In:Figurative Thought and Language in Action
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Figurative Thought and Language 16] 2022
► pp. 59–86
Targetting metonymic targets
Published online: 28 July 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.03brd
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.03brd
Abstract
In this chapter we propose to treat metonymy as a cognitive operation of conceptual elaboration based on the part-whole relationship that is triggered by the use of an expression (or metonymic vehicle) associated with a certain conceptual cluster (or metonymic source) within a conceptual domain. The activation of the source conceptual cluster opens up a mental space which is dynamically expanded or reduced, in the sense of Ruiz de Mendoza (1999, 2000), so as to come as close as possible to fitting the conceptual givens provided by the co(n)text of use. By approaching metonymy in this manner we are able to explain in a very natural way a number of facts observed in recent research.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Background: Approaching metonymy
- 1.2The aims and the organization of the chapter
- 2.Exit metonymic mappings
- 3.Enter metonymic source elaboration producing metonymic targets in mental spaces
- 4.Some advantages of our view on the nature of metonymy
- 5.Conclusion
Notes References
References (69)
Alač, M., & Coulson, S. (2004). The man, the key, or the car: Who or what is parked out back? Cognitive Science Online, 2(1), 21–34.
Atkinson, P. (1985). Language, structure and reproduction: An introduction to the sociology of Basil Bernstein. London: Methuen.
Barcelona, A. (2002). On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics today (pp. 207–224). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
(2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peńa Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2007). The role of metonymy in meaning construction at discourse level: A case study. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 51-75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34.
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. (Eds.). (2011). Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., & Pannain, R. (Eds.). (2018). Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brdar, M. (2007a). Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.
(2007b). How to do a couple of things with metonymy. In P. Cap, & J. Nijakowska (Eds.), Current trends in pragmatics (pp. 2–32). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
(2017). Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
(2019). On the regularity of metonymy across languages (exemplified on some metonymies in medical discourse). ExELL. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 7(1), 52–69.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2007). When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Or, Some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabo, R. (2013). Some reflections on metonymy and word-formation. ExELL. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 40–62.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2014). Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 313–340.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brdar-Szabó, R. & Brdar, M. (2021). Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis: Getting two (or more) targets for the price of one vehicle. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figures: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 211–247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(fc.). Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or: How metonymies get piggybacked across modalities by other metonymies and metaphors. In A. Bagasheva (Ed.), Figurative thought and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Coulson, S., & Fauconnier, G. (1999). Fake guns and stone lions: Conceptual blending and privative adjectives. In B. Fox, D. Jurafsky, & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Cognition and function in language (pp. 143–158). Palo Alto: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370.
Cruse, A. (2004). Lexical facets and metonymy. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, 47, 73–96.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens. Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. San Diego/New York/London: Harcourt.
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. London/New York: Routledge.
Fass, D. (1991). “met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics, 17, 49–90.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In R. W. J. Gibbs, & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hernández-Gomariz, I. (2018). Analysis of metonymic triggers, metonymic chaining, and patterns of interaction with metaphor and with other metonymies as part of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 75–94). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hilpert, M. (2007). Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body-part terms. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 77–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ioannou, G. (2019). Metonymy and frame integration: Interfacing between concepts and discourse. Topics in Linguistics, 20(1), 1–23.
Janda L. A. (2010a). Russian word-formation in contrast with Czech and Norwegian. Oslo Studies in Language, 2(2), 243–259.
Janda, L. A. (2010b). The role of metonymy in Czech word-formation. Slovo a slovesnost, 71, 260–274.
Kövecses, Z. (2012). Ten lectures on figurative meaning-making: The role of body and context. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leach, E. R. (1976). Culture and communication: The logic by which symbols are connected, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matzner, S. (2016). Rethinking metonymy: Literary theory and poetic practice from Pindar to Jakobson. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (2001). Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 245–272.
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peńa Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2006). Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 146–185). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2003). Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2009). Introduction. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Paprotté, W., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (1985). The ubiquity of metaphor: metaphor in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264.
Radden, G. (2014). Situational metonymies. Plenary lecture at The 1st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language, Thessaloniki, April 24–26, 2014.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999). Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonímia. Granada: Método Ediciones.
(2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metonymy and metaphor at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 33-49). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21(4), 321-357.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther, & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Szabó, Lilla Petronella
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2025. Metonymy typologies revisited. In What makes a Figure [Figurative Thought and Language, 19], ► pp. 160 ff.
Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Daler Zayniev
2024. Metonymic layers in proverbs. In Proverbs within Cognitive Linguistics [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 16], ► pp. 40 ff.
Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Tanja Gradečak
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2022. Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 209 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 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.
