Chapter published in:
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

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
Published online: 17 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.04bar
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
2010 Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics 21(1), 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birgisson, B.
2012 Skaldic blends out of joint: Blending theory and aesthetic conventions. Metaphor and Symbol 27(4), 283–298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Black, M.
1993 More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (19–41). New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G.
1995 Transfers of meaning. J. Semantics 12(2), 109–132. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
2006 Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3), 269–316.CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X.
2013 Interpretation of transferred epithet by means of Conceptual Integration Theory. J. Language Teaching and Research 4(5), 1072–1078. CrossrefGoogle 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