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. 1–24

Introduction

The complex task of studying metonymy

 | Universidad de Córdoba
 | Universidad de Córdoba
 | University of Naples “L’Orientale”
Article outline
  • 1.On the main purpose and characteristics of this book
  • 2.Methodological and descriptive issues in the creation of a metonymy database
  • 3.Theoretical problems in the study of metonymy
  • 4.Case studies
  • 5.Recapitulation
    • 5.1New descriptive methods and criteria
    • 5.2Theoretical issues
      • 5.2.1New answers to older debates
      • 5.2.2Challenges to present theories of metonymy
    • 5.3New concepts and trends in metonymy research
      • 5.3.1New concepts or new aspects of metonymy not previously noted or emphasized
      • 5.3.2New trends in metonymy research
    • 5.4New empirical data on metonymy
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.int
References (52)
References
Barcelona, A. 2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Cognitive approaches (31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002. On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics today [Lódz Studies in Language] (207–224). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007. The role of metonymy in meaning at discourse level: A case study. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (51–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of ‘bahuvrihi’ compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 208–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form: The roles of metonymy and inference. In K.-U Panther, L. 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
2013. Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon. In N.-L. Johannesson and D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival [Stockholm Studies in English 105] (13–46). Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.Google Scholar
2016. Salience in metonymy-motivated constructional abbreviated form with particular attention to English clippings. Cognitive Semantics, 2, 30–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
In preparation. On the pervasive role of metonymy in constructional meaning and form and in discourse comprehension: A corpus-based study from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. (Provisional title.)
Barnden, J. A. 2010. Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics 21(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds). 2011. Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view [Human Cognitive Processing 28]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2013. Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
2014. On constructivization – A few remarks on the role of metonymy in grammar. In K. Rudnicka-Szozda & A. Szwedek (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in the making (5–20). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. 2007. Metonymy in grammar. Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek (Croatia): Faculty of Philosophy, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar. Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darmesteter, A. 1932. La vie des mots étudiée dans leurs significations. Paris: Librairie Delagrave.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 2009. Generalized integration networks. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (147–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In Dirven, R. & Pörings, R. (Eds), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (435–465). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R W., Jr. 1994. The Poetics of mind. Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007. Experimental tests of figurative meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (19–32). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. 2002 [1990]. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (349–377). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L., Pauwels, P., Rudzka-Ostyn, B., Simon-Vanderbergen, A.-M., & Vanparys, J. 1995. By word of mouth. Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. 1997. theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 8(4), 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Z. 2008. Much mouth much tongue: Chinese metonymies and metaphors of verbal behavior. Cognitive Linguistics 19(2), 241–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 1986. Metaphors of anger, pride and love. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. Emotion concepts. New York & Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (45–71). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). 1999. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (Eds.). 2003. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pauwels, P., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. 1995. Body parts in linguistic action: underlying schemata and value judgments. In Goossens et al.. (Eds.), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective (35–69). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. 2002. How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. The metonymic folk model of language. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & A. Kwiatkowska (Eds.), Imagery in Language (543–565). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2014. On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (143–166). London & New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L. 2002. Metonymy, grammar and communication. Albolote (Granada, Spain): Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Peña Cervel, S. 2005. Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction. Cognitive Linguistics Research (254–280). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L. 2010. A constructional account of argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2(2), 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soriano, C. 2005. The conceptualization of anger in English and Spanish. A cognitive approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Murcia.Google Scholar
Stern, G. 1931. Meaning and change of meaning. Göteborg: Eladers boktryckeri Aktiebolag.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. 1995 [1989]. Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Yu, N. 2011. Speech organs and linguistic activity/function in Chinese. In Z. A. Maalej & N. Yu (Eds.), Embodiment via body part. Studies from various languages and cultures (117–148). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. 2007. Signed languages. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (113–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar