This chapter builds on Broccias’s (2017) critique of recent cognitive linguistic approaches to metonymy, which tend to neglect form and the substitutive relation built into the traditional x for y formula. By bringing back to the fore the tropical characterization of metonymy (Matzner 2016), which instead relies heavily on form and abrasiveness, this chapter develops a Cognitive Grammar approach to metonymy which rests on the reference point ability and conceptual integration. It shows how this approach can handle a variety of cases, from ‘straightforward’ metonymies to ‘metonymic association’. Crucially, it is argued that the multifaceted examples taken into consideration do not necessarily cohere into a ‘Platonic’ category.
A Cognitive Grammar approach to ‘metonymy’
Broccias C.
2022-01-01
Abstract
This chapter builds on Broccias’s (2017) critique of recent cognitive linguistic approaches to metonymy, which tend to neglect form and the substitutive relation built into the traditional x for y formula. By bringing back to the fore the tropical characterization of metonymy (Matzner 2016), which instead relies heavily on form and abrasiveness, this chapter develops a Cognitive Grammar approach to metonymy which rests on the reference point ability and conceptual integration. It shows how this approach can handle a variety of cases, from ‘straightforward’ metonymies to ‘metonymic association’. Crucially, it is argued that the multifaceted examples taken into consideration do not necessarily cohere into a ‘Platonic’ category.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
