Chapter 8
Mapping the texture of the Berlin Wall
Metonymy, layered worlds, and critical Implicatures in Sarah Kirsch’s
poem “Naturschutzgebiet/nature reserve”
Article outline
- 8.1Introduction
- 8.2Sarah Kirsch and her work
- 8.3Texture
- 8.4Metonymy
- 8.4.1Cognitive linguistic accounts of metonymy
- 8.4.2Relevance-theoretic accounts of metonymy
- 8.4.3Cognitive-pragmatic accounts of metonymy
- 8.5Textual analysis
- 8.5.1Building the text worlds of the Berlin Wall: Metonymies of past and present
- 8.5.2Metaphors along the wall: Metonymies of nature and reserve
- 8.5.3The wall as protection: Metonymy of effect for cause
- 8.6Summary
-
Notes
-
References
References (52)
References
Barcelona, A. (Ed.) (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive.
perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Booth, W. (1978). Metaphor as rhetoric: The problem of
evaluation. Critical Inquiry 5(1), 49–72. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R. (2010). Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental
images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110(3), 295–321. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, B. (2013). Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors
and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4), 335–370. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Díez Velasco, O. (2001). Metaphor, metonymy, and image-schemas: An analysis of
conceptual interaction patterns. Journal of English Studies 3(2), 47–63.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics:
2nd Edition
. London: Bloomsbury.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falkum, I. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A
relevance-theoretic account. Unpublished PhD
dissertation. University College London.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.) Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22(2), 133–187. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (1999). Metonymy and conceptual integration. In K-U. Panther and G. Radden (Es.) Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 77–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In R. Dirven and R. Porings (Eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and ontrast (pp. 469–488). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gavins, J. (2007). Text world theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbons, A. (2010). Narrative worlds and multimodal figures in House of
Leaves: “-find your own words; I have no more.” In M. Grishakova and M-L. Ryan (Eds.) Intermediality and storytelling (pp. 285–311). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. and Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goossens, L. (1990). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions
for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3), 323–340. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hidalgo Downing, L. and Mujic, B. (2011). Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse
resources for creativity in ICT advertising
discourse. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Special Issue on
Metaphor and Metonymy 9(1), 153–178.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Howell, T. (2010). Conceptual blends and critical awareness in teaching
cultural narratives. L2 Journal 2(1), 73–88. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jakobson, R. (1995[1956]). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Dirven and R. Porings (Eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 41–48). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kirsch, S. (1982). Naturschutzgebiet. In Erdreich. Gedichte. Stuttgart: DVA.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ladd, B. (1997). The ghosts of Berlin. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lahey, E. (2006). (Re)thinking world-building: Locating the text-worlds of
Canadian lyric poetry. Journal of Literary Semantics 35(2), 145–164. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about
the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Papafragou, A. (1996). On metonymy. Lingua 99, 169–195. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G. and Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K-U. Panther and L. Thornburg (Eds.) Pragmatic inferencing (pp. 25–50). Hamburg: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997). Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual
interaction. Atlantis 19, 281–295.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding
metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. (pp. 109–132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and Díez, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven and R. Porings, R (Eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Granada, Spain: Comares.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. Peña Cervel, M. S. (2002). Cognitive operations and projection
spaces. Jezikoslovlje 3(1–2), 131–158.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and F. Santibáñez Sáenz (2003). Content and formal cognitive operations in construing
meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics 2(15), 293–320.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and A. Galera Masegosa (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic
complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value 3(1), 1–29. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sedgewick, E. (2003). Touching feeling: affect, pedagogy, performativity. Durham: Duke University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1991[1981]). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole, (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 295–318). Academic Press, New York.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995[1986]). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steen, G. (2005). Metonymy goes cognitive-linguistic. Style 39(1), 1–11.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London/New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, P. (2009). Texture: A cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, P. (2017). The language of surrealism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal
expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 183–204. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wells-Jopling, R. and Oatley, K. (2012). Metonymy and intimacy. Journal of Literary Theory 6(1), 235–252. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Werth, P. (1994). Extended metaphor: A text world account. Language and Literature 3(2), 79–103. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Whiteley, S. (2011). Text world theory, real readers and emotional responses
to The Remains of the Day
. Language and Literature 20(1), 23–42. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Statham, Simon
2020.
The year’s work in stylistics 2019.
Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 29:4
► pp. 454 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.