The University of Córdoba
Metonymy Database
Characterizing metonymy: Descriptive fields in a
metonymy database
Antonio Barcelona
(University of Córdoba)
1
Preliminaries: Goals of talk
1)  To report on:
- 
- 
- 
- 
The design and functioning of the database
The entry model
Some of its eleven analytical fields
The criteria followed in the completion of these
field
-  The problems encountered so far and our
solutions
-  Some of the descriptive and theoretical findings,
and the potential applications of the database
2
Preliminaries: Goals of talk
•  Criteria: registered in our database entry model
and in corresponding instructions
•  We have already developed a number of criteria
(Barcelona forthcoming, Blanco forthcoming,
Hernández forthcoming)
•  Applied it to over 300 metonymies registered in
the specialized literature.
3
Preliminaries: Goals of talk
2)  - To get feedback from the audience
4
Preliminaries: Research project
The database is one of the two main aims of
PROJECT FFI2012-36523 (funded by the Spanish
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness):
An empirical investigation into the role of
conceptual metonymy in grammar, discourse
and sign language. Compilation of a
metonymy database.
5
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
ANTONIO BARCELONA SÁNCHEZ (UCO)
TEAM MEMBERS:
PILAR GUERRERO MEDINA (UCO)
CARMEN PORTERO MUÑOZ (UCO)
OLGA BLANCO CARRIÓN (UCO)
ISABEL HERNÁNDEZ GOMARIZ (UCO)
EVA LUCÍA JIMÉNEZ NAVARRO (UCO)*
ANA LAURA RODRÍGUEZ REDONDO (UCM)
Mª DEL CARMEN GUARDDON ANELO (UNED)
ALMUDENA SOTO NIETO* (UCV)
MARIA SOLEDAD CRUZ MARTÍNEZ* (UAL)
CARLOS HERNÁNDEZ SIMÓN* (UNED)
JOSÉ ANTONIO JÓDAR SÁNCHEZ** (UB, Buffalo).
*From 2013
** From 2016
Most of the members: Part time.
Technicians:
JOSÉ JAVIER LIÑÁN MANZANEDA (until December 2015)
JOSÉ MANUEL GÁLVEZ MORENO (from December 2015)
6
Aims of research project
1) To investigate:
- the functioning of conceptual metonymy
across a variety of authentic discourse samples
- in two oral languages (English and
Spanish)
- and in two sign languages (American
Sign Language and Spanish Sign Language).
7
Aims of research project
2) Compilation of a detailed annotated database
of mainly basic and higher-level conceptual
metonymies on the basis of:
- metonymies registered in specialized literature
on metonymy and
- our own corpus-based research on authentic
discourse.
•  This database goes beyond a mere list of
metonymies roughly grouped into types.
•  It may constitute a useful reference tool for
the academic community.
8
Description of database: Objectives
1)  To register faithfully and unify (as far as
possible) the various descriptions of the same
metonymy by different scholars.
2)  To gather data about the scope of metonymy in
language and communication
3)  To provide a reference tool to metonymy
researchers and other interested users.
4)  To constitute a research tool, stimulating
debate in the academic community.
9
Description of database: Main
characteristics
-Flexibility:
-Fields, “vocabularies” and “terms”, etc. can be
modified whenever necessary.
-The options are in most cases not mutually
exclusive.
-Objectivity: Subjectivity in decision-making, reduced as
far as possible by following uniform criteria.
-Consistency:
1)  Fields and analytical tools are applied on the basis
of systematic criteria.
2)  The definition of “Vocabularies” and “terms” will be
included in the information available for the user.
10
Description of database: Stages in its
development
STAGES COMPLETED:
•  “Internal training” period to develop the entry model and
apply the basic criteria
•  Initial annotated database (in Ms Word) (50
metonymies)
•  Revision of that initial database and entry model
•  Enlarged database (in Ms Word): a larger set of
metonymies (250) registered in the specialized literature.
•  Development of the test version of a digital, web-based
version of the database.
11
Description of database: Stages in its
development
STAGES STILL TO BE COMPLETED:
•  May-June:
-Revising and improving the test version of digital, webbased database using Drupal 7+ with MySQL 5 +. Still a few
errors to correct: one of the reasons why few entries fed into
digital database yet, and some only partially.
-Implementing powerful search features.
•  July 2016- (approx.) March 2017?:
-Revising all the Ms Word entries and refining analytical
criteria to ensure consistency (the other reason why few
entries fed into database yet).
-Feeding revised Ms Word entries into revised digital
database.
-Further testing and technical adjustments.
-Publication (free access in consultation mode).
12
Description of database: Overview of the
entry model with an example
•  This entry model has gone through successive
major and minor revisions (in Ms Word).
•  Latest version of entry model (11 analytical
fields + 3 supplementary fields): 21-05-16 entry
model (next slide)
•  An example of a completed entry in digital
database: As much (slide after next).
13
14
15
Analytical fields /
Vocabularies / Terms
16
Field 1: Category label
DESCRIPTION
Purpose: To reproduce exactly the lowest-level
category label used by the author in the source
book/article
Elements: Category label
Illustration: see below (problems)
Problems and solutions
Normally not problematic
17
Field 1: Category label
Among the problems: Sometimes no actual label is
used by the author. Then we have to assign one.
-  Example (Panther & Thornburg’s 2007)
description of Buckingham Palace as metonymic
when referring to the Queen or her staff.
-  We described it (in field 2, at the “Basic” level in
the hierarchy) as LOCATION FOR LOCATED,
so this is the label we adopted for Field 1 (this is
explained in “Additional Remarks”):
Buckingham Palace
18
19
Field 2: Hierarchical level
DESCRIPTION
Purpose:
(a) To propose a metonymic hierarchy including
the metonymy under analysis and the level at
which to locate the latter.
(b) To increase knowledge about the hierarchical
organization of metonymy.
Elements:
Four levels: generic/ high / basic / low; the last
three with three possible sub-levels each.
Illustration: The buses are on strike
20
21
22
23
24
Field 2: Hierarchical level
Problems and solutions:
Normally this field is quite problematic.
The decisions made so far about it in many entries
will be modified after revising all the entries.
Some of the problems (typical problems in this
field):
1.  Number of levels and hierarchical depth:
Normally the first three major levels (Generic, High,
Basic) are sufficient.
The Low level somehow overlaps with “Taxonomic
domains” (field 4, “Examples”). “Vehicle” is a role in
a frame and at the same time a taxonomy of
25
objects.
Field 2: Hierarchical level
- However, we will specify the “Low” level of
metonymic hierarchies whenever possible (this
information may turn out to be useful).
- Two additional sub-levels for High, Basic and
Low have been included, to account for the cases
in which it may be convenient to recognize them.
2. Type of hierarchy
Mixing of a taxonomic hierarchy (“kind of”) with a
meronymic hierarchy (“part of”) is avoided.
Lower levels should be either in a kind-of or a part
of relation with higher levels.
26
Field 2: Hierarchical level
Example: Metonymy D EGREE
TO WHICH A
CONTAINER IS FILLED FOR QUANTITY OF CONTAINER’S
CONTENT
(As in “You are a fine armful now, Mary, with
those twenty pounds you’ve gained”)
Field 2 in our initial version of the corresponding
Ms Word entry:
27
Hierarchical level: Initial version of Field 2 for DEGREE TO WHICH A
CONTAINER IS FILLED FOR QUANTITY OF CONTAINER’S
CONTENT, as illustrated by armful in You are a fine armful now, Mary,
with those twenty pounds you’ve gained
Generic
PART FOR PART
↓
Top High
EVENT FOR CO-OCCURRING EVENT
↓
High
FILLING A CONTAINER FOR INCREASE IN CONTENT’S QUANTITY
↓
Basic
DEGREE TO WHICH A CONTAINER IS FILLED FOR QUANTITY OF CONTAINER’S
CONTENT
↓
Low
DEGREE TO WHICH AN ARM IS FILLED WITH SOMEBODY’S WAIST FOR THE MASS
(A MEASURE, A QUANTITY) OF THAT PERSON’S WAIST
28
Field 2: Hierarchical level
Undue mix of meronymic with taxonomic
hierarchies:
FILLING A CONTAINER / INCREASE IN CONTENT (High
Level) are kinds of events (Top High).
But
DEGREE TO WHICH A CONTAINER IS FILLED /
QUANTITY OF CONTAINER’S CONTENT are not kinds of
events but properties (“parts”) of events.
In principle, only taxonomic (i.e., “kind-of”) metonymic
hierarchies have been considered.
A consistent hierarchy in the latest version of the entry:
Morpheme {ful}.doc
29
30
Field 2: Hierarchical level
- “Fullness”: a SCALAR property of an entity (arm) with
a role (container) (implies degree)
- “Amount”: also a SCALAR property of an entity (a
person’s waist) with a role (content).
31
Field 2: Hierarchical level
3. Basic criterion to recognize a major
level:
Recognize a new major level when a metonymy
seems to initiate a new subordinate hierarchy:
PROPERTY (and subtypes)>>> DEGREE OF
FULLNESS (and subtypes).
On these and other problems: Barcelona (forthcoming),
Blanco et al (in press).
