Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatics and Literature
Edited by Siobhan Chapman and Billy Clark
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 35] 2019
► pp. 165–190

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
Published online: 5 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.35.08war
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
(2003). The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K-U. Panther and L. Thornburg, (Eds.) Pragmatic inferencing (pp. 81–102). Hamburg: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booth, W. (1978). Metaphor as rhetoric: The problem of evaluation. Critical Inquiry 5(1), 49–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2010). Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110(3), 295–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. (2013). Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4), 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
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
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics: 2nd Edition . London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Falkum, I. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University College London.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
(1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Gavins, J. (2007). Text world theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. and Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3), 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
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
Howell, T. (2010). Conceptual blends and critical awareness in teaching cultural narratives. L2 Journal 2(1), 73–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Kirsch, S. (1982). Naturschutzgebiet. In Erdreich. Gedichte. Stuttgart: DVA.Google Scholar
Ladd, B. (1997). The ghosts of Berlin. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahey, E. (2006). (Re)thinking world-building: Locating the text-worlds of Canadian lyric poetry. Journal of Literary Semantics 35(2), 145–164. 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. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U. and Thornburg, L. (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. (1996). On metonymy. Lingua 99, 169–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997). Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis 19, 281–295.Google Scholar
(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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Granada, Spain: Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. Peña Cervel, M. S. (2002). Cognitive operations and projection spaces. Jezikoslovlje 3(1–2), 131–158.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and L. Pérez Hernández (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K-U. Panther and L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Sedgewick, E. (2003). Touching feeling: affect, pedagogy, performativity. Durham: Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
(1995[1986]). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2005). Metonymy goes cognitive-linguistic. Style 39(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2009). Texture: A cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2017). The language of surrealism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 183–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wells-Jopling, R. and Oatley, K. (2012). Metonymy and intimacy. Journal of Literary Theory 6(1), 235–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werth, P. (1994). Extended metaphor: A text world account. Language and Literature 3(2), 79–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 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.