Cover not available
Part of
Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 45–65

Chapter 2
Metonymic relations – from determinacy to indeterminacy

| Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland
| University of Warsaw, Poland
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.
Keywords: comprehension heuristic, free enrichment, inferential processes, metonymy, mutual parallel adjustment, non-lexicalized concepts, non-paraphrasability, semantic indeterminacy, shallow processing, vagueness
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
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.02jod
References (64)
References
Apresjan, J. D. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 14 (2), 5–32.Google Scholar
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
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9, 124–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.7–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton S., & Sanford A. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 477–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borg, E. (2016). Exploding explicatures. Mind & Language, 31(3), 335–355. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabo, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (217–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bredart S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67, 135–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, R. (2010). A puzzle about meaning and communication. Noûs, 44(2), 340–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1998). Postcript. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics. Critical concepts (pp. 464–477). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2002). Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Explicature and semantics. In S. Davis, & B. S. Gillon (Eds.), Semantics: A reader (pp. 1–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falkum, I. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. London: University College London Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
(2015). The how and why of polysemy: A linguistic account. Lingua, 157, 83–99. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey K. G. & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, M. (2015). The challenges of explicit and implicit communication: A relevance-theoretic approach. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A. (2015). Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(2), 161–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(7), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. (2nd ed.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Natsopoulos, D. (1985). A verbal illusion in two languages. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(4), 385–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U., & Thornburg L. (2004). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Metaphoric.de, 6, 91–116. [URL]Google Scholar
(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
Papafragou, A. (1996). On Metonymy. Lingua, 99, 169–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Peters, W., & Peters I. (2000). Lexicalised systematic polysemy in WordNet. Proceedings of LREC 2000, Athens. [URL]Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1993). Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reder, L., & Kusbit, G. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Sanford, A. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind & Language 17(1–2). 188–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanford, A., & Graesser, A. (2006). Shallow processing and underspecification. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 99–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
(1998b). Pragmatics and time. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(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
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, XV(44), 117–149.Google Scholar
Sweep, J. (2012). Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Vega Moreno, R. (2007). Creativity and convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viscente, A., & Martínez-Manrique, F. (2005). Semantic underdetermination and the cognitive uses of language. Mind & Language, 20(5), 537–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Rivista di Linguistica, 15(2), 273–291.Google Scholar
(2015). Explaining metonymy. Paper delivered at the Relevance Round Table Meeting 4. Institute of English Studies, Jagiellonian University in Kraków.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn, & G, Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jodłowiec, Maria
2021. Explicit Import Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of Explicatures. Studies in Polish Linguistics 16:6 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.