Article published in:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 27:1 (2014) ► pp. 168–186

Metonymy and the way we speak

| Nanjing Normal University & University of Hamburg
| Nanjing Normal University
In this article we investigate correlations between semantically equivalent expressions (organized in manner scales according to the formal properties of length, prosodic prominence, and grammaticalization) and their varying potential to trigger a certain metonymic interpretation. We focus on manner scales of past ability as well as semantically and logically similar expressions relating to human character traits/dispositions and external circumstances. Using the concepts of strength of metonymic link and coercion, we show that shorter, prosodically weaker and more grammaticalized members in these manner scales more strongly trigger the potentiality for actuality metonymy than their longer, prosodically stronger, and less grammaticalized counterparts.
Keywords: manner scales, potentiality for actuality metonymy, coercion, strength of metonymic link
Published online: 08 August 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.07pan
References

References

Asher, N., & Hunter, J.
(2012) Aspectual coercions in content composition. In L. Filipović & K.M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Linguistic diversity (pp. 55–81). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R.
(1999) Covert modality in non-finite contexts. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Birner, B., & Ward, G.
(1992) On the interpretation of VP inversion in American English. Journal of Linguistics, 28, 1–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–51). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R.
(1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Implicature. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L.
(1970) On the semantics of complement sentences. Chicago Linguistic Society, 6, 328–340.Google Scholar
(1971) Implicative verbs. Language, 47, 340–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.
(1995) Three levels of meaning. In F.R. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons (pp. 90–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.S.
(2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
(2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S.M. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2006) Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 147–185). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and hought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K.-U Panther & L.L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Inference in the construction of meaning: The role of conceptual metonymy. In E. Górska & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy-metaphor collage (pp. 37–70). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Metonymy and the way we speak. In R. Benczes & S. Csábi (Eds.), The metaphors of sixty: Papers presented on the occasion of the 60th birthday of Zoltán Kövecses (pp. 183–195). Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
(2007) Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B.K. Bergen & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J.
in press). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.) The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics London/New York Bloomsbury Academic
Saeed, J.I.
(2003) Semantics (2nd. ed). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.
(1997) Speech act metonymies. In: W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D.
(2003) The development of counterfactual implicatures in English: A case of metonymy or M-inference? In K.-U. Panther & L.L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 169–203). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017.  In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 109 ff. Crossref logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017.  In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 18 ff. Crossref logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2018.  In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60], ► pp. 121 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 january 2021. 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.