Article published in:
Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus viewEdited by Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
[Human Cognitive Processing 28] 2011
► pp. 7–58
Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy
Building on previous research (Barcelona, 2002, 2003), the author carefully discusses and takes a stand on the issues he finds problematic in the standard cognitive linguistic notion of metonymy. These include, among others, the status of metonymy as a mapping, as a stand-for relationship, as a type of activation, and as a type of “domain highlighting”; prototype-based vs. unitary definitions of metonymy; and the distinction of metonymy from metaphor, “modulation”, “facets”, and active zones. On the basis of his discussion of those issues, he puts forward a technical unitary (“schematic”) notion of metonymy, which he claims to coexist with three tightly interrelated prototype-based notions of metonymy that he proposes: “purely schematic”, “typical”, and “prototypical” metonymies, all parts of a continuum.
Keywords: activation, mapping, problematic issues in metonymy theory, prototype notion of metonymy, schematic notion of metonymy
Published online: 24 June 2011
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
Cited by
Cited by 49 other publications
No author info given
2017.
In Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising [Figurative Thought and Language, 2],
No author info given
2019.
In Reference Point and Case [Human Cognitive Processing, 68],
No author info given
2022.
In Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14],
Barcelona, Antonio
2018.
In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],
► pp. 27 ff.
Barcelona, Antonio
2019.
In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8],
► pp. 49 ff.
Barcelona, Antonio, Olga Blanco Carrión & Rossella Pannain
2018.
In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],
► pp. 1 ff.
Barnden, John A.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
Benczes, Réka
2015. “Cognitive Linguistics is fun”.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2 ► pp. 479 ff.
Bierwiaczonek, Bogusław
2020.
In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9],
► pp. 226 ff.
Blanco Carrión, Olga
2018.
In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],
► pp. 55 ff.
Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Tanja Gradečak
2022.
Rosie the Riveter of the COVID time.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 258 ff.
Broccias, Cristiano
2020.
In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9],
► pp. 108 ff.
Catalano, Theresa
2017. When Children Are Water: Representation of Central American Migrant Children in Public Discourse and Implications for Educators.
Journal of Latinos and Education 16:2 ► pp. 124 ff.
Catalano, Theresa & Linda R. Waugh
2013. The ideologies behind newspaper crime reports of Latinos and Wall Street/CEOs: a critical analysis of metonymy in text and image.
Critical Discourse Studies 10:4 ► pp. 406 ff.
Catalano, Theresa & Linda R. Waugh
2016. Representations of power.
Journal of Language and Politics 15:6 ► pp. 790 ff.
Devylder, Simon
2019.
In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8],
► pp. 199 ff.
Franceschi, Daniele
2014. Licensing and blocking factors in the use of BEGIN verbs.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 304 ff.
Eric Fredua-Kwarteng
2015. How Prospective Teachers Conceptualized Mathematics: Implications for Teaching.
International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 10:2 ► pp. 77 ff.
Glebkin, Vladimir
2014. Cultural-historical psychology and the cognitive view of metonymy and metaphor.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 288 ff.
Jodlowiec, Maria & Agnieszka Piskorska
2020.
In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics [Figurative Thought and Language, 8],
► pp. 45 ff.
Jodłowiec, Maria & Agnieszka Piskorska
2015. Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account.
Intercultural Pragmatics 12:2
Jódar-Sánchez, José Antonio
2016. Review of Gutiérrez-Rubio (2014): Metonimia y derivación sufijal en español: Estudio multidimensional de los mecanismos conceptuales que rigen la formación de palabras mediante sufijación en español.
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 29:1 ► pp. 332 ff.
Martin, Paul & Pam Papadelos
2017. Who stands for the norm? The place of metonymy in androcentric language.
Social Semiotics 27:1 ► pp. 39 ff.
Martín‐Gascón, Beatriz
2022.
