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. 287–310

Chapter 11
Metonymy and the dynamics of conceptual operations in Spanish Sign Language

 | Universidad Complutense de Madrid
This paper aims at presenting a first approach to the multilevel dynamics of metonymy in Spanish Sign Language (LSE) within Barcelona’s approach to cognitive metonymy (2000, 2002, 2005, 2011, 2015). At the same time, within this framework, we see the compatibility of the current approaches to metonymy and iconicity in signed languages (Taub 2001; Wilcox 2003, 2004). We propose a metonymic approach to the conceptualization of manual articulators and develop a three level analysis (Barcelona 2005) of three LSE examples. The examples are extracted from a corpus of cooking recipes recorded by Spanish native signers. The first results show the complex multilevel metonymic chained nature of signed meaning-form construals in LSE to be confirmed by further studies at each level.
Keywords: conceptualization, iconicity, metonymic chains
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The approach to Cognitive Metonymy and Iconicity
  • 3.Metonymic conceptualization of articulators
  • 4.Analysis of three LSE constructions
    • 4.1Metonymies at the lexical level of iconic construal
      • 4.1.1First example
      • 4.1.2Second example
      • 4.1.3Third example
    • 4.2Metonymies at the phrasal level
      • 4.2.1First example
      • 4.2.2Second example
      • 4.2.3Third example
    • 4.3 Metonymy motivating the constructional form at phrase level
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
  • Dictionaries
  • YouTube pages
Published online: 17 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.11rod
References (44)
References
Barcelona, A. 2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Cognitive approaches (31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002a. On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics today (207–224). [Łódź Studies in Language]. Frankfurt & Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2002b. 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: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. The case of metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing. Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K.-U. Panther (Ed.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (93–102). 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. The role of metonymy in meaning construction at discourse level. A case study. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpkcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds), Aspects of meaning construction (51–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form. The role of metonymy and inference. In L. L. Thornburg, K.-U. Panther, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Reviewing the properties of metonymy as a technical construct, with particular attention to the view of metonymy as a prototype category. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (7–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: on the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In N.-L Johannesson, D. Minugh, & C. Alm-Arvius (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival (13–46). Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.Google Scholar
2015. Metonymy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (143–167). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Battison, R. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linkstok Press.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. 2009. Metonymies we live without. In K.-U Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (259–254). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2009. Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (77–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Janzen, T. 2006. Visual communication: Signed language and cognition. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds)., Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (359–377). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jarque, M. J. 2011. Lengua y gesto en la modalidad Lingüística signada. Anuari de Filología. Estudis de Lingüística, 71–99.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mandel, M. A. 1977. Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In L. A. Friedman (Ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language (57–108). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meir, I. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86(4), 865–896.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pyers, J. E. 2006. Indicating the body: Expression of body part terminology in American Sign Language. Language Sciences, 28, 280–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. 2009. Generic reference in English. A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In K.-U Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (199–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Redondo, A.-L., & Díaz-Wengelin, S. 2007a. Lingüística cognitiva y lengua de signos: Una aproximación a esquemas de transitividad. Paper presented at the III Coloquio de las Lenguas de Signos / III Workshop on Sign Linguistics. Universidad del País Vasco, Vitoria. May 21–23, 2007.
2007b. Metaphorical mappings of transitivity in Spanish sign language. Paper presented at the X International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Cracow University. July 15–20, 2007.
Santibañez, F. 2002. The object image-schema and other dependent schemas. Atlantis 24(2), 183–201.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign language structure. Silver Spring, MD: Linkstok Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2003a. Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. I and II. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2003b. Representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed languages. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (169–195). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Taub, S. F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S., Wilcox, P., & Jarque, M. J. 2003. Mappings in conceptual space: Metonymy, metaphor, and iconicity in two signed languages. Jezikoslovlje 4(1), 139–156.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2), 119–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, P. 2004. A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2), 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. What do you think? Metaphor in thought and communication domains in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5(3), 267–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. 2007. Signed languages. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (1113–1136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I. 2012. Classifiers. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (158–186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dictionaries
Diccionario de lengua de signos española: SEMATOS. [URL]
Pinedo Peydró, F.-J. 2005. Diccionario de la lengua de signos española. Madrid: Fundación CNSE.Google Scholar
Costello, E. 2008. Random house Webster’s American Sign Language Dictionary Unabridged. New York: Random HouseGoogle Scholar
YouTube pages
Cebolla dulce: [URL]
Las torrijas de Bibi y Pepa: [URL]
La cocina sorda de Isabel: [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kowalewski, Hubert
2019. Metonymic construal and vehicle selection. Pragmatics & Cognition 26:2-3 ► pp. 267 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.