When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy?

Riemer, Nick

doi:10.1515/9783110219197.379

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Relativity has been pointed out by various other authors (Cameron 1999b;Dirven 2002;Geeraerts 2002;Norrick 1981;Pragglejaz Group 2007;Radden 2002;Radman 1997;Riemer 2002;Ritchie 2006;Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 1999). We will not be exploring it in this article, but we need to distinguish it from the issue of the differentiation of metaphor and metonymy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…But many authors have noted the slipperiness of the notions of similarity and contiguity (e.g. : Chiappe 1998;Cooper 1986;Dirven 2002;Haser 2005;Riemer 2002). Norrick (1981: 27) says that "the line between principles of similarity and of contiguity is at times fuzzy" (although he does not go on to explore this fuzziness).…”

Section: Similarity Versus Contiguity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Radden (2002) makes one such proposal. Dirven (2002) discusses a phenomenon of post-metonymy, intermediate between metaphor and metonymy, although Riemer (2002) argues that (his own version of) post-metonymy need not lead in the direction of metaphor. Croft and Cruse (2004: 220) give examples that suggest intermediate possibilities between metaphor and metonymy, while also warning that what may appear to be intermediacy may be the result of combining distinctly different processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery

Barnden

2010

Cogl

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Similarity Versus Contiguity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery

Barnden

2010

Cogl

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Panther and Thornburg stress that while the metonymic process takes place, the source meaning of the metonymy either remains as background knowledge or it vanishes diachronically (2009: 24; Riemer 2002). According to Riemer (2002) it becomes a post-metonymy. Panther and Thornburg (2009) provide relative examples which are not actually identified as metonymies in grammar; they are conventional and have become entrenched.…”

Section: Metonymies or Overgeneralization Effect?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The cognitive process of metonymy and its functions in the acquisition of areas of grammar

Lampropoulou¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Η μελέτη επικεντρώνεται στην εννοιακή μετωνυμία και την επίδρασή της στην παραγωγικότητα. Εικάζεται ότι οι γνωσιακές διαδικασίες της μετωνυμίας και της μεταφοράς παίζουν ρόλο στην κατανόηση γραμματικών φαινομένων και πιο συγκεκριμένα στην παραγωγή λέξεων. Για να μελετηθεί η σχέση μεταξύ γνωσιακών διαδικασίων και της παραγωγής λέξεων δημιουργήθηκαν ψευδολέξεις στα Αγγλικά, οι οποίες δόθηκαν σε μορφή ερωτηματολογίου σε μια ομάδα μη φυσικών ομιλητών της Αγγλικής (Τσέχους, Γερμανούς και Έλληνες). Οι ψευδολέξεις, οι οποίες θα μπορούσαν να αποτελούν πιθανές λέξεις της Αγγλικής, συνοδεύονται από πιθανές ερμηνείες, από τις οποίες οι συμμετέχοντες έπρεπε να επιλέξουν μία ως την πιο κατάλληλη. Οι ψευδολέξεις είναι παράγωγα των καταλήξεων –ize (π.χ gossipize), -ify (π.χ. bossify), -dom (π.χ. cookdom), -ship (π.χ. academyship) and –hood (π.χ. dragonhood). Οι προτεινόμενες ερμηνείες διαμορφώνουν μια κλίμακα κυριολεκτικών και μη-κυριολεκτικών (/μεταφορικών) σημασιών. Στόχος της έρευνας είναι να εντοπίσει εάν υπάρχει τάση επιλογής συγκεκριμένων σημασιών (δλδ. κυριολεκτικών ή μεταφορικών) βάση των επιθημάτων που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν. Οι γνωσιακές προσεγγίσεις που αποτέλεσαν το θεωρητικό πλαίσιο της μελέτης είναι εκείνες των Lakoff και Johnson (1980), Langacker (2009), Panther και Thornburg (2002, 2009), Radden και Kövecses (1999), Ruiz de Mendoza (2000, 2011), Trips (2009), Plag (1999) μεταξύ άλλων. Συνολικά, η μελέτη επιχείρησε να αναγνωρίσει τις γνωσιακές διαδικασίες που έλαβαν χώρα κατά την επεξεργασία των παραγώγων/ ψευδολέξεων και να υποδείξει τους παράγοντες που συμβάλλουν στο να αναδειχθεί μια σημασία ως κυρίαρχη, καθώς και να αναδείξει τι συνεπάγεται η πραγματοποίηση μετωνυμικών και μεταφορικών συνάψεων γενικότερα.

