Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account

Maria Jodłowiec; Agnieszka Piskorska

doi:10.1515/ip-2015-0009

Artikel

Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account

Maria Jodłowiec
Maria Jodłowiec is Assistant Professor at the Institute of English Studies at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, where she teaches courses in applied linguistics and TEFL. Her research interests centre on linguistic pragmatics and, in particular, on utterance/discourse comprehension mechanisms. She has published a number of papers on topics related to language processing and second language didactics.
und Agnieszka Piskorska
Agnieszka Piskorska is Assistant Professor at the Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw. Her interests lie in relevance-theoretic studies of communication tinged with affective elements, including humor and irony. She has edited and co-edited a number of publications related to Relevance Theory, e.g., Relevance Theory: More than understanding (Cambridge Scholars Publishing).

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 22. Mai 2015

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Informationen für Autor*innen

Aus der Zeitschrift Intercultural Pragmatics Band 12 Heft 2

Abstract

Metonymy is a pervasive aspect of spontaneous as well as reflective linguistic performance and its cognitive and communicative role needs to be adequately attended to. The paper aims to offer a new model of metonymy grounded in the relevance-theoretic approach to communication, adopting the view that all comprehension is underlain by inferential processes. First, we present a critical overview of selected existing accounts of metonymy put forward by cognitive linguists, arguing that although they offer valuable observations about the role of metonymy in online meaning construction and bring to light a varied spectrum of different types of metonymic conceptualizations, cognitive linguistic analyses fall some way short of offering a convincing rationale for metonymic uses in verbal communication and do not articulate a psychologically plausible and testable principle that would explain why metonymy arises and how the intended meaning is inferred in context by the recipient. We also critically address the existing relevance-theoretic models, which, while offering a cognitively motivated account of metonymy, likewise suffer from certain inadequacies. In an attempt to remedy these shortcomings, we develop a fully inferential relevance-theoretic account, which assumes that metonymy is a case of tagging the intended referent by a concept literally denoted by the metonymic expression. The real-world contiguity which underlies metonymic usage is postulated to be encapsulated in mental schemas that are indexed by the concept that the metonymic word or phrase provides access to.

About the authors

Maria Jodłowiec

Maria Jodłowiec is Assistant Professor at the Institute of English Studies at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, where she teaches courses in applied linguistics and TEFL. Her research interests centre on linguistic pragmatics and, in particular, on utterance/discourse comprehension mechanisms. She has published a number of papers on topics related to language processing and second language didactics.

Agnieszka Piskorska

Agnieszka Piskorska is Assistant Professor at the Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw. Her interests lie in relevance-theoretic studies of communication tinged with affective elements, including humor and irony. She has edited and co-edited a number of publications related to Relevance Theory, e.g., Relevance Theory: More than understanding (Cambridge Scholars Publishing).

Acknowledgments

In writing this paper, we benefited greatly from advice, feedback and encouragement provided by Deirdre Wilson. The constructive criticism and detailed recommendations we received from two anonymous reviewers have also helped in improving the paper. All of the usual qualifications and disclaimers are in order.

References

Barcelona, Antonio.2000. Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In AntonioBarcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894677.1Suche in Google Scholar

Barcelona, Antonio.2011. Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In RékaBenczes, AntonioBarcelona & FranciscoJoséRuiz deMendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view, 7–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.28.02barSuche in Google Scholar

Brdar, Mario.2009. Metonymies we live without. In Klaus-UwePanther, Linda L.Thornburg & AntonioBarcelona (eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar, 259–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.25.15brdSuche in Google Scholar

Brdar-Szabo, Rita & MarioBrdar. 2011. What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy. In RékaBenczes, AntonioBarcelona & FranciscoJoséRuiz deMendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view, 217–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.28.12brdSuche in Google Scholar

Buchanan, Ray.2010. A puzzle about meaning and communication. Nous44(2). 340–371.10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00743.xSuche in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn.2002. Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470754603Suche in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn.2005. Relevance Theory, Grice and the neo-Griceans: A response to Laurence Horn’s “Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics.”Intercultural Pragmatics2(3). 303–319.Suche in Google Scholar

