Cover not available
Part of
Proverbs within Cognitive Linguistics: State of the art
Edited by Sadia Belkhir
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 16] 2024
► pp. 40–64

Chapter 2
Metonymic layers in proverbs

A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural view

 | University of Osijek, Croatia | ELTE, Budapest, Hungary
 | University of Osijek, Croatia | ELTE, Budapest, Hungary
 | University of Osijek, Croatia | ELTE, Budapest, Hungary
Metonymy can be manifest at several levels in proverbs. In this chapter, we identify five such metonymic layers. We first examine whole proverbs as instances of the specific-for-generic metonymy. Secondly, proverbs can be seen as indirect speech acts in which an element of a speech act scenario can stand metonymically for the whole of the associated illocutionary category. Proverbs can also appear in reduced form, and the part that is retained is capable of metonymically evoking the whole. A phrase within a proverb can occasionally be interpreted as an instance of the metonymy participant for event. Finally, a part of a proverb can receive a non-event metonymic interpretation that may even happen systematically, as in the case of weather proverbs.
Keywords: metonymy, generic-specific mapping, illocutionary metonymy, indirect speech act, usage-based model, truncated proverb, topic-comment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining proverbs: Structural and functional-pragmatic aspects
  • 3.On metonymy as a cognitive operation
  • 4.Metonymic layers in proverbs
    • 4.1Metonymy at the level of the whole proverb
      • 4.1.1Proverbs as results of metonymy
      • 4.1.2Metonymy and the illocutionary force of proverbs
    • 4.2Metonymic layers within a proverb
      • 4.2.1Truncated proverbs and metonymy
      • 4.2.2Metonymic interpretation of a word group within a proverb: Events as metonymic targets
      • 4.2.3Metonymic interpretation of constituents (within phrases)
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.16.02brd
References (93)
References
Aleksa Varga, M., & Matovac, D. (2016). Kroatische Sprichwörter im Test. Proverbium, 33, 1–28.Google Scholar
Aleksa Varga, M., & Keglević, A. (2018). Kroatische und deutsche Antisprichwörter in der Sprache der Jugendlichen. Proverbium: Yearbook of International Proverb Scholarship, 35(1), 343–360.Google Scholar
(2020). Hrvatske poslovice u slavenskome okruženju: određivanje hrvatskoga paremiološkog minimuma i optimuma. Slavia Centralis, 13(1), 40–51.Google Scholar
Arora, S. (1984). The perception of proverbiality. Proverbium: Yearbook of International Proverb Scholarship, 1, 1–38.Google Scholar
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2000a). Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2000b). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peńa Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belkhir, S. (2014). Proverb use between cognition and tradition in English, French, Arabic and Kabyle. PhD diss., Sétif 2 University, Sétif.Google Scholar
(2021). Cognitive linguistics and proverbs. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 599–611). New York & London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. (Eds.). (2011). Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. (2005). What is compatible with what? Or, reducing the collocational chaos in the predicate-argument structure, with a little help from metonymy. In F. Kiefer, G. Kiss, & J. Pajzs (Eds.), Papers in computational lexicography. COMPLEX 2005 (pp. 40–49). Budapest: Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
(2007). Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
(2017). Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2002). Indirect speech act metaphtonymies and diagrammatic iconicity. Strani jezici, 31(2), 45–54.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabo, R. (2014). Metonymies we (don’t) translate by: The case of complex metonymies. Argumentum, 10, 232–247.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2022). Targetting metonymic targets. In M. Brdar & R. Brdar-Szabó (Eds.), Figurative thought and language in action (pp. 59–86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R. (2006). Stand-alone dependent clauses functioning as independent speech acts: A crosslinguistic comparison. In R. Benczes & S. Csábi (Eds.), The Metaphors of Sixty. Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 60th Birthday of Zoltán Kövecses (pp. 84–95). Budapest: Department of American Studies, School of English and American Studies, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