show abstract

“…However, -domain‖ per se as a key term, (whether defined as structured encyclopaedic knowledge or a reference frame for activation of relevant information in a cognitive model), is far from determinate. Some scholars think the term -domain‖ is rather vague and it is impossible to make a clear-cut demarcation between boundaries, since the range of domain varies from person to person (Dirven, 2002;Feyaerts, 1999;Riemer, 2002). Dirven (2002: 87) thinks that this term proper needs further clarification before it is used to interpret other phenomena.…”

Section: About Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metonymy in Mind, Language, and Communication

Xi-tao¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>The typical view considers metonymy as an intra-domain mapping which involves the source providing mental access to the target within the domain, with PART-WHOLE as the prototypical relation. This commonly held view of metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics pays attention to what happens after the domain, or rather, the WHOLE, has been established. How the WHOLE is formed seems to be missing. Based on the research results of cognitive science, especially in cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and neuroscience, metonymy is tentatively argued to be an innate cognitive mechanism involving PART-WHOLE FORMING, PART-WHOLE/PART RELATING processes. The PART-WHOLE FORMING process establishes the WHOLE from the PART: It picks up some prominent element(s) in an interactive process to form a patterned experience, and the PART-WHOLE/PART RELATING process relates PART to PART, relating PART to the WHOLE and vice versa. The PART-WHOLE/PART RELATING process is made possible by the PART-WHOLE FORMING process. Metonymic operations usually precede metaphoric operation. Metaphor is essentially grounded on metonymy. Metonymy as a cognitive mechanism is most noticeably realized in language. It operates in various aspects of language and language use. The experience pattern (i.e. the WHOLE) formulated through the PART-WHOLE FORMING process is found to underpin the process of grammaticalization, the development of meaning prototype, and to motivate such daily language use as football nicknaming and to bring in certain cognitive and communicative functions. In the light of this view of metonymy, grammaticalization is considered from the conceptual perspective as a process from the general/global to the specific/local, or from focus on one specific aspect to focus on another particular aspect within the global WHOLE, rather than the usually held concrete-to-abstract process. This also applies to word meaning prototypes. Word meaning develops due to the dynamic of meaning prototypes. When considered from the conceptual perspective, meaning prototypes generally develop from the general/global to the specific/local with the change and specification of contextual situations. The cognitive analysis of football nicknames also suggests that metonymy is overwhelming and provides the requisite basis for metaphor. The PART-WHOLE FORMING and the PART-WHOLE/PART RELATING processes of metonymy as an inherent cognitive mechanism often interact in the mind, which is evidenced in language and may be best illustrated through analysis of interactive communication in general, and dialogic discourse in particular. Metonymy in interaction is embodied in its functions and operations in dialogue and its contribution to the dialogue as a discourse entity. Metonymy operates in dialogic discourse in various patterns of GENERAL-SPECIFIC scheme. It operates in the development of dialogue and helps structure the dialogic discourse, making it a coherent discourse entity; it makes meaning out of the local utterance and relates it to the whole dialogue; it underlies the decision-making process, helping make a final decision among alternatives. It also motivates the problem-solving process, helping formulate and organise replies to the questions posed by the counterpart in dialogic discourse, and facilitating the solution of daily problems.</p>

show abstract

When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy?

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery

Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery

The cognitive process of metonymy and its functions in the acquisition of areas of grammar

Metonymy in Mind, Language, and Communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About