Cover not available

In:Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
Edited by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona and Rossella Pannain
[Human Cognitive Processing 60] 2018
► pp. 161–182

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

Chapter 6
Molly married money

Reflections on conceptual metonymy

 | Universität Hamburg
Published online: 17 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.06rad
Abstract
This chapter is concerned with the conceptual basis of metonymy. Particular attention is devoted to properties that are considered crucial to conceptual metonymy. The metonymic source has received little attention. However, it plays an important role as an element of the target and is given due attention. The notion of association is applied to metonymic interconnections, inference, and strength of association. A central element of metonymy is the notion of relation: However, neither contiguity nor indexicality adequately covers the range of metonymic relations. The paper argues that two more properties are pertinent to conceptual metonymy: a metonymic shift from a source concept to a complex metonymic target, and the conceptual integration of source and target and its resulting emergent meanings.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metonymic source and target
  • 3.Association
    • 3.1Co-activation
    • 3.2Inference
    • 3.3Strength of association
  • 4.Metonymic relation
    • 4.1Contiguity
    • 4.2Indexicality
  • 5.Metonymic shift
  • 6.Conceptual integration
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (32)
References
Alač, M., & Coulson, S. 2004. The man, the key, or the car: Who or what is parked out back? Cognitive Science Online, 2, 21–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2004. Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (357–384). 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. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2013. Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield & Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar Szabó, R. 2014. Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics 25(2), 313–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. 2003. Metonymy and conceptual blending. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (51–79). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denroche, Ch. 2015. Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R. 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (275–287). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. 1999. The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 1366–1383.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haser, V. 2005. Metaphor, metonymy, and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hernández-Gomariz, I. this volume. 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.
Janda, L. A. 2011. Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2), 359–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 2009. The neural theory of metaphor. [URL]
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 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
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 (353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.L. this volume. What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2009. Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. 2009. Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In K.-U Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (199–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2003. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Song, N. S. 1997. Metaphor and metonymy. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (87–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strack, D. 2015. Metonymic connections are not mapped: Theoretical and neurological evidence for “metonymic binding”. Paper presented at the 13th ICLC at Newcastle upon Tyne.
Sweep, J. 2011. Metonymical transfers: The complex relation of metonymy and grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, B. 1999. Aspects of referential metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (121-135). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Coates, Adam
2024. How Do Philosophical Positions Influence the Social Science Research Process? A Classification and Metaphor Analysis of Researchers’ Descriptions. Social Epistemology 38:5 ► pp. 632 ff. DOI logo
Elyamany, Nashwa & Maha SalahEldien Mohamed Hamed
2024. Metaphtonymy and semio-cognitive de-legitimation of Donald Trump in the meme discourse of The Daily Show with Trevor Noah (January 2016–December 2019). International Journal of Language and Culture 11:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Golubeva, Tatiana
2023. The proper names ‘Assad’, ‘ISIL’, ‘ISIS’, ‘Daesh’ and ‘European’ as metonymic blends in political discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 115 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
Martynyuk, Alla & Olga Meleshchenko
2022. Socio-pragmatic potential of (verbo)-visual metaphtonymy in Internet memes featuring Donald Trump. Metaphor and the Social World 12:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Pannain, Rossella & Lucia di Pace
2022. Metonymy and the polysemy ofCovidin Italian. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Thomou, Paraskevi & Marilena Koutoulaki
2022. From usage patterns to meaning construction. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 305 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Denroche, Charles
2019. Employing cognitive metonymy theory in the analysis of semantic relations between source and target text in translation. Metaphor and the Social World 9:2 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo

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.

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