Cover not available

In:Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 225–252

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

Figures of speech revisited

Introducing syntonymy and syntaphor

 | Jan Długosz University of Częstochowa
Published online: 12 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.10bie
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to add the terms and concepts of synecdochic metonymy (syntonymy) and synecdochic metaphor (syntaphor) to the traditional typology of figures of speech. It is argued that the two additional terms are useful as they cover important intermediate categories of transfers of meaning between synecdoche, understood as vertical transfer based on various levels of taxonomy, and two other “master tropes”, namely metonymy and metaphor. The proposed concepts and terms may not only help identify and designate certain borderline cases of figurative language, but also add precision and adequacy to the analyses of lexical polysemy. They may also contribute to a cognitive account of catachresis.
Article outline
  • 1.Between synecdoche and metonymy – syntonymy
  • 2.From analogy to syntaphor and metaphor
    • 2.1Syntaphor vs. schematization and specialization
  • 3.Catachresis and conceptual niches vs. syntaphor and other figures of speech
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (41)
References
Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 361–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arystoteles (1988). Retoryka. Poetyka. Translated by H. Podbielski. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 31–58). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benches, A. Barcelona, F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.) Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics 21 (1): 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in Language, Thought and Brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Representation of polysemy as a basis of contrastive lexical semantics. In A. Łyda & G. Drożdż (Eds.) Dimesions of a Word (pp. 12–27). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blank, A. (2003). Polysemy in the lexicon and in discourse. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. Clarke (Eds.) Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 267–293). Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar, M. & Brdar-Shabó, R. (2007). When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates. Some thoughts on the construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K. Köpke, Th. Berg, P. Siemund (Eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1988). The Story of ‘over’: Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burkhardt, A. (1996). Zwischen Poesie und Ökonomie. Die Metonymie als semantisches Prinzip. Euphorion. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 24 (2), 175–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2006 [1993]). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (pp. 269–302). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 275–287). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R. & Verspoor, M. (2004). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. (Second edition). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and 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
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. & Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994 [1985]). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edition. London, New York, Sydney, Auckland: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. & Halle, M. (1956/64). Podstawy języka [Fundamentals of Language]. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koskela, Anu. (2011). Metonymy, category broadening and narrowing, and vertical polysemy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.) Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View (pp. 125–146). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D. (1999). Synecdoche as a cognitive and communicative strategy. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition (pp. 197–213). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (2010). Synecdoche: A trope, a whole trope, and nothing but a trope? In A. Burkhardt, & B. Nerlich (Eds.) Tropical Truth(s) The Epistemology of Metaphor and other Tropes (pp. 297–319). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K. & Thornburg, L. (2003). Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In Panther, K.-U., L. Thornburg (Eds.) Metonymy in Pragmatic Inferencing (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y. & Geererts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17, No 3, 269–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In B. Lloyd and E. Rosch (eds.) Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E., C. Mervis, W. Grey, D. Johnson, and P. Boyes-Braem. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories, Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seto, K. (1999). Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Metonymic polysemy and its place in meaning extension. In Nerlich et al. (Eds), pp. 195–214.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (2005). Zero derivation – functional change – metonymy. In L. Bauer & S. Varela (Eds.) (2005). Approaches to Conversion/Zero Derivation pp. 131–157. Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin: Waxmann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Todorov, T. (1979). Synecdoques. In T. Todorov & G. Genette (Eds.). Sémantique de la Poésie, 7–26. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (2009 [1953]). Philosophical Investigations. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziomek, J. (1990). Retoryka opisowa. Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków: Ossolineum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Paszenda, Joanna & Iwona Góralczyk
2025. Meaning construal of selected novel eponymous verbs in the current political discourse in Poland: A Cognitive Linguistics account. Prace Językoznawcze 27:1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Bierwiaczonek, Bogusław
2024. On The Gradability of Metaphor. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 69:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John A.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Szymańska, Monika
2021. Grammatical metonymy and construal operations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 465 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