A further example of a wrong hierarchy (with error
corrected: oral communication is an activity, a type of
event): By word of mouth
32
Field 10: Other hierarchical levels
Very similar to Field 2 (so we treat it right after it).
The elements and the problems are the same as in
Field 2 (thus no need to discuss them).
The purpose: To suggest alternative metonymic
hierarchies for the metonymy under analysis.
Let us look again at Buckingham Palace :
-Field 2: Basic level: LOCATION FOR LOCATED
-Field 10: Basic level: CONTAINER FOR CONTENT
34
35
36
Field 3: Prototypicality
DESCRIPTION
Purpose: To class a metonymy in terms of
prototypicality.
Elements: Classification menu
Illustration: ENTITY FOR ACTIVE ZONE (below)
Problems: Though potentially problematic, this field
has turned out to be easy to apply so far, as most
of the metonymies analyzed are, in terms of
Barcelona (2003, 2011), either “simply typical” or
“prototypical”.
37
Field 3: Prototypicality
•  Technical notions. Only an informal description
here.
•  “Purely schematic”: Target is a relatively
“primary” subdomain of source in WHOLE FOR
PART metonymies, as in This book is highly
instructive (Barcelona 2011)
•  These metoymies are controversial, as they are close
to literal use.
•  “(Simply) typical”: A metonymy whose target is
clearly distinct from the source,
38
Field 3: Prototypicality
-either because it is a relatively secondary
subdomain of the source, as in certain WHOLE
FOR PART metonymies such as (1) The pill has
reduced the birth rate in many countries. (PILL
[CATEGORY] FOR BIRTH CONTROL PILL [MEMBER])
-or because it is not included in it, as in PART
FOR WHOLE metonymies like (2),
(2) She’s just a pretty face. (SALIENT BODY PART
FOR PERSON; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 37)
39
Field 3: Prototypicality
and as in PART FOR PART metonymies like (3):
(3) The coke felt as stimulating a drink as a cup of
tea. (PART [CONTAINER] FOR PART [CONTENT];
Kövecses and Radden (1998: 57: container and
content are two parts of the “Containment” ICM)
“Prototypical”: A referential typical metonymy,
whose target and referent is an individual entity,
or a collection of individual entities:
(4) We have seen a couple of new faces around
lately. (PART [SALIENT BODY PART] FOR WHOLE
40
[PERSON]
Field 3: Prototypicality
A complementary prototype account of metonymy:
Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006).
Example of the application of field 3: Entry for I
need to sharpen my pencil (WHOLE ENTITY FOR
ACTIVE ZONE)
•  Field in Ms Word entry (completed by Almudena
Soto; revised A Barcelona):
41
Field 3: Prototypicality
42
Field 4: Examples and taxonomic domains
DESCRIPTION
Purpose:
(a) To register examples of the metonymy offered
by the author at the level it has in the hierarchy.
(b) To register the taxonomic domain activated by
the source and the target.
Elements: Example menu and Taxonomic domain
menu.
Illustration: Cook. Metonymy PROCESS FOR A
PARTICIPANT OF THIS PROCESS (Szawerna,
2007). (Next slide)
43
44
Field 4: Examples and taxonomic domains
Another example:
Skirt for “woman”, as in He is a skirt chaser
(Bierwiaczonek (2013), instantiating
CLOTHES FOR PEOPLE WEARING THEM (a
submetonymy of OBJECT USED FOR USER,
where the object used is a piece of clothing).
(Entries done by Almudena Soto; revised by A
Barcelona)
45
Field 4: Examples and taxonomic domains
46
Field 4: Examples and taxonomic domains
Problems
(a) Different examples (Field 4) of the same
metonymy at a given hierarchical level tend to
reflect different lower levels of the same
conceptual metonymy (in Field 2) .
(b) These different examples also activate different
taxonomic domains.
Solution: One different entry for each different
example with hyperlinks to the other examples of
the same metonymy. The buses are on strike (next
slide) will be revised along these lines.
47
48
Field 4: Examples and taxonomic domains
(c) Levels in taxonomic domains. How many?
Solution?:
Only a generic level (e.g. People), perhaps (if it is
straightforward) a High level ((Vehicle) drivers), and a Basic
level (Bus drivers).
We are more interested in this field in the “Basic” level,
since it registers the various “types of things” connected by
the same conceptual metonymy.
The higher levels are less interesting for us (unless
mentioned in the example) and more difficult to determine.
They are here mainly used to arrange the “Basic” level
domains roughly into groups.
49
Field 4: Examples and taxonomic domains
Levels below “Basic” (e.g. subtypes of bus
drivers): too specific for our purpose and will not be
registered unless specifically mentioned in the
linguistic example (as in ?The Greyhound buses
are on strike). In the example
The gun he hired wanted fifty grand
of OBJECT USED FOR USER (next slide)
the two higher levels “Professional killers” and
“Professional killers using firearms” should
probably be deleted and replaced by “Weapon
users” (and “Professional killers using firearms”
should perhaps be replaced by “Gun users”).
