin: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
(2007b). The role of metonymy in meaning construction at discourse level: A case study. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 51–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of ‘bahuvrihi’ compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (1), 208–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009a). Motivation of construction meaning and form: The roles of metonymy and inference. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 363–401). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. AILA Review, 23 (1), 134–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011a). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In N.-L. Johannesson & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm metaphor festival (pp. 3–42). Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.Google Scholar
(2015). Metonymy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 143–167). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Salience in metonymy-motivated constructional abbreviated form with particular attention to English clippings. Cognitive Semantics, 2 (1), 30–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018a). General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 27–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Metaphor and metonymy in language and art: The dogma of the Holy Trinity and its artistic representation. In P. Chilton & M. Kopytowska (Eds.), Religion, language, and the human mind (pp. 353–385). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). The tripartite typology and the Córdoba Metonymy Database. In M. Bolognesi, M. Brdar & K. S. Despot (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in the digital age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language (pp. 49–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming a). Metonymy and discourse comprehension: Five case studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(forthcoming b). Metonymic reasoning: A qualitative study. Lublin Studies in Language and Literature.
Barnden, J. (2018). Some contrast effects in metonymy. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 97–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2007). On formal metonymy. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp. 43–67). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczwonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2007). Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2007). When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Some thoughts on the construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R. (2009). Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 323–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciepiela, K. (2007). Metonymy in Aphasia. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp. 199–208). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1993/2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (4), 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 275–287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75–112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feyaerts, K. (1999). Metonymic hierarchies: The conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions. In K.-W. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 309–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 (2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2015). Lexical semantics. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 273–295). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Peirsman, Y. (2011). Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Jr. R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2007a). Experiential tests of figurative meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 19–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007b). Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 2–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Group, P. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rubio, E. (2014). Metonimia y derivación sufijal en español: Estudio multidimensional de los mecanismos conceptuales que rigen la formación de palabras mediante sufijación en español [Metonymy and suffixal derivation in Spanish. A multidimensional study of the conceptual mechanisms regulating suffixal derivation in Spanish]. Madrid: Liceus.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hernández-Gomariz, I. (2018). Analysis of metonymic triggers, metonymic chaining, and patterns of interaction with metaphor and with other metonymies as part of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 75–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2007). Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body terms. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 77–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Historical linguistics. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 346–366). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kos, P. (2023). The role of metonymy in naming: If longhair then apple tree and teacher . Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 21 (1), 86–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosecki, K. (2007b). Some remarks on metonymy in compounding. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp. 241–251). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 37–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwiatkowska, A. (2007). Pre-linguistic and non-linguistic metonymy. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp. 297–307). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markert, K., & Nissim, M. (2003). Corpus-based metonymy analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 18 (3), 175–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martsa, S. (2013). Conversion in English: A cognitive semantic approach. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (2001). Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2 (2), 245–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, G. B., Rader, R. S., & Clarito, A. (2009). The metonymic basis of a ‘semantic partial’: Tagalog lexical constructions with ka-. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona, (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 111–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Introduction to cognitive pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (6), 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2002). The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 279–322). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003a). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003b). Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2018). What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. (1996). On Metonymy. Lingua, 99 (4), 169–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19 (4), 245–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pluciennik, J. (2007). Princess antonomasia, individualism, and the Quixotism of Culture: A case of ‘Tristram Shandy’ by Laurence Sterne. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ (pp. 349–366). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Portero-Muñoz, C. (2018). Are smartphone face and Googleheads a real or a fake phenomenon? The current role of metonymy in semantic exocentricity. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 261–286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors?. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. O. Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castellón (Spain): Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
(2009). Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 199–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Masegosa, A. G. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal-Usón, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 33–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Campo, J. L. O. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Cervel, M. S. P. (2005b). Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations, and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 249–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez-Hernández, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2008). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L. L., & Panther, K.-U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. R. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tóth, M. (2018). Linguistic metonymy: Implicitness and co-activation of mental content. Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (2000). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 133–145). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilcox, P. P. (2004). A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (2), 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2015). Signed languages. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 668–689). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W. (2016). Variation in metonymy: Cross-linguistic, historical and Lectal perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2011). Variation in the (non)metonymic capital names in Mainland Chinese and Taiwan Chinese. Metaphor and the Social World, 1 (1), 90–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2007). Arguing the case against coercion. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 99–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar