Cover not available
Part of
Changes in Meaning and Function: Studies in historical linguistics with a focus on Spanish
Edited by Jorge Fernández Jaén and Herminia Provencio Garrigós
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 25] 2020
► pp. 109–116

A note on the relative diachronic productivity of metaphor and metonymy

| University of Leuven
| University of Leuven
The assumption that the progress of culture is characterized by an increase in abstract thinking (in terms of the Vygotskyan model of cognitive development) suggests that the proportion of productive metaphor compared to metonymy increases over time. However, a large-scale investigation of metonymical and metaphoric shifts recorded in Buck’s dictionary of Indo-European synonyms does not support that suggestion.
Keywords: diachronic productivity, metaphor, metonymy, Indo-European, Vygotsky, synonymy
Published online: 2 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.25.05gee
References (12)
References
Buck, Carl Darling. 1949. Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press (edition 1988).Google Scholar
De Laet, Lisbeth. 2017. Diachrone evolutie van metafoor en metonymie als categorisatieprincipes voor de socioculturele werkelijkheid. MA thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Fabiszak, Magorzata, and Anna Hebda. 2010. “Cognitive historical approaches to emotions: Pride.” In Historical Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Margaret E. Winters, Heli Tissari, and Kathryn Allan, 333–356. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, and Grondelaers, Stefan. 1995. “Looking back at anger. Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns.” In Language and the Construal of the World, ed. by John Taylor, and Robert E. MacLaury, 153–180. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glebkin, Vladimir V. 2014. “Cultural-historical psychology and the cognitive view of metonymy and metaphor.” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12: 288–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “The problem of cultural-historical typology from the four-level-cognitive-development theory perspective.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46.8: 1010–1022. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pagán Cánovas, Cristóbal. 2011. “The genesis of the arrows of love: Diachronic conceptual integration in Greek mythology.” American Journal of Philology 132: 553–579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Yves, and Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006. “Metonymy as a prototypical category.” Cognitive Linguistics 17: 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tissari, Heli. 2001. “Metaphors we love by: On the cognitive metaphors of love from the 15th century to the present.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: international review of English Studies 36: 217–242.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Translation of Myshlenie i rech 1934.)Google Scholar
Zhang, Weiwei, Geeraerts, Dirk and Speelman, Dirk. 2015. “Visualizing onomasiological change: Diachronic variation in metonymic patterns for woman in Chinese.” Cognitive Linguistics 26: 289–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar