This article inquiries into specific aspects of the relation between conceptual contiguity found in metonymic shifts and the online construction of frames, seen as a dynamic process of construal. It first reviews the theory of metonymy regarding the conceptual, lexical and contextual facets of the phenomenon. It then explores the possibility of extending the conceptual relevance of metonymy beyond the traditional typological approach of metonymic categorization, re-interpreting it as a frame-integration mechanism, or blending, whereby two frames are brought together into an extended ICM. Metonymic blending is formulated as a partial integration between two input spaces discursively driven, whereby an ad hoc identification of a referential commonness plays the role of the generic space of the blending. Subsequently, in the light of the assumption that frame-extension is not given categorically but it also includes – beyond its cognitive relevance – an interactional aspect, this analysis draws an interesting link: that between the generic space of metonymic blend, and common ground. The latter is precisely what facilitates the metonymic blend, regulating the distance between the integrated frames, at the same time remaining silent as discursively given information.
“What is a mode? Smell, olfactory perception, and the notion of mode in multimodal mediated theory”
Norris, S. 2013 b. “Multimodal (inter)action analysis: An integrative methodology”. In: Müller, C., E. Fricke, A. Cienki and D. McNeill (eds.), Body – language – communication . Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
“Multimodal (inter)action analysis: An integrative methodology”
-Rivera. 1994. “Current perspectives on using linguistic and cultural factors in counseling the Hispanic client”. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 25(4). 388-397.
Ayçiçegi-Dinn, A. and C.L. Caldwell-Harris. 2009. “Emotion-memory effects in bilingual speakers: A levels-of-processing approach”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(3). 291-303.
Bloom, L. and R. Beckwith. 1989. “Talking with feeling: Integrating affective and linguistic expression in early language development”. Cognition & Emotion 3(4). 313
Michael S. Vitevitch, Rutherford Goldstein, Cynthia S.Q. Siew and Nichol Castro
Bond, Z.S. 1999. Slips of the ear: Errors in the perception of casual conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Borgatti, S.P. 2006. “Identifying sets of key players in a network”. Computational, Mathematical and Organizational Theory 12. 21-34.
Borsboom, D. and A.O.J. Cramer. 2013. “Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology”. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9. 91-121.
Brandes, U., G. Robins, A. McCranie and S. Wasserman. 2013. “Editorial: What is
-Mien language history. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Schwink, F. 1994. Linguistic typology, universality and the realism of reconstruction. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.
Smoot, M., K. Ono, J. Ruscheinski, P. Wang and T. Ideker. 2011. “Cytoscape 2.8. New features for data integration and network visualization”. Bioinformatics 27(3). 431-432.
Steiner, L., P. Stadler and M. Cysouw. 2011. “A pipeline for computational historical linguistics”. Language Dynamics and Change 1(1). 89-127.
modelling of consonantal reduction”. In: Foulkes, P. and G. Docherty (eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles . London: Arnold. 163–184.
Toscano, J.C. and B. McMurray. 2010. “Cue integration with categories: weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics”. Cognitive Science 34(3). 434–464.
Turk, A. 1992. “The American English flapping rule and the effect of stress on stop consonant durations”. Ithaca Working Papers . New York: Cornell University Press. 103–134. < http
Over recent years, the use of corpora in stylistic analysis has grown in popularity. However, questions still remain over the remit of corpus stylistics, its distinction from corpus linguistics generally and its capacity to explain complex stylistic effects. This article argues in favour of an integrated corpus stylistics; that is, an approach to corpus stylistics that integrates it with other stylistic methods and analytical frameworks. I suggest that this approach is needed for two main reasons: (i) it is analytically necessary in order to fully explain stylistic effects in texts, and (ii) integrating corpus methods with other stylistic tools is what will distinguish corpus stylistics from corpus linguistics. My argument is supported by reference to examples from Mark Haddon’s no vel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time and the HBO TV series Deadwood. Both these examples rely for their explanation on a combination of corpus stylistic analytical techniques and other stylistic methods of analysis.
perspective. Cambridge: Polity.
Coulson, S. and Pagán Cánovas, C., 2014. Understanding timelines: Conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics , vol. 5, no. 1-2, pp. 198-219.
Dobrovol’skij, D. and Piirainen, E., 2005a. Figurative language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dobrovol’skij, D. and Piirainen, E., 2005b: Cognitive theory of metaphor and idiom analysis. Jeziko-slovlje, vol. 6. no. 1, 7-35.
Dobrovol’skij, D. and Piirainen, E., 2010. Idioms: Motivation and etymology. In: K. Kuiper, ed. Yearbook of phraseology 1
Technology, vol. 2009. [Accessed September 2014] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/670459
DANESI, M., 2008. Of cigarettes, high heels, and other interesting things: An introduction to semiotics. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
EFTEKHARI, A., 2006. Fractal geometry of texts: An initial application to the works of Shakespeare. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, vol. 13, no. 2-3, pp. 177-193.
FAUCONNIER, G. and TURNER, M., 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science. vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 133
TESOL Annual Convention and the First Midwest TESOL Conference. Chicago. IL TESOL, pp. 123-132.
CHAFE, W., 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In: D. Tannen, ed. Spoken and written language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 35-54.
CHATMAN, S., 1978. Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.
CONNOR, U., 1998. Contrastive rhetoric, New York: Cambridge University Press.
DOLEZEL, L., 1978. Narrative modalities. In: T