Croft, William.1993/2002. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics4. 335–370. Reprinted in RenéDirven & RalfPörings (eds.), Metonymy in comparison and contrast, 161–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Falkum, Ingrid.2011. The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. London: University College London Ph.D. dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles.1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles.1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174220Suche in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & MarkTurner.2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Suche in Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk.2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W.1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. & Herbert L.Colston. 2012. Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139168779Suche in Google Scholar

Grice, H.Paul.1975. Logic and conversation. In PeterCole and JerryMorgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Suche in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan.2013. Why do we say what we say the way we say it?Journal of Pragmatics48. 71–83.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.010Suche in Google Scholar

Korta, Kepa & JohnPerry.2010. Intentions to refer. In LucaBaptista & ErichRast (eds.), Meaning and context, 161–186. Bern: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán & GünterRadden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics9(7). 37–77.10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37Suche in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George.1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & MarkJohnson.1980/2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. W.1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. W.1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics4. 1–38.10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1Suche in Google Scholar

Noh, Eun-ju. 2000. Metarepresentation: A relevance-theory approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.69Suche in Google Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey.1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy3(2). 134–184.10.1007/BF00126509Suche in Google Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey.1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics12(2). 109–132.10.1093/jos/12.2.109Suche in Google Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey.2004. The pragmatics of deferred interpretation. In LaurenceHorn & GregoryWard (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 344–364. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756959.ch15Suche in Google Scholar

Papafragou, Anna.1996. On metonymy. Lingua99. 169–195.10.1016/0024-3841(96)00016-2Suche in Google Scholar

Panther, Uwe & LindaThornburg.2004. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Metaphoric.de6. 91–116. http://www.metaphorik.de/sites/www.metaphorik.de/files/journal-pdf/06_2004_pantherthornburg.pdf (accessed 9 May 2014).Suche in Google Scholar

Panther, Klaus-Uwe & LindaThornburg. 2005. Inference in the construction of meaning: The role of conceptual metonymy. In ElżbietaGórska & GünterRadden (eds.), Metonymy-metaphor collage, 37–57. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Radden, Günter, Klaus-MichaelKöpcke, ThomasBerg & PeterSiemund (eds.), 2007. Aspects of meaning construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Suche in Google Scholar

Romero, Ester & BelénSoria. 2010. Phrasal pragmatics in Robyn Carston’s programme. In EsterRomero & BelénSoria (eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics, 183–198. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230292352_12Suche in Google Scholar

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José. 2011. Metonymy and cognitive operations. In RékaBenczes, AntonioBarcelona & FranciscoJoséRuiz deMendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view, 103–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.28.06ruiSuche in Google Scholar

Song, Nam Sun. 1998. Metaphor and metonymy. In RobynCarston & SeijiUchida (eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications, 87–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.37.07sonSuche in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan.2000. Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In DanSperber (ed.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective, 117–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & DeirdreWilson.1986/95. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & DeirdreWilson. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In PeterCarruthers & JillBoucher (eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012Suche in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & DeirdreWilson.2008/2012. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Raymond W.Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Deirdre Wilson & Dan Sperber, Meaning and Relevance, 97–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007Suche in Google Scholar

Sweep, Josefien.2012. Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Ph.D. dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Turner, Mark & GillesFauconnier.1995. Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity10(3). 183–203.10.1207/s15327868ms1003_3Suche in Google Scholar

Turner, Mark & GillesFauconnier.2000. Metaphor, metonymy and binding. In AntonioBarcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads, 133–145. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894677.133Suche in Google Scholar

Wettstein, Howard.2004. The magic prism: An essay in the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195160525.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre.2009. Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics21. 183–226.Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre.2011. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics8(2). 177–196.10.1515/iprg.2011.009Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre.2013. Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics59. 40–56.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.016Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & RobynCarston.2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language21(3). 404–433.Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & RobynCarston.2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In NoelBurton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & DanSperber.2004. Relevance theory. In LaurenceHorn & GregoryWard (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-5-22

Published in Print: 2015-6-1

Sie haben derzeit keinen Zugang zu diesem Inhalt.

Artikel in diesem Heft

https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0009