Cover not available

In:Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi, Mario Brdar and Kristina Š. Despot
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 8] 2019
► pp. 49–74

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
The tripartite typology and the Córdoba Metonymy Database

 | University of Córdoba
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.03bar
The Córdoba Metonymy Database has been designed as a tool for systematically investigating conceptual metonymy across a wide variety of authentic discourse samples, mostly in English and Spanish. Its entry model features eleven analytical fields. One of them, Field 2, is devoted to suggesting the most likely hierarchy including the metonymy under analysis. The top (or “generic”) level of that hierarchy is the tripartite typology whole for part , part for whole , and part for part . After describing the database and its entry model, the author argues against the proposals to rule out the tripartite typology and discusses the criteria to apply the tripartite typology to the metonymies so far included in the database.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Brief description of the Córdoba Metonymy Database and its entry model with special attention to the field Hierarchical Level
    • 2.1Problems involved in the completion of the database
    • 2.2Some specific comments on the fields “Hierarchical Level” and “Other Hierarchical Levels”
  • 3.Challenges to the tripartite generic typology in recent research on metonymy: A brief discussion
    • 3.1The proposal by Ruiz de Mendoza and his collaborators to reduce the typology to whole for part and part for whole
    • 3.2Panther and Thornburg’s proposal to reduce the typology to part for whole from an “intensional” perspective
  • 4.Criteria applied in the database to determine Whole and Part status at the generic level of a hierarchy
    • 4.1Preliminaries
    • 4.2The criteria
      • Rule 1
      • Rule 2
      • Rule 3
        • Sub-rule 3a: Search for additional information on the relevant meronymy
        • Sub-rule 3b: Determine the meronymic structure of abstract sources and targets
          • Sub-rule 3b-1: Distinguish between frames and frame elements, especially when the same term is used to designate both
          • Sub-rule 3b-2: Observe the degree of “strength of contact” (Peirsman & Geeraerts 2006) between source and target in concrete or material domains, and the degree of “strength of conceptual connection” between source and target in abstract domains.
          • Sub-rule 3c: Identify the “reference frame / icm” or “functional domain” within which, or by reference to which, the metonymy occurs.
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (26)
References
Barcelona, A. (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 (pp. 207–277). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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 (pp. 313–352). 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. 7–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon. In C. Alm-Arvius, N.-L. Johannesson, & David C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival  (Stockholm Studies in English 105) (pp. 13–46). Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains. In O. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 27–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwiaczwonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blanco-Carrión, O. (2018). Conventionality and linguistic domain(s) involved in the characterization of metonymies (for the creation of a detailed typology of metonymy). In O. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 55–73). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., & Pannain, R. (Eds.). (2018). Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird, & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 411–420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmott, C. (1999). Embodied in a Constructed World: Narrative processing, knowledge representation, and indirect anaphora. In K. van Hoek, A. A. Kibrik, & L. Noordman (Eds.), Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics (pp. 5–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hernández-Gomariz, I. (2018). 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. In O. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 75–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 37–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 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 (Cognitive Linguistics Research 32) (pp. 353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (Applications in Cognitive Linguistics 1) (pp. 147–185). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In O. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain, & A. Barcelona, (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 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. (2018). Molly married money: Reflections on conceptual metonymy. In O. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 161–181). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistics perspective (Human Cognitive Processing 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, et al. (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 33–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication, 21(4), 321–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (1995[1989]). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Barcelona, Antonio
2024. Trends in cognitive-linguistic research on metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Coll-Florit, Marta & Salvador Climent
2023. Metaphor repositories: the case of the mental health metaphor dictionary. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 38:4 ► pp. 1440 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
Soriano, Cristina & Javier Valenzuela
2022. The size of shame and pride. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Salamurović, Aleksandra
2020. Metonymy and the conceptualisation of nation in political discourse. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 8:1 ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.

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