Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Thought and Language in Action
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Figurative Thought and Language 16] 2022
► pp. 37–58

A Cognitive Grammar approach to ‘metonymy’

This chapter builds on Broccias’s (2017) critique of recent cognitive linguistic approaches to metonymy, which tend to neglect form and the substitutive relation built into the traditional x for y formula. By bringing back to the fore the tropical characterization of metonymy (Matzner 2016), which instead relies heavily on form and abrasiveness, this chapter develops a Cognitive Grammar approach to metonymy which rests on the reference point ability and conceptual integration. It shows how this approach can handle a variety of cases, from ‘straightforward’ metonymies to ‘metonymic association’. Crucially, it is argued that the multifaceted examples taken into consideration do not necessarily cohere into a ‘Platonic’ category.
Keywords: metonymy, reference point ability, conceptual integration, active zones, facets, conversion
Article outline
  • 1.The cognitive approach to metonymy
  • 2.The tropical approach to metonymy
    • 2.1Index metonymy
    • 2.2Amplification metonymy
    • 2.3Metonymic association
    • 2.4Interim summary
  • 3.A Cognitive Grammar approach to metonymy
    • 3.1The reference-point ability
    • 3.2‘Straightforward’ metonymy in CG
    • 3.3Active zones and part-whole relations
    • 3.4Facets
  • 4.Less ‘straightforward’ examples of metonymy in CG
    • 4.1Amplification metonymy
    • 4.2Noun-to-verb conversion
    • 4.3Metonymic association
    • 4.4Sound metonymies?
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.02bro
References (17)
References
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Brdar M., Brdar-Szabó R., & Perak B. (2020). Separating (non-)figurative weeds from wheat. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 46–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C. (2003). The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). A radical approach to metonymy. Textus, 30(1), 185–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymy. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–205). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (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. 45–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matzner, S. (2016). Rethinking metonymy: Literary theory and poetic practice from Pindar to Jakobson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 245–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (Eds.) (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (2015). Speaker-centered perspective of metonymy. Plenary talk delivered at the 2nd International Symposium on Figurative Language and Thought, University of Pavia, 28–30. 10. 2015.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 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. 109–312). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Figurative language. Relations and constraints. In J. Barnden & A. Gargett (Eds), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp. 469–510). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Paradis, Carita
2023. Cognitive Grammar. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.