WHY IN SPANISH “
NOS PONEMOS CONTENTOS
” BUT NOT “
SATISFECHOS
”: A COGNITIVE‐LINGUISTIC REVIEW OF THE “CHANGE‐OF‐STATE VERB
PONERSE
+ ADJECTIVE” CONSTRUCTION
*
.
Studia Linguistica
Morras, Javier & Antonio Barcelona
2019. Conceptual structuring of the English prepositions between, among, and amid, and
their Spanish equivalent entre
.
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1 ► pp. 103 ff.
Morras Cortés, Javier A. & Xu Wen
2021. Unweaving the embodied nature of English temporal prepositions.
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:1 ► pp. 60 ff.
Muñoz, Carmen Portero
2022. Forty years of metonymy.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 172 ff.
O'Mara-Shimek, Michael
2017. Levels of Ethical Quality of Metaphor in Stock Market Reporting.
Business and Society Review 122:1 ► pp. 93 ff.
O’Mara-Shimek, Michael
2020.
In The Language of Crisis [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 87],
► pp. 23 ff.
Pannain, Rossella
2017. Metonymy in numerals.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 102 ff.
Pannain, Rossella
2018.
In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],
► pp. 237 ff.
Pannain, Rossella & Lucia di Pace
2022. Metonymy and the polysemy of Covid in Italian.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 231 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2018.
In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],
► pp. 121 ff.
PARK, CHONGWON & DANIEL TURNER
2017. When Richard met CG: reference-point and English copy-raising.
Language and Cognition 9:3 ► pp. 473 ff.
Poppi, Fabio I. M., Marianna Bolognesi & Amitash Ojha
2020. Imago Dei: Metaphorical conceptualization of pictorial artworks within a participant-based framework.
Semiotica 2020:236-237 ► pp. 349 ff.
Radden, Günter
2018.
In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],
► pp. 161 ff.
Radden, Günter
2022. Metonymic hitting
.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 156 ff.
Rasulic, Katarina
2017.
In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56],
► pp. 200 ff.
Rodríguez-Redondo, Ana-Laura
2018.
In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],
► pp. 287 ff.
Slabakova, Roumyana, Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro & Sang Kyun Kang
2013. Regular and Novel Metonymy in Native Korean, Spanish, and English: Experimental Evidence for Various Acceptability.
Metaphor and Symbol 28:4 ► pp. 275 ff.
Slabakova, Roumyana, Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro & Sang Kyun Kang
2016. Regular and Novel Metonymy: Can You Curl up with a Good Agatha Christie in Your Second Language?.
Applied Linguistics 37:2 ► pp. 175 ff.
Soto Nieto, Almudena
2020. La red polisémica de negro
.
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 33:2 ► pp. 562 ff.
Szwedek, Aleksander
2014. The nature of domains and the relationships between them in metaphorization.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 342 ff.
Dr Tanweer Ali & O'Mara-Shimek, Michael
2015. A communicative efficiency and effectiveness model for using metaphor and metonymy in financial news reporting.
On the Horizon 23:3 ► pp. 216 ff.
Viimaranta, Johanna & Arto Mustajoki
2020. What Can Science, Religion, Politics, Culture and the Economy Do? A Corpus Study of Metonymical Conceptualization Combined with Personification.
Scando-Slavica 66:1 ► pp. 71 ff.
Villacañas, Beatriz & Michael White
2013. Pictorial metonymy as creativity source in “Purificación García” advertising campaigns.
Metaphor and the Social World 3:2 ► pp. 220 ff.
Zhang, Weiwei, Dirk Geeraerts & Dirk Speelman
2015. Visualizing onomasiological change: Diachronic variation in metonymic patterns for woman in Chinese.
Cognitive Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 289 ff.
Zhang, Weiwei, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts
2015. Cross-linguistic variation in metonymies for PERSON.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 220 ff.
Zibin, Aseel, Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh & Elham T. Hussein
2020. On the comprehension of metonymical expressions by Arabic-speaking EFL learners: A cognitive linguistic approach.
Topics in Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 45 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 june 2022. 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.