Cover not available
Part of
Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
Edited by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona and Rossella Pannain
[Human Cognitive Processing 60] 2018
► pp. 27–54

Chapter 1
General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains

 | Universidad de Córdoba
This chapter presents part of the results of our project on metonymy, one of the aims of which is to compile a detailed database of metonymy. The database entry model is first briefly described, but the chapter focuses on the discussion of three issues addressed by four of the database entry fields. The first issue is the hierarchical level at which the metonymy under analysis should be located (fields 2 and 10). The second issue (Field 3) is the metonymy’s degree of prototypicality. The third issue, covered by Field 4, is the type of “taxonomic” domain with source or target role, e.g. “vehicles” and “drivers” in the example of object used for user The buses are on strike.
Keywords: entry model, prototypical metonymy, purely schematic metonymy, taxonomic domains with source or target role, taxonomic vs. meronymic hierarchies, typical metonymy.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discussion of Fields 1, 2, and 10: Category labels and hierarchies
    • 2.1Field 1
    • 2.2Field 2
    • 2.3Field 10
  • 3.Discussion of Field 3: Metonymic prototypicality
  • 4.Discussion of Field 4: Taxonomic domains
  • 5.A simple example of the application of the database
  • 6.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.01bar
References (21)
References
Barcelona, A. 2000. Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics. An analysis and a few modest proposals. In H. Cuyckens, K.-U. Panther, & T. Berg (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (223–255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 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 Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009. Metonymy in constructional meaning and form: Its motivational and inferential roles. In K. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 (7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2013. Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., Guarddon Anelo, M. del C., Guerrero Medina, P., Hernández-Gomariz, I., Rodríguez-Redondo, A.-L., & Portero-Muñoz, C. n.d. Applying the entry model in a detailed database of metonymy: A discussion of the problems involved.
Croft, W. 2002/1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (161–205). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [Reproduced with slight changes from the paper with the same title in Cognitive Linguistics 4(4): 335–371] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.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 (59–78). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Peirsman, Y. 2011. Zones, Facets and Prototype-based Metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (88–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1 : Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. 2009. CD-ROM edition (version 4.0.0.3) of Second Edition (1989) and of Additions Series (1993–1997). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2007. Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. 2005. The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando, & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (11–28). Castellón (Spain): Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2024. Metaphor as a resemblance phenomenon. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John A.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Martín-Gascón, Beatriz
2022. Metonymy in Spanish/L2 Teaching: A Cognitive Analysis of Color Idioms and Their Inclusion in the Córdoba Project Database. In Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13528], ► pp. 146 ff. DOI logo
Soriano, Cristina & Javier Valenzuela
2022. The size of shame and pride. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Li, Qi
2021. Semantic Classification and Cognitive Mechanism of Chinese “Body-Part” Compounds with Semantic Exocentricity. In Chinese Lexical Semantics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12278], ► pp. 859 ff. DOI logo
Barcelona, Antonio
2019. The tripartite typology and the Córdoba Metonymy Database. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Barcelona, Antonio
2024. Trends in cognitive-linguistic research on metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Devylder, Simon
2019. Mereology in the flesh. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Pannain, Rossella
2017. Metonymy in numerals. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 102 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. 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.