Modification ICM.

It has to be noted at this point that Radden and Kövesces (1998, 2005) attempt at

specification of general conceptual categories, referred to by the authors as

metonymy-producing relationships, within which they identified an impressive

number of actual metonymic relations. Thus, for example the Thing-and-Part ICM

is supposed to lead to two metonymic variants, namely WHOLE THING FOR A PART

OF THE THING, and PART OF A THING FOR THE WHOLE THING. As far as the

metonymies applying to events are concerned, the Action ICM includes, among

others, AGENT FOR ACTION or INSTRUMENT FOR ACTION metonymic relations.

Dirven (1993) lists three types of metonymies, with a distinction based on

the dichotomy between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. Thus, linear

metonymies, which occur in linear linguistic context, i.e. phrases or sentences,

rely on the syntagmatic relationship of the metonymic element to the rest of the

sentence, against which it is interpreted. As Dirven (1993:6) points out, this type

of metonymy does not necessarily result in a shift of meaning. Linear

metonymies belong to the so-called low-level metonymies, of which typical

examples are: LOCALITY FOR INSTITUTION, INSTITUTION FOR

PEOPLE, CONTAINER FOR FOOD, PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT, etc.

The second type of metonymy is the conjunctive syntagm, which depends on

non-linguistic syntagmatic relations, e.g. cultural context. Notice that this type

of metonymy entails an obligatory change in meaning. Nevertheless, as Dirven

(1993:8) claims, conjunctive syntagm operates on a cluster of contiguous

domains, and thus the relationship does not exhibit figurative interpretation. In

case of the conjunctive syntagm the shift in meaning is systematic, which is

demonstrated evidently in dictionary entries. The inclusive syntagm, which is

the third type of metonymy as listed by the author, relies on a chain of inclusion

and, like the previous type, it has non-linguistic syntagmatic nature. One of the

main features of this type of metonymy is that this metonymy is characterised by

different degrees in figurativity. In fact, the varying degree in figurativity is,

according to Dirven (1993:15–16), a differentiating feature between metonymy

and metaphor. Thus, linear metonymy, which is non-figurative, can be placed on

the one end of a scale, whereas the other end of the scale is occupied by

metaphor, characterised by complex figurativity.

Koch’s (2004) classification of metonymies follows as a corollary of a

pragmatic and relevance-theoretic analysis of a number of metonymies, with the

figure/ground effect, as well as dychotomies implicature versus explicature, and

literalness vs. non-literalness serving as the base. In the diachronic perspective,

Koch (2004:14) distinguishes three stages of metonymic semantic change

resulting in the following set of metonymies: a) ad hoc metonymies relying on

(universal) speech rules, b) conventional metonymies depending on (historical)

discourse rules, and c) metonymic polysemies resulting from (historical)

language use. In turn, within the ad hoc stage, which is claimed to be crucial for

further stages, a distinction is drawn between speaker-induced and hearerinduced

metonymies, with two types of speaker-induced metonymies, i.e.

referent-oriented, and concept-oriented metonymies. Additionally, the conceptoriented

metonymies occur in both soft and intense versions. The hearer-induced

metonymies are necessarily concept-oriented.

Panther and Thornburg (2005:37), who are clearly proponents of the

pragmatic approach to meaning, claim that conceptual metonymies are natural

inference schemas that serve as a basis for pragmatic reasoning on the levels of

reference, predication and illocution. Consequently, they propose a classification

of metonymies into three pragmatic types, i.e. referential, predicational and

illocutionary metonymies. In fact, a significant number of metonymic

expressions, and thus metonymies, are motivated by speakers’ referential needs

(cf. Dirven 1993). In addition to pragmatic types of metonymy, Panther and

Thornburg (2005:47–49) distinguish two kinds of coerced metonymies, namely

constructionally and lexically coerced metonymies.

Moreover, metonymies can be characterised on the basis of semantic

relations. According to Bierwiaczonek (2005:14), the metonymic semantic

relations rely on conceptual contiguity and probably strong neural links, which

in turn lead to their activation. Furthermore, their co-activation is not necessary

by definition (cf. Panther, Thornburg 2005). Thus, the taxonomy proposed by

Bierwiaczonek (2005) includes: meronymy-based metonymy, antonymy-based

metonymy, complementarity-based metonymy, reversives-based metonymy, and

synaesthesia-based metonymy. Within the group of meronymy-based metonymy,

depending on the holonym and its parts, the author lists four subtypes, namely

functional part-based metonymy, segmented part-based metonymy, script-based

metonymy, and frame-based metonymy. What is more, Bierwiaczonek (2005:30)

adds, even if hesitantly, metaphor-based metonymy to his taxonomy. The author

claims that, providing the contiguity is defined in terms of strengths of synaptic

connections between the neural circuits underlying concepts, even conceptual

metaphor may be given a metonymic interpretation.

