The Córdoba Metonymy Database has been designed as a tool for systematically investigating conceptual metonymy across a wide variety of authentic discourse samples, mostly in English and Spanish. Its entry model features eleven analytical fields. One of them, Field 2, is devoted to suggesting the most likely hierarchy including the metonymy under analysis. The top (or “generic”) level of that hierarchy is the tripartite typology , , and . After describing the database and its entry model, the author argues against the proposals to rule out the tripartite typology and discusses the criteria to apply the tripartite typology to the metonymies so far included in the database.
2.Brief description of the Córdoba Metonymy Database and its entry model with special attention to the field Hierarchical Level
2.1Problems involved in the completion of the database
2.2Some specific comments on the fields “Hierarchical Level” and “Other Hierarchical Levels”
3.Challenges to the tripartite generic typology in recent research on metonymy: A brief discussion
3.1The proposal by Ruiz de Mendoza and his collaborators to reduce the typology to and
3.2Panther and Thornburg’s proposal to reduce the typology to from an “intensional” perspective
4.Criteria applied in the database to determine Whole and Part status at the generic level of a hierarchy
4.1Preliminaries
4.2The criteria
Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3
Sub-rule 3a: Search for additional information on the relevant meronymy
Sub-rule 3b:
Determine the meronymic structure of abstract sources and targets
Sub-rule 3b-1:
Distinguish between frames and frame elements, especially when the same term is used to designate both
Sub-rule 3b-2:
Observe the degree of “strength of contact” (Peirsman & Geeraerts 2006) between source and target in concrete or material domains, and the degree of “strength of conceptual connection” between source and target in abstract domains.
Sub-rule 3c:
Identify the “reference frame / icm” or “functional domain” within which, or by reference to which, the metonymy occurs.
(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 (pp. 207–277). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A.
(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 (pp. 313–352). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A.
(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 (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Barcelona, A.
(2013) Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon. In C. Alm-Arvius, N.-L. Johannesson, & David C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival (Stockholm Studies in English 105) (pp. 13–46). Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.
(1977) Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird, & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 411–420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 37–77.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W.
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U.
(2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (Cognitive Linguistics Research 32) (pp. 353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U.
(2006) Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (Applications in Cognitive Linguistics 1) (pp. 147–185). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(2007) Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In O. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain, & A. Barcelona, (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
(2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–316.
Radden, G.
(2018) Molly married money: Reflections on conceptual metonymy. In O. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 161–181). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
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 (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 april 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.
