Article published In: Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 2:2 (2001) ► pp.201–244
Metonymy
Unity in diversity
Published online: 16 August 2001
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc
The range of phenomena labelled as “metonymy” is so multifarious that it may seem impossible to reduce all these phenomena to a common semantic denominator. In accordance with many traditional and modern accounts in the fields of rhetoric and linguistics, this article reconstructs metonymy as a linguistic effect upon the content of a given form, based on a figure/ground effect along the contiguity relations within a given frame and generated by pragmatic processes. Thanks to these criteria, we are able to demonstrate the internal diversity as well as the fundamental unity of metonymy with respect to numerous aspects of language (innovation and conventionality, paradigmatic and syntagmatic dimension, linguistic subsystems like grammar, lexicon, etc., different levels of conceptual abstraction, concept and referent, speaker and hearer activities, principle of relevance) and to put metonymy in its right place by distinguishing it from linguistic effects based on other conceptual, especially taxonomic, relations and from other contiguity-based effects.
Cited by (25)
Cited by 25 other publications
Octavio de Toledo y Huerta, Álvaro S. & Mar Garachana Camarero
Baeskow, Heike
2024. The competition between noun-verb conversion and -ize derivation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 258 ff.
Kos, Petr
Bagasheva, Alexandra & Jesús Fernández-Domínguez
2022. Fact-checking on compound verbs in English. In Paradigms in Word Formation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 225], ► pp. 69 ff.
Schmid, Sarah Dessì
Panther, Klaus-Uwe
2019. M. Brdar.Metonymy and word-formation: Their interaction and complementation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:2 ► pp. 537 ff.
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2017. Chapter 5. How metonymy and grammar interact. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 126 ff.
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2025. Metonymy typologies revisited. In What makes a Figure [Figurative Thought and Language, 19], ► pp. 160 ff.
KÖVECSES, ZOLTÁN
조영순
Luján, Eugenio R. & César Ruiz Abad
2014. Semantic roles and word formation. In Perspectives on Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language, 106], ► pp. 241 ff.
김지애 & 최영주
Fagard, Benjamin
Stosic, Dejan & Benjamin Fagard
Bauer, Matthias, Joachim Knape, Peter Koch & Susanne Winkler
Hansen and, Maj-Britt Mosegaard & Richard Waltereit
Koch, Peter
Koch, Peter
Koch, Peter
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 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.
