Article published In: Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 8:1 (2018) ► pp.1–24
Text metaphtonymy
The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse
Published online: 7 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.16011.den
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.16011.den
Abstract
This article starts by looking at the various ways metonymic and metaphoric thinking, as independent phenomena, organize text at discourse level. The literature on metaphor in discourse is classified under three broad categories, ‘metaphor clusters’, ‘metaphor chains’ and ‘extended metaphor’, while the less extensive body of research on metonymy in discourse is analyzed into parallel categories, ‘metonymy clusters’, ‘metonymy chains’ and ‘extended metonymy’. The article goes on to look at the ways in which metonymy-in-discourse and metaphor-in-discourse phenomena combine in making meaning at text level. The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse, referred to here as ‘text metaphtonymy’, is explored under headings adapted from Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. , namely, ‘metaphor within metonymy’ and ‘metonymy within metaphor’. The ways in which metonymy and metaphor combine at discourse level are shown to be varied and intricate. This has implications for applied linguists working with text. The direction further work in this area might take is indicated.
Keywords: chains, clusters, extended metaphor, extended metonymy, discourse, metaphor, metaphtonymy, metonymy, text
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Metaphor in discourse
- 2.1Metaphor clusters
- 2.2Metaphor chains
- 2.3Extended metaphor
- 3.Metonymy in discourse
- 3.1Metonymy clusters
- 3.2Metonymy chains
- 3.3Extended metonymy
- 4.Text metaphtonymy
- 4.1Metonymy within metaphor
- 4.2Metaphor within metonymy
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (61)
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (Eds.). (2011). Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biernacka, E. (2013). A discourse dynamics investigation of metonymy in talk. Unpublished PhD thesis. Milton Keyes: The Open University.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cameron, L. (1999). Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse data. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 105–132). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2008). Metaphor and talk. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 197–211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2010). The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities (pp. 77–94). London: Equinox.
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671–690.
Cameron, L., & Low, G. (2004). Figurative variation in episodes of educational talk and text. European Journal of English Studies, 78(3), 355–377.
Cameron, L., Low, G., & Maslen, R. (2010). Finding systematicity in metaphor use. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities (pp. 116–146). London: Equinox.
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R. (Eds.). (2010). Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities. London: Equinox.
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Stanley, N. (2009). The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89.
Cameron, L., & Stelma, J. (2004). Metaphor clusters in discourse. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 107–136.
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Darian, S. (2000). The role of figurative language in introductory science texts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 163–186.
Deignan, A. (2005a). A corpus linguistic perspective on the relationship between metonymy and metaphor. Style, 39(1), 72–91.
(2005b). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J., & Semino, E. (2013). Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York/London: Routledge.
Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75–111). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2003). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. (2008). Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 462–482). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2009). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Issues in multisemiotics (pp. 56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340.
(2003). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–377). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Handl, S. (2011). Salience and the conventionality of metonymies. In S. Handl & H. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending. (pp. 85–114). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hidalgo, L., & Kraljevic, B. (2011). Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In F. Gonzálvez-García, S. Peña, & L. Pérez (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the contemporary theory of metaphor. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 153–178.
Hilpert, M. (2010). Chained metonymies. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Experimental and empirical methods in cognitive functional research (pp. 181–194). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Jakobson, R. (1956). Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In R. Jakobson & M. Halle, Fundamentals of language (pp. 53–82). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kimmel, M. (2010). Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 97–115.
(2012). Optimizing the analysis of metaphor in discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1–48.
Koller, V. (2003). Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: Analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. metaphorik. de, 51, 115–134.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lodge, D. (1977). The modes of modern writing: Metaphor, metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Arnold.
Low, G. (2008). Metaphor and positioning in academic book reviews. In M. Zanotto, L. Cameron & M. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Musolff, A. (2000). Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(3). 216–229.
Panther, K., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (Eds.). (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panther, K., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2016). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-based account. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(2), 73–90.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.
Reddy, M. (1993). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 164–201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Diez Velasco, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Semino, E., Deignan, A., & Littlemore, J. (2013). Metaphor, genre, and recontextualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 41–59.
Seto, K. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2014). Why figurative thought and language are not enough: On the crucial role of metaphor in communication. Paper given at 1st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language. April 25–26, 2014, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Berenike Herrmann, J., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (17)
Cited by 17 other publications
Jensen, Thomas Wiben
Yang, Kaiwen & Ya Sun
Schröder, Ulrike
Shu, Jing, Gui Wang & Caihua Xu
Gibbs, Raymond W.
Heritage, Frazer
Heritage, Frazer
Lu, Qiuyun
Shevchenko, Iryna & Vira Shastalo
Fontaine, Lise
Bogetić, Ksenija
2019. Discursive metaphorical frames in newspaper texts on language change. Metaphor and the Social World 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
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.
Denroche, Charles
Denroche, Charles
Denroche, Charles
[no author supplied]
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.
