Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view

Kövecses, Zoltán; Radden, Günter

doi:10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37

Cited by 590 publications

(203 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

174

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While "domain" and "ICM" do not explicitly appear in my definition, I do not deny or ignore the role of the domain in metonymy in Janda (2011). My article contains a summary of various strategies scholars have used in defining metonymy and domains/dominions have their rightful place in that discussion (citing Croft 1993;Langacker 1993Langacker , 2009Ruiz de Mendoza 2000), alongside contiguity (citing Jakobson 1980Jakobson [1956; Peirsman and Geeraerts 2006), and Frames/ICMs (citing Kövecses and Radden 1998;Radden and Kövecses 1999;Panther and Thornburg 1999;Barcelona 2002). However, I do not arbitrate among these strategies.…”

Section: Gradience In Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Metonymy and word-formation revisited

Janda

2014

Cognitive Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brdar and Brdar-Szabó (this volume) offer a critique of Janda (2011( ). Janda (2011 found that the same cognitive strategy that facilitates metonymy, namely use of a conceptual source to access a target, can also be invoked in many patterns of affixal word-formation. In other words, many cases of word-formation appear to be motivated by metonymic association. Brdar and Brdar-Szabó claim that it is incorrect to refer to word-formational processes as metonymies. In addition to the robust parallels evidenced in my data, I offer three arguments to defend my use of the term "metonymy": (1) a broader definition of metonymy facilitates more insightful generalizations; (2) there is no fixed boundary between lexical metonymy and word-formational metonymy since they coexist in the lexicon-grammar continuum; and (3) context, whether it be a suffix or other cues, is always a factor in metonymy.

show abstract

Section: Gradience In Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Metonymy and word-formation revisited

Janda

2014

Cognitive Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…sets of correspondences across distinct domains), which differ in the nature of the domain involved: in metaphor we find two different domains while in metonymy there is a domain-subdomain conceptual mapping. Kövecses and Radden (1998) put forward a taxonomy of metonymic mappings relying upon a set of metonymy-producing relationships, i.e. generic principles underlying metonymies.…”

Section: A Cognitive Approach To Metaphor and Metonymymentioning

confidence: 99%

Pictorial and verbo-pictorial metaphor in Spanish political cartooning

Alousque

2014

Círculo De Lingüística Aplicada a La Comunicación

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The latter is thus a process of domain highlighting. Similarly, Kövecses and Radden (1998) claim that conceptual metonymy is a cognitive process that facilitates mental access to a conceptual entity within the same domain. As pointed out by Koch (1999), among others, such referential access via metonymy relies on the conceptual contiguity of the elements within a domain.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced creativity in bilinguals? Evidence from meaning interpretations of novel compounds

Onysko

2015

International Journal of Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to contribute to research on whether bilinguals show increased creativity in a verbal task when compared to monolinguals. In line with previous research, creativity is linked to divergent thinking, and a particular focus is laid on figurative associations among the monolingual and bilingual speakers. To investigate potential differences in figurative associations, participants completed a meaning interpretation task of novel English compounds. The task was carried out with 117 monolingual and bilingual New Zealanders, who were split into three comparable groups of Māori-English bilinguals, English monolinguals, and a control group of bilingual speakers in English and a language that is not Māori. The written meaning interpretations are analyzed in two steps. First, a close description is given of the range of associative strategies that participants relied upon when giving meaning to the novel compounds. Second, conceptual metaphor and metonymy theory is applied to tease apart potential differences in the participants' figurative associations. With the exception of a few figurative processes, the results demonstrate that monolinguals and bilinguals perform similarly in terms of the overall number and diversity of figurative associations. However, a clear contrast between the bilinguals and the monolinguals emerges in the associative strategy of analogical meaning interpretations. Thus, the bilinguals show a significant preference of associating to existing idiomatic expressions and homophones that are related to some of the compound constituents. These findings are discussed for their implications on bilingual creativity. Since the results are based on a comparison of monolingual and bilingual meaning interpretations, the current study offers a new methodological take on investigating the connection between bilingualism and verbal-associative creativity. The study bears further methodological significance as it applies insights from cognitive linguistics to the study of bilingualism.

show abstract

Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view

Cited by 590 publications

References 0 publications

Metonymy and word-formation revisited

Metonymy and word-formation revisited

Pictorial and verbo-pictorial metaphor in Spanish political cartooning

Enhanced creativity in bilinguals? Evidence from meaning interpretations of novel compounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About