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.
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
References
Bierwiaczonek, B.
(
2013).
Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar M., Brdar-Szabó R., & Perak B.
Broccias, C.
(
2003)
The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Broccias, C.
(
2017)
A radical approach to metonymy.
Textus, 30(1), 185–196.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.
(
1999)
Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.
(
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Littlemore, J.
(
2015)
Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matzner, S.
(
2016)
Rethinking metonymy: Literary theory and poetic practice from Pindar to Jakobson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paradis, C.
(
2004)
Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones.
Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 245–264.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G.
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
(
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
Paradis, Carita
2023.
Cognitive Grammar. In
The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 may 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.