50
51
Field 4: Examples and taxonomic domains
(d) Distinction between source and target
roles in metonymic hierarchies (Field 2) and
taxonomic domains activated by source and
target (Field 4). At Low levels (sometimes at
Basic) the same term often names both,
because “classes of things” are often
understood and named on the basis of the
roles they perform in a frame:
“Bus driver” names both a possible low-level
target role in a metonymic hierarchy and a
52
Basic (sub)domain in a frame.
Field 4: Examples and taxonomic domains
Possible solutions:
1.  Not recognize levels below “High” in metonymic
hierarchies (Field 2) while recognizing “Basic”
taxonomic levels (Field 4).
2.  Recognize “Basic” and eventually “Low” levels
in metonymic hierarchies and recognize “Basic”
taxonomic levels (Field 4).
So far we have adopted solution 2, but after the
revision phase we may choose solution 1 if the
metonymic lower levels are systematically
redundant with respect to the taxonomic levels.
53
Field 5: Conventionality
NORMALLY AN UNPROBLEMATIC FIELD. BRIEFLY:
In this field the degree of conventionality of a conceptual
metonymy is annotated (Barcelona 2002, 2003)
Based on the degree of social sanction of the conceptual
metonymy.
Conventional metonymies are further classified into two
types:
i)  Those with conceptual conventionality only (i.e. those
that only guide reasoning, or that have a purely
inferential/pragmatic purpose).
ii)  Those exhibiting both conceptual and linguistic
conventionality, which is reflected in the fact that they
are instrumental in the motivation of conventional
linguistic meaning or form.
54
Field 6: Language AN UNPROBLEMATIC FIELD. American / Bri@sh English, American / European Spanish / ASL / LSE. Two brief examples: 1)  European Spanish: Aceptamos pulpo (como animal de compañía) (Barcelona, 2010): “I’m prepared to accept you are right; you’re more powerful” The chain of metonymies underlying the generaliza@on of this new idiom could be described as follows: i)  [We accept octopus as a pet] SALIENT MEMBER (accep@ng that “octopus” is a pet in the ScaZergories game under pressure of the game owner) FOR CATEGORY (any instance of yielding to others under pressure) ii) SALIENT PART OF FORM FOR WHOLE FORM (“pulpo” [octopus] for “pulpo como animal de compañía” [octopus as pet]) 55
2) ASL: “BIRD” (Wilcox et al. 2005) SALIENT PROPERTY OF AN ENTITY (beak) FOR THE ENTITY (entry done by Ana Laura Rodríguez and revised by Antonio Barcelona) hZp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6KxzLfcq0 56
Field 7: Linguis@c domains/levels A COMPLEX, OCCASIONALLY PROBLEMATIC
FIELD
DESCRIPTION (just a few highlights):
Purpose: To register the areas of meaning and
form in which the metonymy where the metonymy
has been attested.
Elements and illustration:
7.1. Grammatical rank
- Morpheme:
- noun-deriving {ful} as in You are a fine armful now,
Mary, with those twenty pounds you’ve gained.
(Barcelona 2009)
- {er} in cliffhanger ‘suspenseful event’. Panther
&Thornburg (2002): HUMAN PARTICIPANT (source
concept in agentive sense of –er) FOR EVENT (in which human par@cipant is involved). 57
Field 7: Linguis@c domains/levels -Noun phrase: The bus drivers are on strike, Do you
believe in clubs for young men? (active zone metonymy)
(see below).
-Adjective Phrase: You’re a fine fellow, It’s not bad (see
below).
- Clause / Sentence: He sneezed the tissue off the table
(Kövecses and Radden 1998)
Metonymy: MEANS FOR ACTION
(entry done by Isabel Hernández and revised by Antonio Barcelona)
IN ADDITIONAL REMARKS we stated: “The metonymy
motivates in part the development of a new caused-motion
construction based on the prototypical caused-motion
construction, rather than a new sense of the verb sneeze.”
58
Field 7: Linguis@c domains/levels 7.2: Meaning
a) Constructional Meaning
(i) Prototypical conventional meaning of a grammatical
construction.
(ii) Non-prototypical conventional meaning of a
grammatical construction.
(iii) Implicit or inferred non-conventional meaning of a
grammatical construction.
b) Utterance and Discourse Meaning: i .e. general
pragmatic inferences guided by the metonymy, if any.