(2007). The role of metonymy in motivating cross-linguistic differences in the exploitation of stand-alone conditionals as indirect directives. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 175–198). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2009). Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 323–336). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2004). Predicative adjectives and grammatical-relational polysemy: The role of metonymic processes in motivating cross-linguistic differences. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 321–355). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2021). Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis: Getting two (or more) targets for the price of one vehicle. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language – Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 211–247). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buljan, G., & Gradečak-Erdeljić, T. (2013). Where cognitive linguistics meets paremiology: A cognitive–contrastive view of selected English and Croatian proverbs. ExELL. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 63–83.Google Scholar
Chlosta, C., Grzybek, P., & Roos, U. (1994). Wer kennt denn heute noch den simrock? Ergebnisse einer empirischen untersuchung zur bekanntheit deutscher sprichwörter in traditionellen sammlungen. In C. Chlosta, P. Grzybek, & E. Piirainen (Eds.), Sprachbilder zwischen Theorie und Praxis. Akten des Westfälischen Arbeitskreises “Phraseologie/Parömiologie” (1991/1992) (pp. 31–60). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Choi, Y. (2016). How metonymy influences grammar: The case of concrete-noun-plus-hata constructions in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 23(4), 137–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 275–287). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dundes, A. (1975). On the structure of the proverb. Proverbium, 25, 961–973.Google Scholar
Ďurčo, P. (2015). Empirical research and paremiological minimum. In H. Hrisztova-Gotthardt & M. Aleksa Varga (Eds.), Introduction to paremiology (pp. 183–205). Warsaw & Berlin: De Gruyter Open. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, R. (1926). Proverbs in native life, with special reference to those of the maori, I. Folklore, 37(2), 134–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galera Masegosa, A. (2020). The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation: A cognitive-linguistic perspective. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallacher, S. A. (1949). Franklin’s “way to wealth”: A florilegium of proverbs and wise sayings. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 48(2), 229–251.Google Scholar
Georges, R. A., & Dundes, A. (1963). Toward a structural definition of the riddle. The Journal of American Folklore, 76(300), 111–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Beitel, D. (1995). What proverb understanding reveals about how people think. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 133–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grzybek, P. (1991). Sinkendes kulturgut? Eine empirische pilotstudie zur bekanntheit deutscher sprichwörter. Wirkendes Wort, 41(2), 239–264.Google Scholar
(1998). Prolegomena zur Bildhaftigkeit von Sprichwörtern. In A. Hartmann & C. Veldhues (Eds.), Im Zeichen-Raum: Festschrift für Karl Eimermacher (pp. 133–152). Dortmund: Projekt Verlag.Google Scholar
(2015). Semiotic and semantic aspects of the proverb. In H.-G. Hrisztalina & V. Melita Aleksa (Eds.), Introduction to paremiology (pp. 68–111). Warsaw & Berlin: De Gruyter Open. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haas, H. A. (2008). Proverb familiarity in the United States: Cross-regional comparisons of the paremiological minimum. The Journal of American Folklore, 121(481), 319–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Honeck, R. P. (1997). A proverb in mind: The cognitive science of proverbial wit and wisdom. New York: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosecki, K. (2007). On multiple metonymies within indirect speech acts. Research in Language, 5(1), 213–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd edition. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krikmann, A. (1984). 1001 frage zur logischen struktur der sprichwörter. Semiotische studien zum sprichwort. Simple forms reconsidered I. Kodikas, 7(3–4), 387–408.Google Scholar
(1998). On the relationships of the rhetorical, modal, logical, and syntactic planes in Estonian proverbs. Part 1. Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore, 06, 99–127.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lemghari, E. (2019a). A metaphor-based account of semantic relations among proverbs. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). A metonymic-based account of the semiotic status of proverbs: Against the “deproverbialization thesis”. Linguistics Journal, 13(1), 30–51.Google Scholar
