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. 217–248
What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy?
Rita Brdar-Szabó | Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Mario Brdar | University of Osijek
The central issue that concerns us in this chapter is whether metonymy should be conceived as a mapping. The way metonymies function in authentic discourse indicates that we have two-way traffic. The initial conceptual substrate is designated by the source concept, but it is plastic and flexible enough to allow considerable customizing, often within complex metonymic networks. The inferences that steer the customizing are guided by the information based on text (i.e., cotext) and context (circumstances). It is argued that metonymy should best be approached as an inference-based domain elaboration (either expansion or reduction) of the metonymic source, in the course of which domains are tailored to an optimal conceptual measure with regard to their function.
Keywords: discourse, domain elaboration, inference, mapping, metonymic chain
Published online: 24 June 2011
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.12brd
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.12brd
Cited by
Cited by 25 other publications
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. ix ff.
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. 1 ff.
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. 17 ff.
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. 59 ff.
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. 85 ff.
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. 147 ff.
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. 223 ff.
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. 227 ff.
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. 245 ff.
No author info given
2014.
In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45],
► pp. 249 ff.
No author info given
2017.
In Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising [Figurative Thought and Language, 2],
Denroche, Charles
2018. Text metaphtonymy.
Metaphor and the Social World 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Gibbs Jr., Raymond W.
2022. Metaphorical experience.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 7 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
Littlemore, Jeannette & Caroline Tagg
2016. Metonymy and Text Messaging: A Framework for Understanding Creative Uses of Metonymy.
Applied Linguistics ► pp. amw018 ff.
Muñoz, Carmen Portero
2022. Forty years of metonymy.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 172 ff.
Pannain, Rossella & Lucia di Pace
2022. Metonymy and the polysemy of Covid in Italian.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 231 ff.
Perak, Benedikt
2018.
In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],
► pp. 205 ff.
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena & Karine Duvignau
2016. Metaphor, metonymy, and their interaction in the production of semantic approximations by monolingual children: A corpus analysis.
First Language 36:4 ► pp. 383 ff.
Pérez-Sobrino, Paula, Jeannette Littlemore & David Houghton
2019. The Role of Figurative Complexity in the Comprehension and Appreciation of Advertisements.
Applied Linguistics 40:6 ► pp. 957 ff.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Alicia Galera Masegosa
2020.
In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9],
► pp. 284 ff.
Stadler, Michael W.
2019. Thinking, Experiencing and Rethinking Mereological Interdependence.
Gestalt Theory 41:1 ► pp. 31 ff.
Zhang, Weiwei, Dirk Geeraerts & Dirk Speelman
2018.
In Mixed-Effects Regression Models in Linguistics [Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences, ],
► pp. 117 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.