Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 27:1 (2014) ► pp.168–186
Metonymy and the way we speak
Published online: 8 August 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.07pan
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.07pan
In this article we investigate correlations between semantically equivalent expressions (organized in manner scales according to the formal properties of length, prosodic prominence, and grammaticalization) and their varying potential to trigger a certain metonymic interpretation. We focus on manner scales of past ability as well as semantically and logically similar expressions relating to human character traits/dispositions and external circumstances. Using the concepts of strength of metonymic link and coercion, we show that shorter, prosodically weaker and more grammaticalized members in these manner scales more strongly trigger the potentiality for actuality metonymy than their longer, prosodically stronger, and less grammaticalized counterparts.
References (26)
Asher, N., & Hunter, J. (2012). Aspectual coercions in content composition. In L. Filipović & K.M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Linguistic diversity (pp. 55–81). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bhatt, R. (1999). Covert modality in non-finite contexts. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Birner, B., & Ward, G. (1992). On the interpretation of VP inversion in American English. Journal of Linguistics, 281, 1–12.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–51). New York: Academic Press.
. (2006). Implicature. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell.
Karttunen, L. (1970). On the semantics of complement sentences. Chicago Linguistic Society, 61, 328–340.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77.
Levinson, S. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In F.R. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons (pp. 90–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S.M. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (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 (pp. 147–185). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 755–769.
. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and hought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. (2003). Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K.-U Panther & L.L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. (2005). Inference in the construction of meaning: The role of conceptual metonymy. In E. Górska & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy-metaphor collage (pp. 37–70). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
. (2006). Metonymy and the way we speak. In R. Benczes & S. Csábi (Eds.),
The metaphors of sixty: Papers presented on the occasion of the 60th birthday of Zoltán Kövecses
(pp. 183–195). Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.
. (2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. (2007). Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B.K. Bergen & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). London: Equinox.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (in press). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In: W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Ziegeler, D. (2003). The development of counterfactual implicatures in English: A case of metonymy or M-inference? In K.-U. Panther & L.L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 169–203). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Panther, Klaus-Uwe
2022. Physical and communicative force in Caused-Motion constructions. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 141 ff.
Peña Cervel, Ma Sandra
Peña-Cervel, María Sandra & Andreea Rosca
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017. The role of inferencing in the interpretation of two expressive speech act constructions. In Constructing families of constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 109 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017. Chapter 1. Exploitingwh-questions for expressive purposes. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 18 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2018. What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?. In Conceptual metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60], ► pp. 121 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.