In:New Vistas in Research on Metaphor and Metonymy: Their contexts and interaction across discourse types and modalities
Edited by Robert Kiełtyka, Mario Brdar, Marcin Kudła and Goran Milić
[Human Cognitive Processing 82] 2027
► pp. 18–43
Chapter 1Metonymy and triggers in the Córdoba Metonymy Database
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This chapter analyses data in our metonymy
database. Metonymic triggers are the contextual factors that prompt
the operation of a conceptual metonymy. They can be co-textual, like
the immediate lexicogrammatical co-text (ict), or not co-textual,
like frames. The results of the analysis show that the ict triggers
active (act) metonymies that in turn prompt readings qualified by
frames, as in the example To think that the same petticoats
should come between two of my boys!, where the ict does
not prompt strongly enough the reading of
petticoats as “petticoat wearers” and an “act”
metonymy triggers the frame in turn prompting that reading. Direct
prompting by the ict of the intended reading (the motivating
metonymy then remaining “dormant”) is also frequent. Both situations
occur with constructions (lexical or syntactic). The comprehension
of indirect speech acts and implicatures is normally guided by act
metonymies whose main triggers are not co-textual but strictly
cognitive.
Article outline
- 1.Preliminaries
- 1.1Aims
- 1.2The University of Córdoba Metonymy Database (UCMD)
- 1.3Basic notions
- 1.3.1Metonymy and triggers
- 1.3.2Active (act) vs. inactive or “dormant” (dm?) metonymy
- 1.3.3Triggering Power (TP)
- 2.Methodology
- 3.Results: Patterns in terms of the triggering power of the immediate
lexicogrammatical co-text (ict) and the resulting active (act) or
dormant (dm?) operation of metonymy
- 3.1Patterns in lexical meaning data
- 3.1.1Triggering power patterns in lexical meaning data
- 3.2Patterns in syntactic construction data
- 3.2.1Triggering power patterns in syntactic constructional meaning data
- 3.3Patterns in indirect speech act data
- 3.3.1Triggering power patterns in indirect speech acts data
- 3.4Patterns in implicature data
- 3.4.1Triggering power patterns in implicature data
- 3.1Patterns in lexical meaning data
- 4.Discussion and conclusions
- 4.1A possible generalization
- 4.2A comment on “dormant” metonymies
- 4.3Further research
- Author queries
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (20)
Barcelona, A. 2004. Metonymy
behind grammar: The motivation of some irregular grammatical
patterns of English
names. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies
in linguistic
motivation (pp. 357–374) (Cognitive
Linguistic Research
28). Mouton de Gruyter.
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 (pp. 313–352). (Cognitive
Linguistic Research
32). Mouton de Gruyter.
2008. The
interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form
of ‘bahuvrihi’
compounds. Annual Review of
Cognitive
Linguistics, 6, 208–281.
2024. Metonymy
in grammar and discourse comprehension. Five case
studies. (Cognitive Linguistic
Research 57. Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A., Lozano Palacio, I. & Martín Gascón, B. 2026. Metonymy
in pragmatic inferencing in a sample of English and Spanish
spoken and written
texts. In C. Portero-Muñoz, A. Barcelona & A. Soto Nieto (Eds.), Metonymic
thinking all way down: from discourse to the
lexicon. [Special
issue]. Cognitive Linguistic
Studies, 19–46.
Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Frames
and the semantics of
understanding. Quaderni di
Semantica 6 (2), 222–254.
Grygiel, M. 2007. Metonymic
projection as a major factor in the rise of English
historical synonyms of ‘man’ and
‘woman’. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives
on
metonymy (pp. 227–240). Peter Lang.
Kalisz, R. 2007. Metonymy
and semantic
representations. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives
on
metonymy (pp. 31–42). Peter Lang.
Kosecki, K. 2007. Some
remarks on metonymy in
compounding. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives
on
metonymy (pp. 241–252). Peter Lang.
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy:
Developing a cognitive linguistic
view. Cognitive
Linguistics, 9, 37–77.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More
than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic
Metaphor. University of Chicago Press.
Panther, K.-U. 2022. Introduction
to cognitive pragmatics. (Cognitive
Linguistics in Practice
4). John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. 2026. Modeling
figuration in speech
acts. In C. Portero-Muñoz, A. Barcelona & A. Soto Nieto (Eds.), Metonymic
thinking all way down: from discourse to the
lexicon. [Special
issue]. Cognitive Linguistic
Studies, 47–77.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. & Mairal Usón, R. 2007. High-level
metaphor and metonymy in meaning
construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects
of meaning
construction (pp. 33–49). John Benjamins.
Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations
of illocutionary
logic. Cambridge University Press.
Sketch
Engine. Available
at [URL]. Last
accessed 6 July
2025.
