Chapter published in:
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 200–229

Shakespeare on the shelf, Blue Helmets on the move

Human-related metonymic conceptualization in English and Serbian

| University of Belgrade
This chapter explores human-related conceptual metonymies in English and Serbian. Highlighting the shared metonymic mappings involving human beings as targets (x for human) and vehicles (human for x) and the similarities/differences in their lexical and grammatical realization in the two languages, the analysis shows that concepts from the human domain are readily recruited both as targets and as vehicles of metonymic mappings, whereby preferences towards particular kinds of human-related concepts as vehicles or targets outweigh language-specific differences, yielding a rather consistent metonymic portrayal of humans in English and Serbian. The analysis is followed by a discussion of the diagnostic potential of human-related metonymies for content-based cross-linguistic study of conceptual metonymy.
Keywords: conceptual metonymy, cross-linguistic, humans as metonymic targets, humans as metonymic vehicles, metonymic portrayal of humans
Published online: 26 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.08ras
References

References

Barcelona, A.
(Ed.) 2000 Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective [Topics in English Linguistics 30]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2003 Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a few modest proposals. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 243] (223–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction [Cognitive Linguistics Research 32] (313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011 Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In A. Barcelona, R. Benczes, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view [Human Cognitive Processing 28] (7–58). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A., Benczes, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
(Eds.) 2011 Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view [Human Cognitive Processing 28]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brdar, M.
2007 Topic-continuity, metonymy and locative adverbials: A cognitive-functional account. Suvremena lingvistika, 63, 13–29.Google Scholar
2009 Metonymies we live without. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25] (259–274). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
2011 Metonymy, metaphor and the “weekend frame of mind”: Towards motivating the micro-variation in the use of one type of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon [Human Cognitive Processing 27] (233–250). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
This volume. How metonymy and grammar interact: Some effects and constraints in a cross-linguistic perspective.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
2003 Referential metonymy across languages: What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other? International Journal of English Studies, 3/2, 85–105.Google Scholar
2012 The problem of data in the cognitive linguistic research on metonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences, 34/6, 728–745. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.
1983 Making sense of nonce sense. In G. Flores d’Arcais, & R. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of understanding language (297–332). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G.
2010 Agreement in Slavic. Glossos, 10, 1–61.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
1993 The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4/4, 335–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 On explaining metonymy: Comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts, “Metonymy as a prototypical category”. Cognitive Linguistics, 17/3, 317–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R.
(Eds.) 2002 Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast [Cognitive Linguistics Research 20]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
1997 Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A.
This volume. The hand in figurative thought and language.
Gortan-Premk, D.
1997 Polisemija i organizacija leksičkog sistema u srpskom jeziku [“Polysemy and the organization of lexical system in the Serbian language”]. Beograd: Institut za srpski jezik SANU.Google Scholar
Handl, S.
2011 The conventionality of figurative language: A usage-based study. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Tadmor, U.
(Eds.) 2009 Loanwords in the world’s languages. A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
2006 Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In A. Stefanowitsch, & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy [Trends in Linguistics 171] (123–151). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007 Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar. A cross-linguistic perspective on body part terms. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (77–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
1998 Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9/1, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kovačević, M.
1999 Metonimija i sinegdoha [“Metonymy and synecdoche”]. Srpski jezik, 4/1–2, 171–202.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1993 Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4/1, 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maalej, Z. A., & Yu, N.
(Eds.) 2011 Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and cultures [Human Cognitive Processing 31]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markert, K., & Nissim, M.
2006 Metonymic proper names: A corpus-based account. In A. Stefanowitsch, & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy [Trends in Linguistics 171] (152–174). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Norrick, N.
1981 Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G.
1978 The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G.
(Eds.) 1999 Metonymy in language and thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U., & Thornburg, L.
(Eds.) 2003 Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003a Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas. In K-U. Panther, & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113] (127–147). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
2004 The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Metaphorik.de, 6, 91–116.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A.
(Eds.) 2009 Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A.
1995 Metonymy and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 141–175.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
2006 Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17/3, 269–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006a Don’t let metonymy be misunderstood: An answer to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 17/3, 327–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rasulić, K.
2006 ‘This could be you’: Metonymy as conceptual integration. In K. Rasulić, & I. Trbojević (Eds.), ELLSII75 Proceedings, Vol. I (307–317). Belgrade: Faculty of Philology.Google Scholar
2010 Aspekti metonimije u jeziku i mišljenju [“Aspects of metonymy in language and thought”]. Theoria, 53/3, 49–70.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
2000 The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective [Topics in English Linguistics 30]. (109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I.
2004 Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation [Cognitive Linguistics Research 28] (293–320). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L.
2001 Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21/4, 321–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S.
1957 The principles of semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Veloudis, I.
This volume. Metaphor and metonymy as fanciful “asymmetry” builders.
Warren, B.
2006 Referential metonymy. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Yu, N.
2001 What does our face mean to us? Pragmatics and Cognition, 9, 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar