Unity in diversity
The range of phenomena labelled as “metonymy” is so multifarious that it may seem impossible to reduce all these phenomena to a common semantic denominator. In accordance with many traditional and modern accounts in the fields of rhetoric and linguistics, this article reconstructs metonymy as a linguistic effect upon the content of a given form, based on a figure/ground effect along the contiguity relations within a given frame and generated by pragmatic processes. Thanks to these criteria, we are able to demonstrate the internal diversity as well as the fundamental unity of metonymy with respect to numerous aspects of language (innovation and conventionality, paradigmatic and syntagmatic dimension, linguistic subsystems like grammar, lexicon, etc., different levels of conceptual abstraction, concept and referent, speaker and hearer activities, principle of relevance) and to put metonymy in its right place by distinguishing it from linguistic effects based on other conceptual, especially taxonomic, relations and from other contiguity-based effects.
Published online: 16 August 2001
Cited by 19 other publications
Bauer, Matthias, Joachim Knape, Peter Koch & Susanne Winkler
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
Hansen and, Maj-Britt Mosegaard & Richard Waltereit
Luján, Eugenio R. & César Ruiz Abad
Stosic, Dejan & Benjamin Fagard
김지애 & 최영주
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. 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.