Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics

While cognitive linguists are essentially in agreement on both the conceptual nature and the fundamental importance of metonymy, there remain disagreements on a number of specific but, nevertheless, crucial issues. Research questions include: Is metonymy a relationship between "e;entities"e; or "e;domains"e;? Is it necessarily referential? What is meant by the claim that metonymy is a "e;stand-for"e; relationship? Can metonymy be considered a mapping? How can it be distinguished from "e;active zones"e; or "e;facets"e;? Is it a prototype category? The ten contributions of the present volume address such core issues on the basis of the latest research results. The volume is unique in being devoted exclusively to the delimitation of the notion of metonymy without ignoring points of divergence among the various contributors, thus paving the way towards a consensual conception of metonymy.

While cognitive linguists are essentially in agreement on both the conceptual nature and the fundamental importance of metonymy, there remain disagreements on a number of specific but, nevertheless, crucial issues. Research questions include: Is metonymy a relationship between "e;entities"e; or "e;domains"e;? Is it necessarily referential? What is meant by the claim that metonymy is a "e;stand-for"e; relationship? Can metonymy be considered a mapping? How can it be distinguished from "e;active zones"e; or "e;facets"e;? Is it a prototype category? The ten contributions of the present volume address such core issues on the basis of the latest research results. The volume is unique in being devoted exclusively to the delimitation of the notion of metonymy without ignoring points of divergence among the various contributors, thus paving the way towards a consensual conception of metonymy.