Cover not available
Part of
Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
Edited by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona and Rossella Pannain
[Human Cognitive Processing 60] 2018
► pp. 55–74

Chapter 2
Conventionality and linguistic domain(s) involved in the characterization of metonymies (for the creation of a detailed typology of metonymy)

| Universidad de Córdoba
This is the second of three chapters devoted to the presentation of a set of criteria included in a database resulting from a project on the characterization of conceptual metonymy. It discusses Fields 5 and 7 of the database entry model, concerning conventionality, either conceptual or conceptual and linguistic, and the linguistic levels where metonymies operate (grammatical rank, meaning, form, grammatical process, and function).
Keywords: database entry model, descriptive criteria, form, function, grammatical process, grammatical rank
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discussion of Field 5: Conventionality
  • 3.Discussion of Field 7: Linguistic domains/levels at which the metonymy is attested
    • 3.1Grammatical rank
    • 3.2Meaning
    • 3.3Constructional form
    • 3.4Grammatical process involved
    • 3.5Main function
    • 4.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.02bla
References (29)
References
Barcelona, A. 2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003a. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics. An analysis and a few modest proposals. In H. Cuyckens, K.-U. Panther, & T. Berg (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (223–255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b. The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing; Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series] (81–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007. Metonymy in discourse-level meaning construction. In G. Radden et al.. (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (51–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form: The roles of metonymy and inference. In K.-U Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing] (363–402). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Metonymy and metaphor in the emergence of the quantifier meaning of the noun ‘lot’. In J. Martín Párraga & J. de D. Torralbo Caballero (Eds.), New Medievalisms (3–18). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2016. Salience in metonymy-motivated constructional abbreviated from with particular attention to English clippings. Cognitive Semantics, 2, 30–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (in preparation). On the pervasive role of metonymy in constructional meaning and structure in discourse comprehension: An empirical study from a cognitive linguistic perspective. (Provisional title). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2007. On formal metonymy. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Perspectives on metonymy’, Held in Lódz, Poland, May 6–7, 2005 (43–67). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. H. 2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 2009. Generalized integration networks. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (147–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1990a. Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. Papers from Twenty-Six Regional Meeting of the Chicago Lingusitics Society, 137–162. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
1990b. The contribution of linguistics to language understanding. In A. Bocaz (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Symposium on Cognition, Language and Culture, 109–128. Santiago: Universidad de Chile.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3), 243–281.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. 2003. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. 2005. The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando, & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (11–28). Castellón (Spain): Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (3–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. 2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden et al.. (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (33–50). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication 21(4), 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stern, G. 1931. Meaning and change of meaning. Göteborg: Eladers boktryckery Aktiebolag.Google Scholar
Dictionaries
Merriam Webster online dictionary.
Oxford English Dictionary, second edition on CD-Rom (OED).
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Martín-Gascón, Beatriz
2022. Metonymy in Spanish/L2 Teaching: A Cognitive Analysis of Color Idioms and Their Inclusion in the Córdoba Project Database. In Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13528], ► pp. 146 ff. DOI logo
Barcelona, Antonio
2019. Chapter 2. The tripartite typology and the Córdoba Metonymy Database. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.