Lexicon of Arguments

 

I 40
Metonymy/Gärdenfors: their role is above all referential: it takes out a certain aspect of an entity and helps in understanding a situation. Classical cases are pars pro toto and totum pro parte. E.g. Proust is difficult to read, e.g. Napoleon attacked Russia.
Metaphor: is based on similarity between domains
Metonymy: is based on meronomic (part/whole-) relations within one and the same domain. (See also Lakoff and Turner (1989, p. 103).⁽¹⁾
Gärdenfors: Thesis on metaphors and metonymies: metaphors refer to images between domains - metonymies refer to meronomic (part/whole-) relations and other relations within domains.
---
I 41
Metonymy/Tradition: traditionally the metonymy was explained by contiguity. Later, cognitive linguistics introduced the terms domain and domain matrix.
VsContiguity/linguistics: contiguity is too vague and requires prototypes as examples.
Problem: e.g. the whole house woke up: the people are not parts of the house. Rather, their localization is part of the localization of the house. (See Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006)).⁽²⁾


1. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–316.