59
Field 7: Linguis@c domains/levels
a)  Constructional Meaning
(i) Prototypical conventional meaning of a grammatical
construction:
He sneezed the tissue off the table
Entry field in Ms Word:
60
61
62
Field 7: Linguis@c domains/levels (ii) Non-­‐prototypical conven2onal meaning of a gramma2cal construc2on: It’s not bad to mean “It’s very good” (Herrero 2011 in
Benczes et al).
(entry done by Almudena Soto and revised by Antonio Barcelona) You are a fine fellow! (Stern, 1931) (entry done by Carlos Hernández, and revised by Antonio Barcelona) PROPERTY FOR OPPOSITE PROPERTY Entry field in Ms Word: 63
64
Field 7: Linguistic domains/levels
Non-­‐prototypical meaning of a gramma@cal construc@on: She was a success STATE/EVENT FOR THE THING/EVENT/PERSON THAT CAUSED IT (Kövecses, Z., & G. Radden,1998:56) In ADDITIONAL REMARKS we stated: The prototypical meaning of this construc@on (the lexeme success) is (OED, sec@on 3a, entry for success (n)): “The prosperous achievement of something aZempted”. The derived, non-­‐
prototypical meaning of this lexeme in the examples like She was a success is, according to the OED (sec@on 3b, entry for success (n)): “transf. One who or a thing which succeeds or is successful”. (entry done by Olga Blanco and revised by Antonio Barcelona) 65
Field 7: Linguis@c domains/levels (iii) Implicit or inferred non-­‐conven2onal meaning of a gramma2cal construc2on: -­‐ A: Do you believe in clubs for young men? B: Only when kindness fails (example analyzed by Barcelona 2003) Metonymy: ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSITION, an ac@ve-­‐zone metonymy (Langacker 2009) (next slide) In ADDITIONAL REMARKS we stated: Clubs here ac@vates “the convenience/usefulness of building/
establishing/having clubs”’ (entry done by Isabel Hernández and revised by Antonio Barcelona) -­‐ The ham sandwich is waiJng for his check. Metonymy: FOOD FOR CUSTOMER (Lakoff & Johnson,
1980:35). (Slide ater next) 66
67
68
Field 7: Linguis@c domains/levels
b) Utterance and Discourse Meaning: i.e. general pragmatic
inferences guided by the metonymy, if any.
Pa@ent: Excuse me, but have you been to medical school to get your M.D. degree? Doctor: No, madam, I just got it at a loSery (Ater this, the pa@ent files a complaint wri@ng, in all seriousness, that she cannot understand how the health center can hire a doctor who got his degree at a loZery) (Example analyzed by Barcelona, 2003:90) Metonymy guiding implicature from Pa@ent’s uZerance: (QUESTIONING THE) CONDITION [GOING THROUGH MEDICAL SCHOOL] FOR (QUESTIONING THE) RESULT [BEING QUALIFIED TO WORK AS A MEDICAL DOCTOR]. (entry done by Isabel Hernández and revised by Antonio Barcelona) Implicature suggested by pa@ent: “I have serious doubts about your 69
qualifica@ons as a doctor”. 70
Field 7: Linguistic domains/levels 7.3: Form
(i)  Prototypical conventional form of a grammatical
construction:
Noun crude derived from crude oil (Radden 2005):
(SALIENT) PART OF FORM FOR WHOLE FORM
(Entry done by Maika Guarddon; revised A Barcelona)
(ii) Non-prototypical conventional form of a grammatical
construction:
Ex (for ex-­‐husband) (Bierwiaczonek 2007) METONYMY: MORPHEME M (FREE OR BOUND) OF A MORPHOLOGICALLY COMPLEX WORD FOR THE WHOLE WORD 71
Field 7: Linguistic domains/levels ADDITIONAL REMARKS: The metonymy may
guide morphosyntactic categorization only in
contexts where the construction may not be
recognized as such although the most likely
interpretation is that of ex-spouse /ex-boy/-girl –
friend (Merriam Webster: one that formerly held
a specified position or place; especially: a former
spouse)
Entry completed by Almudena Soto and revised by Antonio Barcelona 72
Field 7: Linguistic domains/levels 7.4 Gramma@cal process involved (if any). -­‐  Conversion of adjec@ve lexeme into noun lexeme and gramma@caliza@on as a suffixal deriva@onal morpheme: You are a fine armful now, Mary, with those twenty pounds you’ve gained. (Barcelona 2009) Metonymy: (DEGREE OF) FULLNESS OF A CONTAINER FOR QUANTITY OF THE CONTAINER’S CONTENT. In ADDITIONAL REMARKS we stated: Adjec@ve full converts into a noun which gramma@calises as a deriva@onal nominal morpheme ({ful}) (see OED). Entry completed by whole team and revised by Antonio Barcelona. 73
Field 7: Linguistic domains/levels -­‐ Conversion of lexical subclass into another lexical subclass: General quan@fica@onal noun lexeme ”lot” (in sense “an amount of X”) > multal quan@fica@onal noun within quasi-­‐
determiner construc@on a lot of (Barcelona 2009) (A HISTORICAL PROCESS) METONYMY: WHOLE SCALE FOR UPPER END OF SCALE (Radden & Kövecses 1999) [OED: A considerable number, quan@ty or amount; a good deal. Used in sing. (a lot) and plu.; also as quasi-­‐adv. Oten absol., without explicit men@on of the persons or things intended. Also with adjec@ve, as a good lot; a great lot, (this, that) liSle lot.] Entry completed by Olga Blanco and revised by Antonio Barcelona 74
Field 7: Linguistic domains/levels Conversion of a proper name into a common noun:
camembert, bordeaux (used to designate the products)
(Stern, 1931)
METONYMY: PLACE FOR PRODUCT.
