Chapter 8
Shakespeare on the shelf, Blue Helmets on the move
Human-related metonymic conceptualization in English and Serbian
This chapter explores human-related conceptual metonymies in English and Serbian. Highlighting the shared metonymic mappings involving human beings as targets (x for human) and vehicles (human for x) and the similarities/differences in their lexical and grammatical realization in the two languages, the analysis shows that concepts from the human domain are readily recruited both as targets and as vehicles of metonymic mappings, whereby preferences towards particular kinds of human-related concepts as vehicles or targets outweigh language-specific differences, yielding a rather consistent metonymic portrayal of humans in English and Serbian. The analysis is followed by a discussion of the diagnostic potential of human-related metonymies for content-based cross-linguistic study of conceptual metonymy.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1The cognitive linguistic view(s) of metonymy
-
2.2Humans as metonymic vehicles and targets
- 3.Data and approach
- 4.Results and discussion
- 4.1Metonymic vehicles affording mental access to humans as desired targets
- 4.1.1
body part for person
- 4.1.2
piece of clothing/uniform for person
-
4.1.3
salient object for person
- 4.1.4
salient property for person
- 4.1.5
place for people
- 4.1.6
institution for people
- 4.2Target concepts accessed via humans as metonymic vehicles
- 4.2.1
producer for product
-
4.2.2
controller for controlled
- 4.2.3
possessor for possessed
- 4.3Language-specific aspects of the realization of human-related metonymies
- 4.3.1Lexical aspects
-
4.3.2Grammatical aspects
- 4.4The metonymic portrayal of humans in English and Serbian
- 4.5Human-related metonymies within a broader picture of metonymy
- 5.Concluding remarks
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (49)
References
Barcelona, A. (Ed.) 2000. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective [Topics in English Linguistics 30]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. 2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction [Cognitive Linguistics Research 32] (313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. 2011. Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In A. Barcelona, R. Benczes, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view [Human Cognitive Processing 28] (7–58). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barcelona, A., Benczes, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds.). 2011. Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view [Human Cognitive Processing 28]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brdar, M. 2007. Topic-continuity, metonymy and locative adverbials: A cognitive-functional account. Suvremena lingvistika, 63, 13–29.
Brdar, M. 2009. Metonymies we live without. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25] (259–274). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. This volume. How metonymy and grammar interact: Some effects and constraints in a cross-linguistic perspective.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. 2003. Referential metonymy across languages: What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other? International Journal of English Studies, 3/2, 85–105.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. 2012. The problem of data in the cognitive linguistic research on metonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences, 34/6, 728–745.
Clark, H. 1983. Making sense of nonce sense. In G. Flores d’Arcais, & R. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of understanding language (297–332). New York: Wiley.
Corbett, G. G. 2010. Agreement in Slavic. Glossos, 10, 1–61.
Croft, W. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4/4, 335–370.
Croft, W. 2006. On explaining metonymy: Comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts, “Metonymy as a prototypical category”. Cognitive Linguistics, 17/3, 317–326.
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds.) 2002. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast [Cognitive Linguistics Research 20]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foolen, A. This volume. The hand in figurative thought and language.
Gortan-Premk, D. 1997. Polisemija i organizacija leksičkog sistema u srpskom jeziku [“Polysemy and the organization of lexical system in the Serbian language”]. Beograd: Institut za srpski jezik SANU.
Handl, S. 2011. The conventionality of figurative language: A usage-based study. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
Haspelmath, M., & Tadmor, U. (Eds.). 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages. A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hilpert, M. 2006. Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In A. Stefanowitsch, & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy [Trends in Linguistics 171] (123–151). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9/1, 37–77.
Kovačević, M. 1999. Metonimija i sinegdoha [“Metonymy and synecdoche”]. Srpski jezik, 4/1–2, 171–202.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4/1, 1–38.
Markert, K., & Nissim, M. 2006. Metonymic proper names: A corpus-based account. In A. Stefanowitsch, & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy [Trends in Linguistics 171] (152–174). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nunberg, G. 1978. The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. 2004. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Metaphorik.de, 6, 91–116.
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.) 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Papafragou, A. 1995. Metonymy and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 141–175.
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17/3, 269–316.
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. 2006a. Don’t let metonymy be misunderstood: An answer to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 17/3, 327–335.
Rasulić, K. 2006. ‘This could be you’: Metonymy as conceptual integration. In K. Rasulić, & I. Trbojević (Eds.), ELLSII75 Proceedings, Vol. I (307–317). Belgrade: Faculty of Philology.
Rasulić, K. 2010. Aspekti metonimije u jeziku i mišljenju [“Aspects of metonymy in language and thought”]. Theoria, 53/3, 49–70.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective [Topics in English Linguistics 30]. (109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I. 2004. Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation [Cognitive Linguistics Research 28] (293–320). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21/4, 321–357.
Ullmann, S. 1957. The principles of semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Veloudis, I. This volume. Metaphor and metonymy as fanciful “asymmetry” builders.
Warren, B. 2006. Referential metonymy. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Rasulić, Katarina & Mirjana Mišković-Luković
2020.
ŠTA SPAJA A ŠTA RAZDVAJA KOGNITIVNOLINGVISTIČKI I KONITIVNOPRAGMATIČKI PRISTUP METAFORI?.
Lipar :72
► pp. 11 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.