Chapter 2
Metonymic relations – from determinacy to indeterminacy
The chapter offers an account of metonymy and discusses some stylistic effects which may be provided by
metonymic expressions. We treat metonymically communicated concepts as part of the inferentially established
proposition of an utterance and argue that many such concepts may be indeterminate. We posit that the reference of
metonymic expressions is assigned through the operation of a pragmatic mechanism called contextual cognitive fix,
which can be seen as an alternative to free enrichment. In line with other relevance-theoretic works, we see
indeterminacy as an asset rather than deficit of communication, showing that it can be a source of stylistic effects
also in the case of metonymy.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Cognitive linguistics on metonymy
- 3.A relevance-theoretic treatment of metonymy involving contextual cognitive fix
- 4.Metonymy and cognitive effects
- 5.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References (64)
Apresjan, J. D.
(
1974)
Regular
polysemy.
Linguistics, 14 (2), 5–32.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Attridge, D.
(
1988)
Unpacking
the portmanteau, or who’s afraid of Finnegans
Wake? In
J. Culler (Ed.),
On
puns: The foundation of
letters (pp.140–155). Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bach, K.
(
1994)
Conversational
impliciture.
Mind &
Language, 9, 124–162.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bach, K.
(
2010)
Impliciture
vs. explicature: what’s the difference? In
E. Romero, &
B. Soria (Eds.)
Explicit
communication: Robyn Carston’s
pragmatics (pp. 126–137). Basingstoke: Palgrave–Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barcelona, A.
(
2000)
Introduction:
The cognitive theory of metaphor and
metonymy. In
A. Barcelona (Ed.),
Metaphor
and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive
perspective (pp.1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barton S., & Sanford A.
(
1993)
A
case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion
establishment.
Memory &
Cognition, 21(4), 477–487.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Borg, E.
(
2016)
Exploding
explicatures.
Mind &
Language, 31(3), 335–355.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar-Szabo, R., & Brdar, M.
Bredart S., & Modolo, K.
(
1988)
Moses
strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion.
Acta
Psychologica, 67, 135–144.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Buchanan, R.
(
2010)
A
puzzle about meaning and
communication.
Noûs, 44(2), 340–371.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R.
(
1998)
Postcript. In
A. Kasher (Ed.),
Pragmatics.
Critical
concepts (pp. 464–477). London: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R.
(
2002)
Thoughts
and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R.
(
2004)
Explicature
and semantics. In
S. Davis, &
B. S. Gillon (Eds.),
Semantics:
A
reader (pp. 1–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Corazza, E., & Dokic, J.
2007 Sense
and insensibility or where minimalism meets
contextualism. In
G. Preyer, &
G. Peter (Eds.),
Context-sensitivity
and semantic minimalism: New essays on semantics and
pragmatics (pp. 169–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W.
(
1993)
The
role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies.
Cognitive
Linguistics, 4, 335–370.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falkum, I.
(
2011)
The
semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic
account. London: University College London Ph.D. dissertation.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falkum, I.
(
2015)
The
how and why of polysemy: A linguistic
account.
Lingua, 157, 83–99.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G.
(
1997)
Mappings
in thought and
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(
2002)
The
way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N.
(
2007)
The
“good enough” approach to language comprehension.
Language and Linguistics
Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ferreira, F., Bailey K. G. & Ferraro, V.
(
2002)
Good-enough
representations in language comprehension.
Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 11(1), 1–15.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
(
2012)
Interpreting
figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jodłowiec, M.
(
2015)
The
challenges of explicit and implicit communication: A relevance-theoretic
approach. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A.
(
2015)
Metonymy
revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account.
Intercultural
Pragmatics, 12(2), 161–187.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(
1998)
Metonymy:
Developing a cognitive linguistic view.
Cognitive
Linguistics, 9(7), 37–77.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(
2003)
Metaphors
we live by. (2nd
ed.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1993)
Reference-point
constructions.
Cognitive
Linguistics, 4, 1–38.
![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)
Maitra, I.
(
2007)
How
and why to be a moderate contextualist. In
G. Preyer, &
G. Peter (Eds.),
Context-sensitivity
and semantic minimalism: New essays on semantics and
pragmatics (pp. 112–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Natsopoulos, D.
(
1985)
A
verbal illusion in two languages.
Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 14(4), 385–398.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noveck, I., & Sperber D.