Entry done by Carlos Hernández and revised by Antonio
Barcelona
Clipping:
Ex for ex-husband, mini for miniskirt, sub for submarine,
subeditor (Bierwiaczonek, 2007)
M ETONYMY : M ORPHEME M ( FREE OR BOUND ) OF A
MORPHOLOGICALLY COMPLEX WORD X FOR THE WHOLE X
Entry done by Almudena Soto and revised by Antonio Barcelona
75
Field 7: Linguistic domains/levels 7.5 Main function
•  Motivational: WHOLE SCALE FOR UPPER END OF SCALE in emergence of multal sense of lot.
•  Inferential: Clubs for its active zone
•  Referential: The buses -> “The bus
drivers” (+inferential).
7.6 Compression
Recent sub-field, filled out in very few entries yet.
Example: Buckingham Palace issued a statement.
They/ it expressed it / their satisfaction…
76
Field 7: Linguistic domains/levels -  Problems: just a highlight:
(a) The entry applies just to the first example in
Field 4, as do all the other analytical fields.
(b) The social and affective functions of metonymy
(Littlemore 2009, 2015) may be added to 7.5.or
to 7.2 (as a type of pragmatic meaning). An
issue to decide about.
(c)  Distinction between “prototypical” and “nonprototypical” meaning and form. In Barcelona
(2009) some guidelines are suggested.
77
Field 8: Metonymic triggers
DESCRIPTION -­‐Purpose: To suggest and register the factors
facilitating or blocking the operation of the
metonymy
(So far we have only registered “facilita@ng” factors, i.e. “triggers” proper) -­‐Elements and illustra@on: (i)  8.1.: Co-textual triggers: Including all those linguis@c, textual factors that surround a metonymic expression and facilitate its opera@on. Example: The bottle is sour (Radden, 2005)
Entry completed by Maika Guarddon and revised by Antonio Barcelona.
–  METONYMY: CONTAINER FOR CONTENT
–  The syntactic predicate is sour constitutes the cotextual trigger:
78
79
Field 8: Metonymic triggers
8.2.: Contextual triggers (other than co-­‐textual factors) More difficult to iden@fy, although we have so far iden@fied some factors. -  Some triggers of this type:
a) Grammatical knowledge
b) Frames / ICMs
c) Cognitive-cultural context
d) Situational context
e) Communicative context (participants, time and
place of utterance, etc.)
f) Communicative aim and rhetorical goals of the
speaker / writer
g) Genre
h) Other contextual/ pragmatic factors
80
Field 8: Metonymic triggers -  Example: Start a book (Brdar, 2007)
The example is: “East of Eden” was originally titled “The Salinas Valley”
because Steinbeck started the book as a history of his family.
Contextual triggers:
•  Frame-based knowledge of the event schemas associated
with the entity BOOK: writing, reading (vs. cleaning, eating,
etc.)
•  Culture-specific knowledge (of literature) by which we know
that Steinbeck is a writer (not a soccer player like Messi).
Entry completed by Carmen Portero and revised by Antonio Barcelona.
81
82
Field 9: Metonymic chaining DESCRIPTION
Purpose: Register answer to this question: Is the
metonymy under analysis chained to other
metonymies (according to the author)?
Only one simple example:
Example 1: Proust is on the top shelf (Ruiz de
Mendoza and Mairal, 2007: 39). (next slide)
Entry filled out by Isabel Hernández and revised by Antonio Barcelona
Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal claim that the
understanding of Proust is on the top shelf
involves the metonymic chain
83
84
Field 9: Metonymic chaining / FORMAT
where the first metonymy achieves “domain
reduction” and the second one achieves “domain
expansion”.
AUTHOR FOR WORK FOR MEDIUM
Few entries so far.
