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. 59–86

Targetting metonymic targets

| University of Osijek
| ELTE, Budapest
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.
Keywords: metonymic target, metonymic source, mapping, domain expansion, domain reduction, mental space
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Background: Approaching metonymy
    • 1.2The aims and the organization of the chapter
  • 2.Exit metonymic mappings
  • 3.Enter metonymic source elaboration producing metonymic targets in mental spaces
  • 4.Some advantages of our view on the nature of metonymy
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.03brd
References (69)
References
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.Google Scholar
Atkinson, P. (1985). Language, structure and reproduction: An introduction to the sociology of Basil Bernstein. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). 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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. (Eds.). (2011). Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield/ Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar
Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., & Pannain, R. (Eds.). (2018). Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. (2007a). Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
(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.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
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (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, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabo, R. (2013). Some reflections on metonymy and word-formation. ExELL. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 40–62.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2014). Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 313–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R. & Brdar, M. (2021). Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis: Getting two (or more) targets for the price of one vehicle. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figures: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 211–247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A. (2004). Lexical facets and metonymy. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, 47, 73–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens. Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. San Diego/New York/London: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fass, D. (1991). “met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17, 49–90.Google Scholar
Fass, D. C. (1997). Processing Metonymy and Metaphor. Greenwich: Ablex.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1990). Domains and connections. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 15–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 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
Ioannou, G. (2019). Metonymy and frame integration: Interfacing between concepts and discourse. Topics in Linguistics, 20(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda L. A. (2010a). Russian word-formation in contrast with Czech and Norwegian. Oslo Studies in Language, 2(2), 243–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A. (2010b). The role of metonymy in Czech word-formation. Slovo a slovesnost, 71, 260–274.Google Scholar
(2011). Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 359–392. DOI logoGoogle 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
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker (2009) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leach, E. R. (1976). Culture and communication: The logic by which symbols are connected, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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/New York: Oxford University Press. 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/New York: 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/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paprotté, W., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (1985). The ubiquity of metaphor: metaphor in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: 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
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/Philadelphia: 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. (1999). Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonímia. Granada: Método Ediciones.Google Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 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. 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 Ibáñez, F., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21(4), 321-357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tóth, M. (2018). Linguistic metonymy: Implicitness and co-activation of mental content. Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logo
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 & 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

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.