Cover not available

In:Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 45–65

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 2
Metonymic relations – from determinacy to indeterminacy

 | Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland
 | University of Warsaw, Poland
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.02jod
Abstract
The chapter offers an account of metonymy and discusses some stylistic effects which may be provided by metonymic expressions. We treat metonymically communicated concepts as part of the inferentially established proposition of an utterance and argue that many such concepts may be indeterminate. We posit that the reference of metonymic expressions is assigned through the operation of a pragmatic mechanism called contextual cognitive fix, which can be seen as an alternative to free enrichment. In line with other relevance-theoretic works, we see indeterminacy as an asset rather than deficit of communication, showing that it can be a source of stylistic effects also in the case of metonymy.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cognitive linguistics on metonymy
  • 3.A relevance-theoretic treatment of metonymy involving contextual cognitive fix
  • 4.Metonymy and cognitive effects
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (64)
References
Apresjan, J. D. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 14 (2), 5–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Attridge, D. (1988). Unpacking the portmanteau, or who’s afraid of Finnegans Wake? In J. Culler (Ed.), On puns: The foundation of letters (pp.140–155). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9, 124–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Impliciture vs. explicature: what’s the difference? In E. Romero, & B. Soria (Eds.) Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (pp. 126–137). Basingstoke: Palgrave–Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2000). Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp.1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 (pp.7–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barton S., & Sanford A. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 477–487. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2016). Exploding explicatures. Mind & Language, 31(3), 335–355. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabo, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (217–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bredart S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67, 135–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. (2010). A puzzle about meaning and communication. Noûs, 44(2), 340–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1998). Postcript. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics. Critical concepts (pp. 464–477). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Explicature and semantics. In S. Davis, & B. S. Gillon (Eds.), Semantics: A reader (pp. 1–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corazza, E., & Dokic, J. 2007. Sense and insensibility or where minimalism meets contextualism. In G. Preyer, & G. Peter (Eds.), Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: New essays on semantics and pragmatics (pp. 169–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falkum, I. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. London: University College London Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The how and why of polysemy: A linguistic account. Lingua, 157, 83–99. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey K. G. & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jodłowiec, M. (2015). The challenges of explicit and implicit communication: A relevance-theoretic approach. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A. (2015). Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(2), 161–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(7), 37–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. (2nd ed.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maitra, I. (2007). How and why to be a moderate contextualist. In G. Preyer, & G. Peter (Eds.), Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: New essays on semantics and pragmatics (pp. 112–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Natsopoulos, D. (1985). A verbal illusion in two languages. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(4), 385–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noveck, I., & Sperber D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of “scalar inferences”. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 184–212). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K-U., & Thornburg L. (2004). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Metaphoric.de, 6, 91–116. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Inference in the construction of meaning: The role of conceptual metonymy. In E. Górska, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy-metaphor collage (pp. 37–57). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. (1996). On Metonymy. Lingua, 99, 169–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, H., & Reder, L. M. (2004). Moses illusion: Implication for human cognition. In R. Phol (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (pp. 275–291). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, W., & Peters I. (2000). Lexicalised systematic polysemy in WordNet. Proceedings of LREC 2000, Athens. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. London: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1993). Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reder, L., & Kusbit, G. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanford, A. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind & Language 17(1–2). 188–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanford, A., & Graesser, A. (2006). Shallow processing and underspecification. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 99–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998a). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers, & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (pp. 184–200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998b). Pragmatics and time. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 17, 353–388. Reprinted in F. Jackson, & M. Smith (Eds.), 2005. Oxford handbook of contemporary philosophy (pp. 468–501). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, XV(44), 117–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweep, J. (2012). Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Metaphor, metonymy and binding. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 133–145). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Oostendorp, H., & de Mul, S. (1990). Moses beats Adam: A semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 74(1), 35–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viscente, A., & Martínez-Manrique, F. (2005). Semantic underdetermination and the cognitive uses of language. Mind & Language, 20(5), 537–558. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wałaszewska, E. (2008). Polysemy in relevance theory. In E. Mioduszewska, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), Relevance round table I, (pp. 123–134). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Rivista di Linguistica, 15(2), 273–291.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Explaining metonymy. Paper delivered at the Relevance Round Table Meeting 4. Institute of English Studies, Jagiellonian University in Kraków.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Carston R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn, & G, Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Yus, Francisco
2025. Inferring from Emojis: From Propositions to Feelings and Emotions. In Emoji Pragmatics, ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Jodłowiec, Maria
2021. Explicit Import Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of Explicatures. Studies in Polish Linguistics 16:6 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue