Metonymy
without a shift in reference
Josefien Sweep
TINdag 7 februari 2009
Metonymy: a figure of speech ?
‘using one phrase
for another’
-
‘contiguity’
real world relation
a fleet of hundred sails
The power of the crown was weakened
I am reading Shakespeare
The red shirts won the match
Metonymy in cognitive linguistics (I)
¾ Lakoff and Johnson 1980 [Ch. 8 Metonymy]
“using one entity to refer to another related to it”
¾ Langacker 1993: 29
“We can define metonymy as occurring when an
expression that normally designates one entity is used
instead to designate another, associated entity.”
D
r
t
Langacker 1993:7
c
Metonymy in cognitive linguistics (II)
• highlighting parts of a domain
(Croft 1993)
(=conceptual/semantic structure)
• domain internal conceptual mapping
“Metonymy is a cognitive process in which
one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides
mental access to another conceptual entity,
the target, within the domain”
(Kövecses/Radden 1998:39)
Non-referential / grammatical
metonymy
• I am all ears
• he is a real brain
non-referential
metonymy (predicative)
• as long as I breathe
• the shops are dark
propositional
metonymy (Warren ‘99)
• the saxophone player
had to leave early
predicational
metonymy
illocutionary (Panther/
metonymy Thornburg ’99)
• can you lend me your
book?
Problems...
propositional metonymies?
(near)synonyms?
Illocutions/speech acts?
predicative use: fundamentally different?
He is a real brain
The real brain comes in
(He, who is a real brain,...)
Metonymy in the dictionary Adelung (1774)
Ausklopfen , verb. reg. act. 1) Durch Klopfen heraus
bringen. Den Staub ausklopfen, aus den Kleidern. Anis,
Kümmel u. s. f. ausklopfen. Zugleichen metonymisch,
auf diese Art reinigen oder von etwas befreyen. Die
Kleider, die Felle ausklopfen.
uitkloppen in the WNT
(Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal)
Metonymy in the direct object
Van Dale Groot Woordenboek 14:
„objectsverwisseling: 1·(taalkunde)
bepaalde vorm van metonymie:
verwisseling van het oorspronkelijke object
bij een werkwoord door een ander object
(dat, naar de betekenis, lokaal, causaal of
temporeel met het oorspronkelijke is
verbonden)
Dictionary search
metonymisch, objectsverwisseling, Objektsvertauschung
WNT:
VanDale:
Adelung:
Grimm:
320 verbs
156 verbs
150 verbs
12 verbs
Metonymical Object Changes (MOCs)
(Objectsverwisseling/Objektsvertauschung)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
¾LOCATION-LOCATUM
clear tables/dishes
¾CONTAINER-CONTENT
pack suitcase/stuff
squeeze lemon/juice ¾INGREDIENT-PRODUCT
¾MATERIAL-PRODUCT
braid reed/baskets
¾INSTRUMENT-SONG
play guitar/song
untie a bow/shoelaces ¾BOUNDED-STRING
¾EVENT-AGENT
interrupt talk/him
Metonymical objects
- to squeeze juice / oranges
- to wipe fingerprints / the screen
• direct objects are related in the real world
(are contiguous)
• verb meaning / overall meaning remains
stable
a part of a conceptual structure is highlighted
(Croft 1993)
Properties of (possible) objects
¾ inseparable/strongly connected entities
¾ clear relationship between objects (prefix)
¾ both core elements verb meaning
¾ shifted object cognitive prominent
result:
braid baskets
more concrete:
sokken stoppen
non-lexical object: sloot uitmodderen
Compatible with previous accounts
“Predicative metonymy can be [...] thought of as
coercion of a predicate argument place, rather
than the argument NP itself” (Stallard 1993:89)
Langacker 1993:7
r
D
c
t
Function = understanding
using one entity to refer to another related to it
(L&J 1980:36,37)
“But metonymy is not merely a referential
device. It also serves the function of
providing understanding.”
“[metonymy is] naturally suited for focussing”
Conclusions
• object changes: traditional examples of
metonymy without a shift in reference
• compatible with previous accounts of
conceptual metonymy
• referential shift is ‘by-product’
(Ruiz de Mendoza 2000:115)
• = highlighting part of a conceptual structure
(contiguity of concepts)
References
Croft (1993): “The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies.”
Cognitive Linguistics, 335-370
Kövecses & Radden (1998): “Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view.” Cognitive
linguistics, 37-77.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). “Reference-point constructions.” Cognitive linguistics, 4(1), 1-38.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980): Metaphors we live by. Chicago / London: The University
Chicago Press.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1999). “The potentiality and actuality metonymy in English
and Hungarian.” In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and
thought. (pp. 333-360). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2000): “The role of mappings and domains in understanding
metonymy.” In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the cross-roads (pp. 109131). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Hernández, L. P. (2001): “Metonymy and grammar.”
Language and Cognition, 321-357.
Stallard, D. (1993): “Two kinds of metonymy.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
31st annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 87-94.
Ullmann, S. (1957): The Principles of Semantics. A Linguistic Approach to Meaning,
Glasgow/Oxford.
Warren, B. (1999). “Aspects of referential metonymy.” In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.),
Polysemy in language and thought. (pp. 121-138). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.