(
2007)
The
why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of “scalar
inferences”. In
N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.),
Pragmatics (pp. 184–212). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K-U., & Thornburg L.
(
2004)
The
role of conceptual metonymy in meaning
construction.
Metaphoric.de, 6, 91–116.
[URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K-U., & Thornburg L.
(
2005)
Inference
in the construction of meaning: The role of conceptual
metonymy. In
E. Górska, &
G. Radden (Eds.),
Metonymy-metaphor
collage (pp. 37–57). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Papafragou, A.
(
1996)
On
Metonymy.
Lingua, 99, 169–195.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Park, H., & Reder, L. M.
(
2004)
Moses
illusion: Implication for human cognition. In
R. Phol (Ed.),
Cognitive
illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and
memory (pp. 275–291). Hove: Psychology Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peters, W., & Peters I.
(
2000)
Lexicalised
systematic polysemy in WordNet.
Proceedings of LREC 2000,
Athens.
[URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pinker, S.
(
2007)
The
stuff of thought: Language as a window into human
nature. London: Penguin.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pustejovsky, J.
(
1995)
The
generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Recanati, F.
(
1993)
Direct
reference: From language to
thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Recanati, F.
(
2004)
Literal
meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reder, L., & Kusbit, G.
(
1991)
Locus
of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval or match? Journal of
Memory and
Language, 30, 385–406.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
(
2011)
Metonymy
and cognitive operations. In
R. Benczes,
A. Barcelona, &
F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.),
Defining metonymy in
cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus
view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sanford, A.
(
2002)
Context,
attention and depth of processing during interpretation.
Mind &
Language 17(1–2). 188–206.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sanford, A., & Graesser, A.
(
2006)
Shallow
processing and underspecification.
Discourse
Processes, 42(2), 99–108.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson D.
(
1995)
Relevance:
Communication and cognition, 2nd
ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson D.
(
1998a)
The
mapping between the mental and the public
lexicon. In
P. Carruthers, &
J. Boucher (Eds.),
Language
and thought: Interdisciplinary
themes (pp. 184–200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson D.
(
1998b)
Pragmatics
and time. In
R. Carston, &
S. Uchida (Eds.),
Relevance
theory: Applications and
implications (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson D.
(
2005)
Pragmatics.
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 17, 353–388. Reprinted
in
F. Jackson, &
M. Smith (Eds.) 2005
Oxford
handbook of contemporary
philosophy (pp. 468–501). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson D.
(
2008)
A
deflationary account of metaphors. In
R. Gibbs (Ed.),
The
Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson D.
(
2015)
Beyond
speaker’s meaning.
Croatian Journal of
Philosophy, XV(44), 117–149.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweep, J.
(
2012)
Metonymical
object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and
German. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Ph.D. dissertation.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G.
(
1995)
Conceptual
integration and formal expression.
Metaphor and Symbolic
Activity, 10(3), 183–203.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G.
(
2000)
Metaphor,
metonymy and binding. In
A. Barcelona (Ed.),
Metaphor
and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive
perspective (pp. 133–145). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Oostendorp, H., & de Mul, S.
(
1990)
Moses
beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion.
Acta
Psychologica, 74(1), 35–46.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Viscente, A., & Martínez-Manrique, F.
(
2005)
Semantic
underdetermination and the cognitive uses of language.
Mind &
Language, 20(5), 537–558.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wałaszewska, E.
(
2008)
Polysemy
in relevance theory. In
E. Mioduszewska, &
A. Piskorska (Eds.),
Relevance
round table
I, (pp. 123–134). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D.
(
2003)
Relevance
and lexical pragmatics.
Rivista di
Linguistica, 15(2), 273–291.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D.
(
2015)
Explaining
metonymy. Paper delivered at the Relevance Round Table
Meeting 4. Institute of English Studies, Jagiellonian University in Kraków.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Carston R.
(
2007)
A
unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc
concepts. In
N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.),
Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(
2002)
Truthfulness
and
relevance.
Mind, 111, 583–632.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(
2004)
Relevance
theory. In
L. Horn, &
G, Ward (Eds.),
The
handbook of
pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(
2012)
Meaning
and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Jodłowiec, Maria
2021.
Explicit Import Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of Explicatures.
Studies in Polish Linguistics 16:6
► pp. 163 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.