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. 97–120

Chapter 4
Some contrast effects in metonymy

| University of Birmingham, UK
This chapter analyses important, variegated ways in which contrast arises in metonymy. It explores, for instance, the negative evaluation of the target achieved in de-roling, where the source chosen is a target feature that is largely irrelevant to the target’s role in a described situation, therein contrasting with other target features that would have been more appropriate. This form of contrast, amongst others, can generate irony, so that the chapter elucidates some of the complex connections between metonymy and irony. It also explores the multiple roles of contrast in transferred epithets, especially as transferred epithets can be simultaneously metonymic and metaphorical. Finally, the chapter makes contrast-related suggestions regarding the metonymy database described by Barcelona and colleagues in other chapters.
Keywords: de-personalization, evaluative effects, highlighting, irony, metaphor, transferred epithets
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Degrees of source/target contrast in metonymy
  • 3.Contrast and evaluation
    • 3.1(De-)emphasis and de-personalization
    • 3.2De-roling
    • 3.3Irony through de-roling and other means
  • 4.Transferred epithets
    • 4.1The phenomenon and its metonymic aspect
    • 4.2Metaphorical aspects of transferred epithets
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.04bar
References (28)
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
2011. The conceptual motivation of bahuvrihi compounds in English and Spanish: Analysis of a small representative sample. In M. Brdar, M. Z. Fuchs, & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Converging and diverging trends in Cognitive Linguistics (151–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A. 2010. Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics 21(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birgisson, B. 2012. Skaldic blends out of joint: Blending theory and aesthetic conventions. Metaphor and Symbol 27(4), 283–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, M. 1993. More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (19–41). New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, A. 2010a. Between poetry and economy. Metonymy as a semantic principle. In A. Burkhardt & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s): The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes (245–270). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b. Euphemism and truth. In A. Burkhardt & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s): The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes (355–372). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. 2002. Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (75–111). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fass, D. 1997. Processing metaphor and metonymy. Greenwich & Connecticut: Ablex.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1994. Poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gradečak-Erdeljić, T., & Milić, G. 2011. Metonymy at the crossroads: a case of euphemisms and dysphemisms. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consesus view (147–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero Ruiz, J. 2009. Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Herrero Ruiz, J. 2011. The role of metonymy in complex tropes. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consesus view (167–194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mac Cormac, E. R. 1985. A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. 2010. Synecdoche: A trope, a whole trope, and nothing but a trope. In A. Burkhardt & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s): The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes (297–319). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G. 1995. Transfers of meaning. J. Semantics 12(2), 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2007. Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Antonymy, metonymy, and irony: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Talk delivered at Third International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (GCLA-08/DGKL-08). Leipzig, Germany, September 25–27, 2008.Google Scholar
2012. Antonymy in language structure and use. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (161–188). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Pauwels, P. 1999. Putting metonymy in its place. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden, Metonymy in language and thought (255–273). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3), 269–316.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P. 2013. Metaphor use in advertising: analysis of the interaction between multimodal metaphor and metonymy in a green washing advertisement. In E. Gola & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor in focus: Philosophical perspectives on metaphor use (67–82). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voßhagen, C. 1999. Opposition as a metonymic principle. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (289–308). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. 2013. Interpretation of transferred epithet by means of Conceptual Integration Theory. J. Language Teaching and Research 4(5), 1072–1078. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, B. 2006. Referential metonymy. Scripta Minora of the Royal Society of Letters at Lund, 2003–2004: 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Barcelona, Antonio
2024. Trends in cognitive-linguistic research on metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John A.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 33 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.