Lewandowska, A. & Antos, G. (2001). Sprichwörter, metaphorische Konzepte und Alltagsrhetorik: Versuch einer kognitivistischen Begrundung der Sprichwortforschung. Proverbium, 18, 167–183.Google Scholar
Lewandowska, A., & Antos, G. (2015). Cognitive aspects of proverbs. In H.-G. Hrisztalina & V. Melita Aleksa (Eds.), Introduction to paremiology (162–182). Warsaw & Berlin: De Gruyter Open. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Litovkina, A. (2015). Anti-proverbs. In H.-G. Hrisztalina & V. Melita Aleksa (Eds.), Introduction to paremiology (326–352). Warsaw & Berlin: De Gruyter Open. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Litovkina, A. T. & Csabi, S. (2002). Metaphors we love by: The cognitive models of romantic love in American proverbs. Proverbium, 19, 369–398.Google Scholar
Mieder, W. (1982). Antisprichworter. Band I. Wiesbaden: Verlag fur deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
(1985). Popular views of the proverb. Proverbium: Yearbook of International Proverb Scholarship, 2, 109–143.Google Scholar
(2004). Proverbs: A handbook. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Mieder, W. & Tóthné Litovkina, A. (1999). Twisted wisdom: Modern anti-proverbs. Burlington: The University of Vermont.Google Scholar
Molnar, D., & Vidaković Erdeljić, D. (2016). An orchard invisible: Hidden seeds of wisdom in the English and Croatian proverbial apples. European Journal of Humour Research, 4(1), 34–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford & New York: Clarendon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nahberger, G. (2000). Morgen ist auch noch ein tag. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
(2004). „eine schwalbe macht noch keinen sommer“ – eine empirische Untersuchung zur Bedeutungsgenerierung und illokutionären Schlagkraft von Sprichwörtern. In C. Földes & J. Wirrer (Eds.), Phraseologismen als Gegenstand sprach- und kulturwissenschaftlicher Forschung (pp. 309–324). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Negro, I. (2019). Metaphor and metonymy in food idioms. Languages, 4(3), 47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1982). Proverbial perlocutions: How to do things with proverbs. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 17–18, 169–183.Google Scholar
(2007). Proverbs as set phrases. In H. Burger, D. Dobrovolskij, P. Kühn, & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Phraseologie/Phraseology. Volume 1 (pp. 381–393). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2015). Subject area, terminology, proverb definitions, proverb features. In H.-G. Hrisztalina & V. Melita Aleksa (Eds.), Introduction to paremiology (pp. 7–27). Warsaw & Berlin: De Gruyter Open. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuessel, F. (2003). Proverbs and metaphoric language in second-language acquisition. In W. Mieder (Ed.) Cognition, comprehension, and communication. A decade of North American proverb studies (1990–2000) (pp. 395–412). Baltmannsweiler: Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peńa Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Hernandez, L. (2013). Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary icms, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The Cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). Hereford, U.K.: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metonymy and metaphor at the crossroads (109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 489-532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I. (2004). Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 293–320). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Lozano-Palacio, I. (2019). A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 3–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21(4), 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote, Spain: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña Cervel, S. (2002). Cognitive operations and and projection spaces. Jezikoslovlje, 3(1–2), 131–158.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K., & Sweetser, E. (2010). Is “generic is specific” a metaphor? In F. Parrill, V. Tobin, & M. Turner (Eds.), Meaning, form, and body (pp. 309–328). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Szpila, G. (2005). Metonymic operations in Polish proverbs. Proverbium, 22, 403–414.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.-U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. R. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (205–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tóthné Litovkina, A. (1996). Parömiológiai felmérés Magyarországon. Magyar Nyelv, 92(4), 439–457.Google Scholar
Tóthné Litovkina, A., & Mieder, W. (2006). Old proverbs never die, they just diversify. A collection of anti-proverbs. Veszprém & Burlington: University of Vermont & The Pannonian University of Veszprém.Google Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar