A Relevance-theoretic Perspective on Metonymy

  1. Rebollar, Bárbara Eizaga 1
  1. 1 University of Cádiz, Avda. Gómez Ulla 1, Cádiz, 11003, Spain
Actas:
32nd International Conference of the Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics (AESLA): Language Industries and Social Change

ISSN: 1877-0428

Año de publicación: 2015

Volumen: 173

Páginas: 191-198

Tipo: Aportación congreso

DOI: 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2015.02.052 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Resumen

The aim of this paper is to analyse metonymies from a relevance-theoretic perspective. Metonymy has been considered as an association process between contiguous items within the same cognitive domain or as involving a meaning transfer between properties. These approaches, however, prove inadequate in offering a complete account. I will argue that metonymies are used as reference tools to refer to individuals or objects lying outside their linguistically-specified denotation. I will outline how the intended referent might be identified by the property the speaker singles out for the hearer to focus on. Finally, different metonymic uses in communication will be analysed.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Benczes, R., Barcelona, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2011). Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Carston R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Carston R. (2010). Lexical pragmatics, ad hoc concepts and metaphor: from a relevance theory perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics 22(1), 153-180.
  • Carston R. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition 3(2), 283-312.
  • Croft W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 335-370.
  • Croft W. (2006). On explaining metonymy: comment on Geeraerts and Piersman, “Metonymy as a prototypical category”, Cognitive Linguistics 17, 317-26.
  • Cruse D. A. (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Dirven R. & Pörings R. (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Falkum, I.L. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy. London: UCL Ph.D.
  • Gibbs R. Jr. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs R. Jr. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K-U Panther & G. Radden, Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61-76). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Glenstrup A. J., & Engell-Nielsen, T. (1995). Eye Controlled Media: Present and Future. Retrieved from <http://www.diku.dk/∼panic/eyegaze/node15.html>.
  • Kaplan D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Koch P. (1999). Frame and Contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K-U. Panther, G. Radden, Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139-167). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Jiang X. (2013). Referential Metonymy: Reference Transfer and Pragmatic Motivations. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25, 1-20.
  • Lakoff G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff G., & Turner M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Nunberg G. (1979). The Non-Uniqueness of Semantic Solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3 (2), 143-184.
  • Nunberg G. (1995). Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 109-132.
  • Nunberg G. (2004). The pragmatics of deferred interpretation. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 344-365). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Oxford English Dictionary (1993). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Panther K-U., & Radden G. (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Papafragou A. (1996). On metonymy. Lingua 99, 169-195.
  • Panther K-U., & Thornburg L. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.333-360). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Panther K-U., & Thornburg L. (2002). The roles of metaphor and metonymy in Englisch -er nominal. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 279-319). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Powell G. (2010). Language, Thought and Reference. Hampshire: Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Radden G., Köpcke K-M., Berg T., & Siemund P. (2007). Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Radden G., & Kövecses Z. (1999). Toward a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (17-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Song, N.S. (1998). Metaphor and metonymy. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications (87-104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Ward, G. (2004). Equatives and Deferred Reference. Language, 80 (2), 262-289.
  • Wilson D. (2003). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica, 15, 273-291.
  • Wilson D., & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230-259). Basingstoke: Palgrave.