High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction

Aspects of Meaning Construction

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 33-49

  de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz ^a   Usón, Ricardo Mairal ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LA RIOJA   (Spain)

^b Centro de Magnetoencefalografía   (Spain)

Author keywords

Alternations; Coercion; Construction; Double metonymy; Grammatical conversion; High level metaphor; High level metonymy; Invariance; Transitivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84958867882     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1075/z.136.05rui     Document Type: Chapter

References (26)

1. Barcelona, Antonio. 2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: An update. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.), 207- 277. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause (Edited by Kees Hengeveld). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
3. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
4. Halliday, Michael A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd. ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
5. Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251-99.
6. Kövecses, Zoltân and Radden, Günter. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37-77.
7. Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
8. Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York NY: Basic Books.
9. Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought (2nd. ed.), Andrew Ortony (ed.), 202-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
11. Michaelis, Laura. 2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, Hubert Cuykens, René Dirven and John R. Taylor (eds), 93-122. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
12. Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 755-69.
13. Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda. 1999 The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In Metonymy in Language and Thought, Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.), 333-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14. Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda. 2000. The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, Antonio Barcelona (ed.), 215-32. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
15. Panther, Klaus-Uwe. 2005 The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza and M. Sandra Pena (eds.), 353-86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Radden, Günter. 2002. How metonymic are metaphors? In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.), 407-34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
17. Reddy, Michael J. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), 284-97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Díez Velasco, Olga. 2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.), 489-532. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
19. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibânez, Francisco J. and Pérez Hernandez, Lorena. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication 21: 321-57.
20. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibânez, Francisco J. and Santibânez Sâenz, Francisco. 2003. Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15(2): 293-320.
21. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibânez, Francisco J. 1998. On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics 30(3): 259-74.
22. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibânez, Francisco J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, Antonio Barcelona (ed.), 109-32. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
23. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibânez, Francisco J. 2005a. High level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In Perspectives on Metonymy, Krzysztof Kosecki (ed.). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
24. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. 2005b. Construing meaning through conceptual mappings. In Lenguay Sociedad: Aportaciones Recientes en Lingüística Cognitiva, Lingüística del Corpus, Lenguajes de Especialidad y Lenguas en Contacto, Pedro Fuertes (ed.), 19-38. Val-ladolid: University of Valladolid.
25. Thornburg, Linda, Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Barcelona, Antonio (eds.). 2006. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.