Cover not available
Part of
Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi, Mario Brdar and Kristina Š. Despot
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 8] 2019
► pp. 199–224

Chapter 8
Mereology in the flesh

| Lund University

Figurative language repositories typically encompass expressions that are coded manually in formal content analyses. This chapter proposes to discuss a number of theoretical and methodological issues related to mereology – the study of parts, wholes, and their relation – that are crucial for coding part–whole figurative expressions. This contribution draws the attention to the importance of: distinguishing language and experience of part whole relations; taking into account the existence of two different kinds of whole; and finding ways to implement these distinctions in coding schemes to be used to annotate figurative expressions in electronic repositories. Finally, based on cognitive scientific evidence, this chapter formulates a hypothesis on how part–whole relations are acquired through bodily experiences and therefore could indeed said to be “in the flesh”.

Keywords: mereology, metonymy, partonymy vs.meronymy, embodiment, manual coding.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Towards a sharper definition of the part–whole relation
    • 2.1Partonomy is not meronymy
    • 2.2Partonomy is not taxonomy
      • Taxonomy test
      • Partonomy test
    • 2.3Partonomy is not possession
    • 2.4Partonomy is not containment
    • 2.5Partonomy is not contiguity
  • 3.Two different kinds of whole
  • 4.The embodied origin of part–whole relations
  • 5.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.09dev
References
Barcelona, A.
(2011) Reviewing 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 (pp. 7–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues, 27–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
(2015) Bibliography of metaphor and metonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J.
(2014) Actual and non-actual motion: why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 395–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouveret, M., & Sweetser, E.
(2009) Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions, and grammar. In Kwon, I., H. Pritchette, & J. Spence (Eds.), Thirty-fifth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) (pp. 49–59). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
(2012) The problem of data in the cognitive linguistic research on metonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences, 34, 728–745. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burenhult, N.
(2006) Body part terms in Jahai. Language Sciences, 28(2–3), 162–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, H., & McGregor, W.
(1996) The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part–whole relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
(1979) On the transitivity of the part–whole relation. Journal of Linguistics, 15, 29–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) The Lexicon. In M. Aronoff, & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].
Dermot, M.
(2005) Edmund Husserl: founder of phenomenology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Devylder, S.
(2016) The PART–WHOLE schema we live through: a cognitive linguistic analysis of part–whole expressions of the Self. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from [URL]. (Accession No. s73829).
(2017) Cutting and breaking the embodied self. CogniTextes, 15. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Diagrammatic iconicity explains asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(2), 313–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devylder, S., Bracks, C., Shimotori, M. & Siahaan, P.
(2019) Carving the Body at Its Joints: Crossing Boundaries between the Language and Cognition of Body Categorization. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Levshina, N., & Klavan, J.
(2016) Cognitive linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 447–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Vignemont, F.
(2011) Embodiment, ownership and disownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(1), 82–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Vignemont, F., Majid, A., Jola, C., & Haggard, P.
(2009) Segmenting the body into parts: evidence from biases in tactile perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(3), 500–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R.
(2002) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In Dirven, R., & R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison: Metonymy as a prototypical category and contrast (pp. 75–111). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dodge, E. K., & Lakoff, G.
(2005) Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M.
(Eds.) 2013 The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2017-05-10.)Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Majid, A., & Van Staden, M.
(2006) Cross-linguistic categorization of the body: Introduction. Language Sciences, 28(2), 137–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaby, A. R.
(2006) The Thaayorre ‘true man’: Lexicon of the human body in an Australian language. Language Sciences, 28, 201–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B.
(2005) (Ed.). From perception to meaning. Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husserl, E.
(1970a) The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. An introduction to phenomenological philosophy (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press (original work published 1954).Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1991) Parts and boundaries. In B. Levin, & S. Pinker (Eds.), Lexical and conceptual semantics (pp. 9–45). Cambridge: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmel, M.
(2005) Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 285–312). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kovecses, Z.
(2006) Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Boston: Basic books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2009) Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.) Metonymy in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, L.
(1914) L’expression de la possession dans les langues mélanésiennes. Mémoire de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 19(2), 96–104.Google Scholar
Majid, A.
(2010) Words for parts of the body. In B. C. Malt, & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the Mind: How words capture human experience (pp. 58–71). New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., & Staden, M.
(2015) Can nomenclature for the body be explained by embodiment theories? Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(4), 570–594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Enfield, N. J., & van Staden, M.
(2006) Parts of the body: Cross-linguistic categorization. Special issue of Language Sciences, 28, 137–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P.
(1976) Language and perception. Harvard: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I.
(2018) Gestures as image schemas and force gestalts: A dynamic systems approach augmented with motion-capture data analyses. Cognitive Semiotics, 11(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
(1981) Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science IV (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
(Eds.) (2009) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (Vol. 25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
(2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövesces, Z.
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thoughts (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, T.
(2005) Image schemata in the brain. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165–196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
1998 The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (Topics in English Linguistics 4) (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Seto, K.
(1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sokolowski, R.
(2000) Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sonesson, G.
(1989) Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the visual analysis of the visual world. Chartwell-Bratt Ltd.Google Scholar
(1993) The multiple bodies of man. Project for a semiotics of the body . Degrés, Bryssel, XXI: 74, été 1993: d1–d42.
(2010) Semiosis and the elusive final interpretant of understanding. Semiotica, 179(1–4), 145–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Aspects of “physiognomic depiction” in pictures: From macchia to microgenesis. Culture Psychology, 19(4), 533–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Lifeworlds: The cognitive semiotics of culture. In D. Dunér, & G. Sonesson (Eds.), Human lifeworlds: The Cognitive semiotics of cultural evolution (pp. 23–62). Berlin: Peter Lang Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Stampoulidis, G., & Bolognesi, M.
under review). Bringing metaphors back to the streets: A corpus-based study for the identification and interpretation of rhetorical figures in street art.
Sullivan, K. S.
(2007) Frame-based constraints on lexical choice in metaphor. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 375–385). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000a) The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 37–47). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Staden, M., & Majid, A.
(2006) Body colouring task. Language Sciences, 28(2), 158–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vieu, L., and Aurnague, M.
(2007) Part-of relations, functionality and dependence. In M. Aurnague, M. Hickmann, & L. Vieu (Eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (pp. 307–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winston, M., Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D.
(1987) A taxonomy of part–whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W.
(2016) Variation in metonymy: Cross-linguistic, historical and lectal perspectives (Vol. 59). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J.
(2005) What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 313–342). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Turning back to experience in Cognitive Linguistics via phenomenology. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 559–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar