Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 26:2/3 (2019) ► pp.267–295

Metonymic construal and vehicle selection

The case study of Polish Sign Language (PJM)

| Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Lublin, Poland
The article investigates the process of the selection of vehicle concepts in Polish Sign Language (PJM). Why are certain contiguity relations chosen out of many potentially available candidates as the basis for metonymies and why do some other contiguity relations not make felicitous metonymies? The process is certainly influenced by many factors, but the article focuses on several factors related to the dimensions of construal of metonymic concepts (in Langacker’s understanding), including the scope of conception and aspects of perspective (the preference for the observable entities and the distinction between subjectively and objectively construed concepts). Vehicle selection is also constrained by the effective reference requirement and the subjectively perceived vitality of contiguity relations.
Keywords: metonymy, cognitive linguistics, PJM, Polski Język Migowy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dimensions of metonymic construal
  • 3.Vitality of contiguity relations
  • 4.Other factors
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19031.kow
References (28)
References
Barcelona, Antonio. 2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & María Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 313–352. New York-Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, Bogusław. 2013. Metonymy in Language, Thought and Brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cruse, David Alan. 1979. On the Transitivity of the Part-Whole Relation. Journal of Linguistics 15(1). 29–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denroche, Charles. 2015. Metonymy and Language: A New Theory of Linguistic Processing. New/York-London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fraassen, Bas Cornelis Van. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, Luis. 1990. “Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Action.” Cognitive Linguistics 1(3). 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Peter. 2004. Numerical Cognition Without Words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science 306 (5695). 496–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarque, Maria-Josep. 2005. Double Mapping in Metaphorical Expressions of Thought and Communication in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Sign Language Studies 5(3). 292–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosecki, Krzysztof. 2013. Metonymy as a Form of Expressing Identity in Phonic and Signed Languages. In Janusz Badio & Kamila Ciepiela (eds.), Language, Action, Interaction, 59–74. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2012. Metonymy in Polish Sign Language. In Krzysztof Kosecki & Janusz Badio (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Language, 159–171. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosiba, Olgierd & Piotr Grenda. 2011. Leksykon języka migowego. Bogatynia: Wydawnictwo “Silentium” Piotr Grenda.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, Hubert. 2018. Heart is for Love: Cognitive Salience and Visual Metonymies in Comics. The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship 81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Is this road lazy or just incompetent?” Conceptual proximity as a parameter of salience in metonymies”. metaphorik.de 27/2017. 41–68.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Reference-Point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Zoltán Kövecses. 1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 17–60. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, Günter & Linda L. Thornburg. 1999. The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Hungarian. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 333–357. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Redondo, Laura-Ana. 2018. Metonymy and the dynamics of conceptual operations in Spanish Sign Language. In Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonia Barcelona & Rosella Pannain (eds.), Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues, 287–310. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seto, Ken-ichi. 1999. Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 91–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomaszewski, Piotr. 2005. O niektórych elementach morfologii Polskiego Języka Migowego: zapożyczenia (cz. 2). Poradnik Językowy 31. 44–62.Google Scholar
Varzi, Achille. 2019. Mereology. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. [URL]
Wilcox, Phyllis Perrin. 2004. A Cognitive Key: Metonymic and Metaphorical Mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar