This chapter is concerned with the conceptual basis of metonymy. Particular attention is devoted to properties that are considered crucial to conceptual metonymy. The metonymic source has received little attention. However, it plays an important role as an element of the target and is given due attention. The notion of association is applied to metonymic interconnections, inference, and strength of association. A central element of metonymy is the notion of relation: However, neither contiguity nor indexicality adequately covers the range of metonymic relations. The paper argues that two more properties are pertinent to conceptual metonymy: a metonymic shift from a source concept to a complex metonymic target, and the conceptualintegration of source and target and its resulting emergent meanings.
2004The man, the key, or the car: Who or what is parked out back?Cognitive Science Online, 2, 21–34.
Barcelona, A.
2004Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (357–384). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A.
2011Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Bierwiaczonek, B.
2013Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield & Bristol: Equinox.
Brdar, M., & Brdar Szabó, R.
2014Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics 25(2), 313–340.
Brinton, L. J.
1988The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
2003Metonymy and conceptual blending. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (51–79). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Denroche, Ch.
2015Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York & London: Routledge.
1999The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 1366–1383.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
1994The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haser, V.
2005Metaphor, metonymy, and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hernández-Gomariz, I.
this volume. Analysis of metonymic triggers, metonymic chaining and patterns of interaction with metaphor and with other metonymies as part of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project.
Janda, L. A.
2011Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2), 359–392.
Kahneman, D.
2011Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.
2005The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.L.
this volume. What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
2009Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
2006Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–316.
1999Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
2003The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Song, N. S.
1997Metaphor and metonymy. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (87–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Strack, D.
2015Metonymic connections are not mapped: Theoretical and neurological evidence for “metonymic binding”. Paper presented at the 13th ICLC at Newcastle upon Tyne.
Sweep, J.
2011Metonymical transfers: The complex relation of metonymy and grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(1).
Warren, B.
1999Aspects of referential metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (121-135). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 2023. 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.