Conclusion

Summing up, the scissors-and-paste overview given in the foregoing pages

merely touches upon the basic, background issues relevant for an up-to-date

discussion of metonymy, without going into details of particular proposals. The

common ground for present studies, clearly distinguishing it from previous

treatments, seems to be the cognitive orientation. Nevertheless, due to the

mental character and thus mainly intuitive nature of studies, which are

frequently based on a limited number of languages, the assumptions made by

particular researchers are far from unanimous. Moreover, the above outline is

devoted mainly to the theoretical discussion of mental strategies of

conceptualisation, whereas the cognitive approach to metonymy provides a

useful framework for the study of changes in lexicon, surveying processes

resulting from metonymic shift both in the diachronic and synchronic

perspective. Last but not least, motivation of many grammatical structures may

also be explained by means of metonymy.

References

Bierwiaczonek, B. 2005. “On the neural and conceptual basis of semantic relations and

metonymy” [in:] E. Górska and G. Radden (eds), pp. 11–36.

Croft, W. 1993. “The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies” [in:]

Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. 4, pp. 335–370.

Croft, W. and D.A. Cruse 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dirven, R. 1993. “Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation” [in:]

Leuvense Bijdragen. 82, pp. 1–28.

Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds). 2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast

[Cognitive Linguistics Research 20]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Górska, E. and G. Radden (eds). 2005. Metonymy-Metaphor Collage. Warsaw: Warsaw

University Press.

Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and conversation” [in:] Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds). Speech Acts

(Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.

Kiełtyka, R. 2005. “The axiological-cognitive analysis of the evaluative developments in the

domain of EQUIDAE: A pilot study” [in:] Grzegorz A. Kleparski (ed.), Studia Anglica

Resoviensia 3, pp. 60–76.

Kiełtyka, R. (in preparation) “Towards a historical account of English zoosemy. The case of

Middle English and Early Modern English DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.” Ph.D.

dissertation. University of Rzeszów.

Kleparski, G.A. 1997. Theory and Practice of Historical Semantics: The Case of Middle English

and Early Modern English Synonyms of GIRL/YOUNG WOMAN. Lublin: Redakcja

Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.

Kleparski, G.A. (ed.) 2005. Studia Anglica Resoviensia. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu

Rzeszowskiego.

Koch, P. 2004. “Metonymy between pragmatics, reference, and diachrony” [in:] Metaphorik.de

07/2004.

Kövecses, Z. and G. Radden 1998. “Developing a cognitive linguistic view” [in:] Cognitive

Linguistics. Vol. 9, pp. 37–77.

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind.

Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of

Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. and M. Turner 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites.

Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. 1993. “Reference-point constructions” [in:] Cognitive Linguistics. Vol.4, pp. 1–

38.

Nerlich, B., D.D. Clarke and Z. Todd 1999. “Metonymy in language acquisition” [in:] K.-U.

Panther and G. Radden (eds), pp. 361–383.

Panther, K.-U. and G. Radden (eds). 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought [Human

Cognitive Processing 4]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Panther, K.-U. and L.L. Thornburg 2005. “Inference in the construction of meaning” [in:] E.

Górska and G. Radden (eds), pp. 37–57.

Papafragou, A. “Metonymy and relevance” [in:] www.cis.upenn.edu/~anna4/papers/mtnucl.pdf

Papafragou, A. 1996. “On metonymy” [in:] Lingua. 99, pp.169–195.

Radden, G. and Z. Kövecses, 2005. “Towards a theory of metonymy” [in:]

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling640G/papers/RaddenKovecses.doc

Rayevska, N.M. 1979. English Lexicology. Kiev: ‘Vyš)a Škola’ Publishers Head Publishing

House.

Seto, K. 1999. “Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche”[in:] Panther, K.-U. and G. Radden

(eds), pp. 91–120.

Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell

(2nd edition).

Strazny, Ph. 2005. Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group.

Ullman, S. 1957. The Principles of Semantics. New York: Philosophical Library Publishers (2nd

edition).

Date: 2015-02-16; view: 1371