Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy

Sánchez, Antonio Barcelona

doi:10.1075/hcp.28.02bar

Cited by 167 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike the conceptual theory of metaphor, where a significant number of researchers agree on the main postulates, not only the foundations of the conceptual theory of metonymy, but also its exact definition, have been the subject of heated debate (see, e.g., Barcelona, 2011;Croft, 2002Croft, , 2011. Although each of these versions has its own peculiarities, they are not crucial for the current discussion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural-historical psychology and the cognitive view of metonymy and metaphor

Glebkin¹

2014

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metonymy and metaphor are commonly taken as cognitive phenomena in modern cognitive linguistics rather than as mere figures of speech. However, the correct cognitive demarcation between metonymy and metaphor is the subject of intense debate; there are also different attitudes to the cognitive basis of metonymy. The main contribution of this paper is to identify the cognitive mechanism called complex thinking, which is well-known in psychology but hardly applied in linguistics, as the cognitive basis for metonymy; the difference between complex and conceptual thinking is also highlighted in order to distinguish between conceptual metonymy and conceptual metaphor. Using a cultural-historical approach, we can conjecture that metonymy dominates in pre-theoretical cultures, whereas metaphor emerges in theoretical cultures alongside abstract conceptual domains. In order to illustrate these points with a brief case study, the semantic evolution of the ancient Greek word Ûlh (matter) is considered.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural-historical psychology and the cognitive view of metonymy and metaphor

Glebkin¹

2014

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Barcelona 2011 in Benczes, Barcelona & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 2011, a book not included in BB's references). BB offers his own alternative to Peirsman and Geeraerts' theory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Bogusław Bierwiaczonek, Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox, 2013. Pp. iv + 291.

Sánchez

2014

J. Ling.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reviewed by ANTONIO BARCELONA, University of Córdoba Research on metonymy in cognitive linguistics (henceforth CL) has grown substantially over the last 15 years, especially since Panther & Radden's (1999) collection of papers. This research has led to widespread recognition, in CL and elsewhere, of the conceptual nature of metonymy and its ubiquity in cognition, language and communication. This book, the first monograph entirely devoted to metonymy from a CL perspective, brings together most of this research and adds much more (especially the discussion of the possible neural basis of metonymy), by providing original theoretical analyses of many phenomena. It is a great, highly stimulating book of its sort, replete with rigorous, tightly packed discussions and a goldmine of examples, most of them from English and Polish. The critical remarks I make below are just friendly disagreements and suggestions for improvement; they do not by any means undermine my highly positive overall appraisal of the book. Bogusław Bierwiaczonek (henceforth BB) declares in the introduction that the main aim of the book is to survey research demonstrating the pervasiveness of metonymy in language and to shed some light on the 'possible. .. neural and evolutionary reasons' (1) for this ubiquity. The book definitely reaches both goals. Chapter 1, 'A short history of the concept of metonymy', bears too modest a title, since it is not just a 'short history'. The historical part proper occupies only the first seven pages out of the chapter's 60 pages. In it, BB presents and critically discusses Greek and Roman views on metonymy, structuralist formal approaches (especially Jakobson's) and their influence in some present-day

show abstract

“…Ron Langacker, in his 1993 paper on reference point constructions (Langacker, 1993), had presented metonymy as a type of referencepoint phenomenon occurring on the paradigmatic plane and he claimed that it also overlaps with what he called "active-zone/profile discrepancy" phenomena in his Foundations. The notion of reference points as providing "mental access" to "active zones" has greatly influenced both Kövecses & Radden's (1998) and my own definition of metonymy (see Barcelona, 2011). If reference point selection and zone activation are claimed by Langacker to have extensive "grammatical ramifications" and if both phenomena overlap with metonymy, one should naturally expect metonymy to have an important role in the motivation and comprehension of a great many grammatical constructions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Interview with Antonio Barcelona

Hilferty¹

2012

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Joseph Hilferty (J.H.): You are one of the very first scholars here in Spain to become interested in the cognitive linguistics (CL) movement. How did that come about?Antonio Barcelona (A.B.): I first got in touch with CL (o rather, with conceptual metaphor theory) in 1979. I was a Fullbright visiting scholar at Berkeley and happened to attend George Lakoff 's seminar "Language and Experience, " where (apart from many other things) he presented the draft version of the book Metaphors We Live By, which he was writing with Mark Johnson. Mark attended part of one of the sessions and talked to us briefly about the philosophical aspects of their theory.At that time, too, I was doing my literature review for my Ph.D. dissertation on constituent order in English and Spanish, and found that, with very few exceptions (Heles Contreras and a few others), the scanty published generative research on that issue was very poor and was missing the most important functional and pragmatic factors motivating constituent-order alternations. Functionalist schools (especially the Czech Functional Sentence Perspective and Halliday's SystemicFunctional approach) had much more to offer in this respect. The sympathy that the Lakoffs, Fillmore, Chafe (all of them at Berkeley at the time), as well as Langacker, held toward functionalist approaches attracted me to their own research, where I found many useful insights.When I returned to Berkeley in the Fall of 1984 (also with a Fullbright grant), I was able to read and enjoy the first draft (written in November, 1984) of George's masterful Women, Fire and Dangerous Things (Lakoff, 1987), as well as Langacker's Indiana University Linguistics Club draft (1983) of the first volume of his Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, 1987). These two books convinced me completely of the superiority of a cognitive approach to the study of language over any other approaches, including the other functionalist approaches.

show abstract

Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy

Cited by 167 publications

References 29 publications

Cultural-historical psychology and the cognitive view of metonymy and metaphor

Cultural-historical psychology and the cognitive view of metonymy and metaphor

Bogusław Bierwiaczonek, Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox, 2013. Pp. iv + 291.

Interview with Antonio Barcelona

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About