Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage
Edited by Augusto Soares da Silva
[Figurative Thought and Language 11] 2021
► pp. 175–212

Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis

Getting two (or more) targets for the price of one vehicle

 | ELTE Budapest
 | University of Osijek
Given appropriate context, indeterminacy may arise when a metonymic vehicle, i.e. the source, can be simultaneously linked to more than one metonymic target. We claim that this situation, akin to the phenomenon of metalepsis or transgression in narratology, is not rare, but quite usual, and even regular in certain contexts. This may lead to an increase of a second-order type of anisomorphy, but ultimately leaves space for dynamic meaning construal and optimizes texts coherence. In order to accommodate metalepsis, we argue for an approach to metonymy not based on mappings but on the activation of the source conceptual cluster opening a mental space dynamically expanded or reduced so as to fit the conceptual frame provided by the co(n)text of use.
Keywords: metonymy, metalepsis, indeterminacy, complex metonymy, metonymic chain, metonymic target, metonymic source, mental space
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metonymic interaction: Chains and tiers
  • 3.Metonymic indeterminacy
    • 3.1Sylleptic and complementary metonymies
    • 3.2Metonymy and metalepsis
      • 3.2.1Some more cases of metonymic indeterminacy
      • 3.2.2Metalepsis
    • 3.3Multiple metonymic targets
      • 3.3.1Getting two or more targets for the price of one (vehicle)
      • 3.3.2Multiple metonymic targets: So what?
  • 4.Recapitulation and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11.06brd
References (62)
References
Andor, J. (1998). On the lexical bases of ellipsis in English. In J. Andor, B. Hollósy, T. Laczkó, & P. Pelyvás (Eds.), The diversity of linguistic description. Studies in linguistics: In honour of Béla Korponay (pp. 39–54). Debrecen: Institute of English and American Studies.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekhuizen, B., Milić, S., Armstrong, B. C., & Stevenson, S. (2018). What company do semantically ambiguous words keep? Insights from distributional word vectors. In C. S. Society (Ed.), 40th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2018) Madison, Wisconsin, USA 25–28 July 2018: Changing/Minds (pp. 1347–1352). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczionek, B. (2007). Synonymy reactivated. Linguistica Silesiana, 28, 7–21.Google Scholar
Bloom, H. (1975). A map of misreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2007a). Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
(2007b). Topic-continuity, metonymy and locative adverbials: A cognitive-functional account. Suvremena lingvistika, 33(1), 13–29.Google Scholar
(2015). Metonymic chains and synonymy. Fluminensia, 27(2), 257–276.Google Scholar
(2017). Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Or, Some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K. -M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The (non-)metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 229–257). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 313–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Targetting metonymic targets. Presentation at The 3rd International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language, Osijek, April 26–28, 2017.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2003). The manner for activity metonymy across domains and languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 43–69.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., & Stelma, J. H. (2004). Metaphor clusters in discourse. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 107–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummings, B. (2007). Metalepsis. In S. Adamson, G. Alexander, & K. Ettenhuber (Eds.), Renaissance figures of speech (pp. 217–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fass, D. (1991). “met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17, 49–90.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1989). Principles of monolingual lexicography. In F. Josef Hausmann, O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand, & L. Zgusta (Eds.), Wörterbücher. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie. Dictionaries. An international encyclopedia of lexicography. Dictionnaires. Encyclopédie internationale de lexicographie. Vol. 1 (pp. 287–296). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genette, G. (2004). Métalepse. De la figure à la fiction. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2007). Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body-part terms. In G. Radden, K. -M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 77–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jódar-Sánchez, J. A. (2014). Que comenca ja la pel·li! A frame-based study of Catalan and Spanish begin-verbs and the situation-entity metonymy. (MA), San José State University.Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E. (2007). Reconciling linguistics and psycholinguistics: On the psychological reality of linguistic polysemy. In M. Rakova, G. Pethő, & C. Rákosi (Eds.), The cognitive basis of polysemy (pp. 17–46). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D. A., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1534–1543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, V. (2003a). Metaphor cluster in business media discourse: A social cognition approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of English, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.Google Scholar
(2003b). Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: Analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. metaphorik.de, 5, 115–134.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2012). Ten lectures on figurative meaning-making: The role of body and context. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Krišković, A. (2016). Metonimijska i nemetonimijska upotreba naziva grana medicinskih znanosti u engleskom i hrvatskom jeziku: kognitivnolingvistička analiza. Fluminensia, 28(1), 107–121.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 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
Lapata, M., Keller, F., & Scheepers, Ch. (2003). Intra-sentential context effects on the interpretation of logical metonymy. Cognitive Science, 27, 649–668. DOI logoGoogle 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
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peńa Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 146–185). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K. -U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 409–441.Google Scholar
(1993). Type coercion and lexical selection. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the lexicon (pp. 73–94). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2014). Situational metonymies. Plenary lecture at The 1st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language, Thessaloniki, April 24–26, 2014.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. -U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metonymy and metaphor at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: Volume in honor of René Dirven (pp. 121–152). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. R. Taylor, & J. Littlemore (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Figurative language: relations and constraints. In J. Barnden, & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression (pp. 469–510). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (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., & Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarkhosh, K. (2011). Metalepsis in popular comedy film. In K. Kukkonen, & S. Klimek (Eds.), Metalepsis in popular culture (pp. 171–195). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thornburg, 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
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Daler Zayniev
2024. Chapter 2. Metonymic layers in proverbs. In Proverbs within Cognitive Linguistics [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 16], ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2022. Targetting metonymic targets. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2022. Figurative thought and language research in the 21st century. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Tanja Gradečak
2022.  Rosie the Riveter of the COVID time. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 258 ff. DOI logo
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2022. Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2023. Figuratively used product names: From ergonyms to eponyms and paragons. Lingua 290 ► pp. 103552 ff. DOI logo
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2023. Cultural models mediating between visual sensation and semiotic systems, exemplified on visual, alpha-pictorial and verbal-gestural communication. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10:2 ► pp. 367 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.