In:Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
Edited by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona and Rossella Pannain
[Human Cognitive Processing 60] 2018
► pp. 27–54
Chapter 1General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains
Published online: 17 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.01bar
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.01bar
Abstract
This chapter presents part of the results of our project on metonymy, one of the aims of which is to compile a detailed database of metonymy. The database entry model is first briefly described, but the chapter focuses on the discussion of three issues addressed by four of the database entry fields. The first issue is the hierarchical level at which the metonymy under analysis should be located (fields 2 and 10). The second issue (Field 3) is the metonymy’s degree of prototypicality. The third issue, covered by Field 4, is the type of “taxonomic” domain with source or target role, e.g. “vehicles” and “drivers” in the example of object used for user
The buses are on strike.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Discussion of Fields 1, 2, and 10: Category labels and hierarchies
- 2.1Field 1
- 2.2Field 2
- 2.3Field 10
- 3.Discussion of Field 3: Metonymic prototypicality
- 4.Discussion of Field 4: Taxonomic domains
- 5.A simple example of the application of the database
- 6.Summary and conclusions
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (21)
Barcelona, A. 2000. Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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 (207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2003. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics. An analysis and a few modest proposals. In H. Cuyckens, K.-U. Panther, & T. Berg (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (223–255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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 (313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2009. Metonymy in constructional meaning and form: Its motivational and inferential roles. In K. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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 (7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., Guarddon Anelo, M. del C., Guerrero Medina, P., Hernández-Gomariz, I., Rodríguez-Redondo, A.-L., & Portero-Muñoz, C. n.d. Applying the entry model in a detailed database of metonymy: A discussion of the problems involved.
Croft, W. 2002/1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (161–205). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [Reproduced with slight changes from the paper with the same title in Cognitive Linguistics 4(4): 335–371]
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Feyaerts, K. 2000. Refining the inheritance hypothesis: Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (59–78). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., & Peirsman, Y. 2011. Zones, Facets and Prototype-based Metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (88–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1 : Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary. 2009. CD-ROM edition (version 4.0.0.3) of Second Edition (1989) and of Additions Series (1993–1997). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2007. Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–316.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
Barnden, John A.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
Martín-Gascón, Beatriz
Soriano, Cristina & Javier Valenzuela
Li, Qi
Barcelona, Antonio
2019. The tripartite typology and the Córdoba Metonymy Database. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 49 ff.
Barcelona, Antonio
2024. Trends in cognitive-linguistic research on metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 51 ff.
Devylder, Simon
2019. Mereology in the flesh. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 199 ff.
Pannain, Rossella
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.
