Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:2 (2014) ► pp.288–303

Cultural-historical psychology and the cognitive view of metonymy and metaphor

| Gymnasium 1514, Moscow

Metonymy and metaphor are commonly taken as cognitive phenomena in modern cognitive linguistics rather than as mere figures of speech. However, the correct cognitive demarcation between metonymy and metaphor is the subject of intense debate; there are also different attitudes to the cognitive basis of metonymy. The main contribution of this paper is to identify the cognitive mechanism called complex thinking, which is well-known in psychology but hardly applied in linguistics, as the cognitive basis for metonymy; the difference between complex and conceptual thinking is also highlighted in order to distinguish between conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor. Using a cultural-historical approach, we can conjecture that metonymy dominates in pre-theoretical cultures, whereas metaphor emerges in theoretical cultures alongside abstract conceptual domains. In order to illustrate these points with a brief case study, the semantic evolution of the ancient Greek word Ûlh (matter) is considered.

Keywords: complex thinking, conceptual thinking, metonymy, metaphor, cultural-historical psychology
Published online: 31 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.2.02gle
References
Arata, L
(2005) The definition of metonymy in Ancient Greece. Style, 391, 55–71.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A
(2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berry, J
(1976) Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Sage/Halsted.Google Scholar
Byrne, C
(2001) Matter and Aristotle’s material cause. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 31, (1), 85–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, M., Mesheryakov, B., & Ponomariov, I
(2011) Cross-cultural research in the cultural-historical activity theory tradition. In J. Fons, A. van de Vijver & S. Breugelmans (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 261–287). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, M., & Scribner, S
(1974) Culture and thought. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Croft, W
(2002) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–205). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) On explaining metonymy: Comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts, ‘‘Metonymy as a prototypical category’’. Cognitive Linguistics, 171, 317–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A
(2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feyaerts, K
(2000) Refining the Inheritance Hypothesis: Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective (pp. 59–78). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frumkina, R
(2007) Social’noe poznanie v kontekste lingvistiki i psihologii. Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennost’, 11, 145–156.Google Scholar
Frumkina, R., & Mikheev, A
(1996) Meaning and categorization. New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar
Frumkina, R., Miheev, A., Mostovaya, A., & Ryumina N
(1991) Semantika i kategorizaciya. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Frumkina, R., & Mirkin, B
(1986) Semantika “konkretnoi” leksiki: psiholingvisticheskii podhod. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR . Seriya Literatury i yazyka, 45, 1, 12–22.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(2002) The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glebkin, V
(2011) Hermeneutics and cognitive science: A preliminary approach. In B. Kokinov, 
A. Karmiloff-Smith & N.J. Nersessian (Eds.), European perspectives on cognitive science: Proceedings of the European conference on cognitive science EuroCogSci2011 (pp. 1–5). 
Sophia: New Bulgarian University Press.Google Scholar
(2012) Leksicheskaya semantika: kul’turno-istoricheskii podhod. Mosow: Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ.Google Scholar
Goossens, L
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R
(2002 [1956]) The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 41–48). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M
(1987) The body in the mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z
(2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. N.Y.: Basic books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1993) Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, L
(1978) Primitive mentality. New York: AMS Press.Google Scholar
(1979) How natives think. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Luria, A
(1976) Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Markus H.R., & Kitayama, S
(1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 2, 224–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikheev, A
(1985) Svobodnaya klassifikaciya nabora predmetov (eksperiment v Nagornom Karabahe). In R. Frumkina (Ed.), Lingvisticheskie i psiholingvisticheskie struktury rechi (pp. 78–93). Moscow: Institut yazykoznapniya.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R.E., Peng K., Choi I., & Norenzayan A
(2001) Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108 (2), 291–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norenzayan, A
(1999) Rule-based and experience-based thinking. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Michigan.
Onians, R
(1951) The origins of European thought about the body, the mind, the soul, the world, time and fate. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D
(2006a) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 171, 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Don’t let metonymy be misunderstood: An answer to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 171, 327–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G
(2000) How metonymic are metaphors? In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 93–108). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & 
G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuhin, N., Birenbaum, V., & Vygotsky, L
(1981 [1934]) K voprosu o demencii pri bolezni Pika. In Hrestomatiya po patopsihologii (pp. 114–149). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Scaltsas, T
(1994) Substances and universals in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Selischev, A
(1928) Yazyk revolyucionnoi epohi. Мoscow: Rabotnik prosvescheniya.Google Scholar
Tulviste, P
(1991) The cultural-historical development of verbal thinking. Commack. N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G
(2000) Metaphor, metonymy and binding. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 133–145). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L
(1984 [1933/1934]) Rannee detstvo. In L. Vygotsky Sobranie sochinenii, 41 (pp. 340–367). Moscow: Pedagogika.Google Scholar
(1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J., & Tulviste, P
(1992) L.S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 281, 548–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H.A
(1967) Cognitive-style approach to cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 2 (4), 233–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H.A., & Berry, J.W
(1975) Psychological differentiation in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6 (1), 4–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H.A., Dyk, R.B., Fatersonh, F., Goodenougdh, R., & Karp, S.A
(1962) Psychological differentiation. N.Y.: Wiley.Google Scholar
Witkin, H., Moore, C., Goodenough, D., & Cox, P
(1977) Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), 1–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witt, C
(1989) Substance and essence in Aristotle: An interpretation of Metaphysics VII–IX. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Ways of being: Potentiality and actuality in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Ithaca: 
Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Geeraerts, Dirk & Lisbeth De Laet
2020. A note on the relative diachronic productivity of metaphor and metonymy. In Changes in Meaning and Function [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 25], ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. Cognitive Semantics [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 15], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 2024. 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.