Metonymy and frame integration: Interfacing between concepts and discourse

Georgios Ioannou 1
  • 1 Universidad de Chile, , Chile


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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aristotle. De sensu and De memoria, [In: G. R. T. Ross, 1906. Text and translation, with introduction and commentary]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Atlas, J. D., 2005. Logic, meaning, and conversation: Semantical underdeterminacy, implicature, and their interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Barcelona, A., 2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: An update. In: R. Dirven and R. Pörings, eds. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, [Cognitive Linguistic Research 20]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 207-279.

  • Barcelona, A., 2003. Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: An analysis and a few modest proposals. In: H. Cuyckens, Th. Berg, R. Dirven and K. U. Panther, eds. Motivation in language. Studies in honour of Gunter Radden. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 223–55.

  • Benczes, R. et al., eds. 2011. Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Burzio, L., 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Comrie, B., 2013. Ergativity: Some recurrent themes. In: E. L. Bavin and S. Stoll, eds. The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 15-34.

  • Clausner, T. C. and Croft, W., 1999. Domains and image-schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 10, pp. 1-31.

  • Croft, W., 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 4, pp. 335-370.

  • Denroche, C., 2015. Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge Studies in Linguistics.

  • Dirven, R., 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of basic event schemata. In: K.U. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 275-287.

  • Esser, J., 2009. Introduction to English text-linguistics. Berlin: Peter Lang.

  • Fauconnier, G., 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M., 2002. The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.

  • Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M., 2008. Rethinking metaphor. In: W. Raymond and J. Gibbs, eds. The Cambridge handbook of etaphor and hought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Fillmore, C., 1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In: A. Zampolli, ed. Linguistics structures processing. Amsterdam and New York: North Holland Publishing Company, pp. 51-81.

  • Fillmore, C., 1982. Frame semantics. In: Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea. Soeul: Hanshin, pp. 111-137.

  • Fillmore, G., 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 222-254.

  • Geeraerts, D., 2018. Ten lectures on cognitive sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: Brill.

  • Geeraerts, D., 2006. Words and other wonders. Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Glynn, D., 2006. Conceptual metonymy – A study in cognitive models, reference-points, and domain boundaries, Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, vol. 42, pp. 85-102.

  • Glynn, D. 2014. Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method. In: D. Glynn and J. Robinson, eds. Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 7-38.

  • Halmari, H. and Östman, J.O., 2001. The soft-spoken, Angelic Pickax Killer: The notion of discourse pattern in controversial news reporting. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 33, pp. 805-823.

  • Handl, S., 2012. From FOR to AND: Metonymic underspecification as a test case for linguistic theory. Paper presented at the 9th conference of the International Association Researching and Applying Metaphor. Lancaster, United Kingdom, 4-7 July.

  • Holenstein, E., 1975. Roman Jakobsons phänomenologische Strukturalismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, [Eng. trans., Roman Jakobson’ sapproach to language:Phenomenological structuralism. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1976].

  • Jackendoff, R., 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

  • Koch, P., 1999. Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In: K. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 139-167.

  • Kövecses, Z., 2006. Language, mind and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kövecses, Z., 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kövecses, Z., and Radden, G., 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 37-77.

  • Lakoff, G., 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Lakoff, G. and Turner, M., 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Langacker, R. W., 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Langacker, R., 1998. Conceptualization, symbolization and grammar. In: M. Tomasello, ed. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlba, pp. 1-39.

  • Langacker, R. W., 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Langacker, R. W., 2009. Metonymic grammar. In: K. Panther et al., eds. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 45–71.

  • Littlemore, J., 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Matsumoto, Y., 2010. Interactional frame and grammatical descriptions: The case of Japanese noun-modifying constructions. In: M. Fried and K. Nikiforidou, eds. Advances in frame semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Minsky, M., 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In: P. H. Winston, ed. The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211-277.

  • Nikiforidou, K., 2005. Conceptual blending and the interpretation of relatives: A case study from Greek. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 169-206.

  • Nunberg G., 1978. The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

  • Nunberg, G., 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 3, pp. 143-184.

  • Ostman, J-O., 2005. Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In: J.O. Ostman and M. Fried, eds. Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 121-144.

  • Panther, K. and Radden, G., 1999. Introduction. In: K. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-14.

  • Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. L., 2003. Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In: K.U.Panther and L. L. Thornburg, eds. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-20.

  • Panther, K.U., Thornburg, L. L. and Barcelona, A., eds., 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Pustejovsky, J., 1993. Type coercion and lexical selection. In: J. Pustejovsky, ed. Semantics and the lexicon. Cordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 73-94.

  • Seto, K., 1999. Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In: K.U. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91-120.

  • Ullmann, S., 1962. Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell & Mott Ltd.

  • Taylor, J., 1989. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Warren, B., 2006. Referential metonymy. Scripta Minora of the Royal Society of Letters at Lund 2003-2004, vol.1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

  • Whitsitt, S., 2013. Metonymy, synecdoche, and the disorders of contiguity. Italy: edizioni.


Journal + Issues