Types of chaining are discussed in Barcelona 2005
85
Field 11: PaZerns of interac@on with metaphor and with other metonymies Elements
•  11.1. In the conceptual motivation of a metaphor
or metonymy
–  Only if the author mentions it.Two different
possibilities:
•  (1) A metonymy motivates a metaphor.
•  (2) A metaphor motivates the existence of a
metonymy (?)
•  11.2. In the conceptual motivation of the
conventional form or meaning of a construction
–  Only if the author mentions it.
86
Field 11: PaZerns of interac@on •  11.3: In discourse understanding –  whether or not the author states this.
This subfield is potentially problematic.
Just one example of 11.1: Seeing for knowing
(Radden, 2002):
Entry done by Isabel Hernández and revised by Antonio
Barcelona
According to Radden,SEEING FOR KNOWING
partly motivates metaphors like
KNOWING IS
SEEING
87
88
Example of a manual search
•  Digital database still under construction (multiple
digital search facilities still to be implemented.
•  Examples of type of searches that will be done
digitally:
Field 4: Taxonomic domains activated by
means of the target expressions in a sample of
entries (30 entries)
•  Search results:
–  SUMMED UP IN THIS GRAPH:
89
90
Field 7.2: Meaning (Field 7: Linguis@c domains where the metonymy has been aZested) ( manual search by Olga Blanco) 91
Field 8: Metonymic Triggers
(Manual search by Isabel Hernández)
92
Field 8.2.: Contextual triggers
93
Conclusions
•  The entry model for the database, some of its
problems and the criteria followed to complete its
fields has been illustrated.
•  At the same time, a sample of recent research
on metonymy has been presented.
•  What’s the goal and the use of this database?
–  To constitute a guide for researchers trying to
categorize a conceptual metonymy.
94
Conclusions
- To gather information:
•  on the range of linguistic examples, of targets and
sources involved
•  on the scope of operation of a given metonymy at
various linguistic analytical levels (rank, meaning,
form, process involved)
•  on the factors triggering or blocking it linguistically
•  on its patterns of chaining with other metonymies
•  on its patterns of interaction (with other metonymies
or with metaphor
•  on the types of conceptual and linguistic phenomena
in which metonymy can be involved.
95
Conclusions
Once our data have been fed into the digital
database:
•  The database will enable researchers to perform rapid
multiple searches over the whole database,
combining information from several fields (or parts of
those fields), e.g.:
•  To investigate which metonymic categories (Field 1) at which
hierarchical level (Field 2) guide pragmatic inferences.
•  To investigate which metonymic categories (Field 1) tend to
motivate constructional meanings and forms at a given
constructional rank.
• 
96
Conclusions
•  It will be constantly open to revision and new
additions, contributions and feedback from other
researchers
•  A brief note on the two impressive Meta Net
projects:
–  Our database: a more modest endeavor.
–  Hopefully compatible and complementary with them.
–  We will try to incorporate some of their features,
especially the connection to Frame Net (and the
Spanish Frame Net).
97
References
•  Barcelona, Antonio. 2002. “Clarifying and applying the notions of
metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update”, in
Dirven, René and Ralf Pörings (eds), Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 207 –277.
•  Barcelona, Antonio. 2003. “Metonymy in cognitive linguistics. An
analysis and a few modest proposals”, in Cuyckens, Hubert; KlausUwe Panther; and Thomas Berg (eds), Motivation in Language:
Studies in Honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
223 –255.
•  Barcelona, Antonio. 2003: “Names: A metonymic return ticket”.
Jezikoslovlje 4.1. Osijek, Croacia: Josip Juraj Strossmayer
University, 11 –41.
•  Barcelona, Antonio. 2004: “Metonymy behind grammar: The
motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of
English paragon names.” In Radden, Günter and Klaus-Uwe
Panther (eds), 357 –374.
98
•  Barcelona, Antonio. 2005. “The multilevel operation of metonymy in
grammar and discourse with particular attention to metonymic chains”,
in Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Sandra Peña Cervel
(eds), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary
Interaction.Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.313 –352.
•  Barcelona, A. (2007): “Metonymy in discourse-­‐level meaning construc@on.” In Radden, G. et al., eds. Aspects of Meaning ConstrucJon. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, (51-­‐76)
•  Barcelona, Antonio. 2009 “Metonymy in constructional meaning and
form: Its motivational and inferential roles”, in Panther, Klaus; Linda
Thornburg; and Antonio Barcelona, (eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in
Grammar. (Human Cognitive Processing.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia:
John Benjamins, 363-401.
•  Barcelona, Antonio (2009): “Partitive Restrictive Modification of Names
in English: Arguments for the Metonymic Motivation”. Quaderns de
Filologia de la Universitat de València. Estudis Lingüístics 14: 33-56.
