In this chapter we propose to treat metonymy as a cognitive operation of conceptual elaboration based on the part-whole relationship that is triggered by the use of an expression (or metonymic vehicle) associated with a certain conceptual cluster (or metonymic source) within a conceptual domain. The activation of the source conceptual cluster opens up a mental space which is dynamically expanded or reduced, in the sense of Ruiz de Mendoza (1999, 2000), so as to come as close as possible to fitting the conceptual givens provided by the co(n)text of use. By approaching metonymy in this manner we are able to explain in a very natural way a number of facts observed in recent research.
Alač, M., & Coulson, S. (2004). The man, the key, or the car: Who or what is parked out back?Cognitive Science Online, 2(1), 21–34.
Atkinson, P. (1985). Language, structure and reproduction: An introduction to the sociology of Basil Bernstein. London: Methuen.
Barcelona, A. (2002). On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics today (pp. 207–224). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Barcelona, A. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peńa Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34.
Brdar, M. (2007a). Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.
Brdar, M. (2007b). How to do a couple of things with metonymy. In P. Cap, & J. Nijakowska (Eds.), Current trends in pragmatics (pp. 2–32). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Brdar, M. (2015). Metonymic chains and synonymy. Fluminensia, 27(2), 257–276.
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Brdar, M. (2019). On the regularity of metonymy across languages (exemplified on some metonymies in medical discourse). ExELL. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 7(1), 52–69.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabo, R. (2013). Some reflections on metonymy and word-formation. ExELL. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 40–62.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2014). Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 313–340.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & Brdar, M. (fc.). Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or: How metonymies get piggybacked across modalities by other metonymies and metaphors. In A. Bagasheva (Ed.), Figurative thought and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Coulson, S., & Fauconnier, G. (1999). Fake guns and stone lions: Conceptual blending and privative adjectives. In B. Fox, D. Jurafsky, & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Cognition and function in language (pp. 143–158). Palo Alto: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, A. (2004). Lexical facets and metonymy. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, 47, 73–96.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens. Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. San Diego/New York/London: Harcourt.
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. London/New York: Routledge.
Fass, D. (1991). “met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17, 49–90.
Fass, D. C. (1997). Processing Metonymy and Metaphor. Greenwich: Ablex.
Fauconnier, G. (1990). Domains and connections. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 15–174.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In R. W.J. Gibbs, & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U. (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/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2003). Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2009). Introduction. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264.
Radden, G. (2014). Situational metonymies. Plenary lecture at The 1st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language, Thessaloniki, April 24–26, 2014.
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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999). Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonímia. Granada: Método Ediciones.
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/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21(4), 321-357.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther, & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tóth, M. (2018). Linguistic metonymy: Implicitness and co-activation of mental content. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2024. When medical eponyms become false friends, and how to deal with them. English for Specific Purposes 73 ► pp. 75 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. 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.