Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery

Abstract

This paper continues the debate about how to distinguish metaphor from metonymy, and whether this can be done. It examines some of the differences that have been alleged to exist, and augments the already existing doubt about them. The main differences addressed are the similarity/contiguity distinction and the issue of whether source-target links are part of the message in metonymy or metaphor. In particular, the paper argues that metaphorical links can always be used metonymically and regarded as contiguities, and conversely that two particular, central types of metonymic contiguity essentially involve similarity. The paper also touches briefly on how metaphor and metonymy interact with domains, frames, etc. and on the role of imaginary identification/categorization of target as/under source items. With the possible exception of this last issue, the paper suggests that no combination of the alleged differences addressed can serve cleanly to categorize source/target associations into metaphorical ones and metonymic ones. It also suggests that it can be more profitable to analyse utterances at the level of the dimensions involved in the differences than at the higher level of metaphor and metonymy as such.

Desarrollo conceptual, metáfora y metonimia. Un modelo para comprender la trayectoria cognitiva del concepto ‘appoggio’

“…Otro conjunto de aportes recientes (Barcelona, 2000;Barnden, 2010;Haser, 1973Haser, /2005Stefanowitsch y Gries, 2006) se han ocupado de otros aspectos tales como la plausibilidad de postular la existencia de relaciones restrictivas interdominio en los procesos metonímicos, o las interrelaciones entre metáfora y metonimia en la gramática inglesa, tópicos centrales en las discusiones lingüísticas, pero que no serán retomados aquí por la naturaleza de nuestro trabajo. …”

The power of metonymy in humour: stretching contiguous relations across different layers of meaning

“…Within this contiguity-centered view, we side with Barnden (2010), who characterizes metonymy's cognitive function as a reference-point construction between elements 3 . The reference point phenomenon has been at the core of several cognitive processes, and aims at explaining how an element can be seen and referred to in terms of another.…”

EFL learners’ awareness of metonymy–metaphor continuum in figurative expressions

“…This definition of metonymy shows the major difference between metonymy and metaphor: metonymy involves the association of two entities within the same ICM, while metaphor involves a mapping between two separate domains. However, researchers find that the boundary between the notions of metaphor and those of metonymy does not create a dichotomy, since metaphor and metonymy interact with each other in intricate ways (Barnden, 2010;Goossens, 1990;Radden, 2003).…”