•  Barcelona, Antonio. 2011. “Reviewing the properties and prototype
structure of metonymy”, in Benczes, Réka; Antonio Barcelona; and
Francisco-José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, (eds). Defining Metonymy in
Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 7-57.
•  Barcelona, A. (in prepara@on): On the Pervasive Role of Metonymy in ConstrucJonal Meaning and Structure in Discourse Comprehension: An 99
Empirical Study from a CogniJve-­‐LinguisJc PerspecJve. Berlin / New York:
Mouton de Gruyter. •  Barcelona, Antonio, forthcoming. Hierarchies, prototypicality, and
taxonomic domains in a metonymy database. In: Blanco, Olga; Antonio
Barcelona; and Rossella Pannain (eds.), Describing Conceptual
Metonymy in Languages: From morpheme to discourse. Submitted for
publication to John Benjamins (Human Cognitive Processing).
•  Bierwiaczonek, B. 2007. “On formal metonymy”. In Perspectives on
Metonymy. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Perspectives
on metonymy’, Held in Lódz, Poland, May 6-7, 2005. Berlin: Peter
Lang. 43-67.
•  Blanco-Carrión, Olga, forthcoming. Conventionality and linguistic
domain(s) involved in the characterization of metonymies (for the
creation of a detailed typology of metonymy). In: Blanco, Olga; Antonio
Barcelona; and Rossella Pannain (eds.), Describing Conceptual
Metonymy in Languages: From morpheme to discourse. Submitted for
publication to John Benjamins (Human Cognitive Processing).
•  Blanco Carrión, Olga; Antonio Barcelona Sánchez; and Isabel
Hernández Gomáriz. In press. “Applying the entry model in a detailed
database of metonymy: A discussion of the problems involved.”
Linguistics Applied 6, thematic isssue The character and use of
figurative language edited by Christina Alm-Arvius, Nils-Lennart
Johansson and David C. Minugh.
100
•  Brdar, Mario. 2007. Metonymy in Grammar. Towards Motivating
Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions. Osijek
(Croatia): Faculty of Philosophy, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.
•  Hernández-Gomáriz, Isabel, forthcoming. Metonymic triggers,
metonymic chaining and patterns of interaction with metaphor and with
other metonymies domains in a metonymy database. In: Blanco, Olga;
Antonio Barcelona; and Rossella Pannain (eds.), Describing
Conceptual Metonymy in Languages: From morpheme to discourse.
Submitted for publication to John Benjamins (Human Cognitive
Processing).
•  Kövecses, Zoltán, and Günter Radden. 1998. “Metonymy: Developing
a cognitive linguistic view”. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 37 –77.
•  Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we Live by.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
•  Langacker, R. 2009: Metonymic grammar in Panther et al. Metonymy
and Metaphor in Grammar Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 45-74.
•  Panther, K.-U. & L. Thornburg (eds). (2003): Metonymy and Pragmatic
Inferencing. (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series.). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
•  Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 2007. Metonymy. In Geeraerts,
D. and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (236–
263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•  Peirsman. Yves, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical
101
category. Cognitive Linguistics 17-3, 269-316.
•  Radden, Günter. 2002. “How metonymic are metaphors?” In: Dirven,
René and Pörings. See page 420-422
•  Radden, Günter. 2005. “The ubiquity of metonymy”. In Otal Campo,
José Luis; Navarro i Ferrando, Ignasi; and Bellés Fortuño, Begoña,
eds., Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and
Metonymy”. Castelló (Spain): Universitat Jaume I,11-28.
•  Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José and Mairal, Ricardo. 2007. “Highlevel metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction”, in Günter
Radden, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg and Peter Siemund,
eds., Aspects of Meaning Construction (33-49). Amsterdam /
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
•  Stern, Gustaf. 1931. Meaning and Change of Meaning. Göteborg:
Eladers boktryckery Aktiebolag.
•  Szawerna, Michał. 2007: “Deverbal nominalization as a type of
metonymic extension from processes to things”. In Perspectives on
Metonymy. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Perspectives
on metonymy’, Held in Lódz, Poland, May 6-7, 2005. Berlin: Peter
Lang. 147-155.
•  Wilcox, Sherman. 2003. “The multimedia cictionary of ASL: Learning
lessons about language, technology and business”. Sign Language
Studies 3:4.
102
•  Wilcox, Sherman, Phyllis Perrin Wilcox & María Josep Jarque. 2003.
“Mappings in conceptual space: Metonymy, metaphor and iconicity
in two signed languages. Jezykoslovlje: 4.1. 139-156.
•  http://www.lifeprint.com/dictionary.htm
103
THANK YOU! 104