Revision history for NotesOnMetonymy
Additions:
'The two concepts participating in metaphor stand typically in the relationship of similarity. ... It may emerge from a real similarity but also from a perceived similarity. ... Metonymy contrasts with metaphor in that it is based on the relationship of contiguity.... 174
Additions:
'It is a basic feature of metonymically related vehicle and target entities that they are "close" to each other in conceptual space. Thus, the producer is conceptually close to the product (because he is the one who makes it), the place of an institution is conceptually "close" to the institution itself (because most institutions are located in particular physical places), gloves are conceptually close to baseball players (because some baseball players wear gloves), and so on. In the traditional view of metonymy, this feature of metonymy is expressed by the claim that the two entities are contiguously related, or that the two entities are in each other's proximity. In the cognitive linguistic view, this claim is accepted and maintained but given a more precise formulation; namely, it is suggested that a vehicle entity can provide mental access to a target entity when the two entities belong to the same domain, or as Lakoff puts it, the same idealized cognitive model. (p 174 )
----
----
examples - images
----
----
examples - images
Deletions:
Additions:
No Differences
Additions:
T H E P L A C E F O R T H E E V E N T
Metaphor involves bringing tother two domains (rose - love), and works on //similarity//. Metonymy involves concepts within one domain (sax player - saxophone :: operator - instrument ), and works on //contiguity//:
'It is a basic feature of metonymically related vehicle and target entities that they are "close" to each other in conceptual space. Thus, the producer is conceptually close to the product (because he is the one who makes it), the place of an institution is conceptually "close" to the institution itself (because most institutions are located in particular physical places), gloves are conceptually close to baseball players (because some baseball players wear gloves), and so on. In the traditional view of metonymy, this feature of metonymy is expressed by the claim that the two entities are contiguously related, or that the two entities are in each other's proximity. In the cognitive linguistic view, this claim is accepted and maintained but given a more precise formulation; namely, it is suggested that a vehicle entity can provide mental access to a target entity when the two entities belong to the same domain, or as Lakoff puts it, the same idealized cognitive model (ICM). (p 174 )
Metaphor involves bringing tother two domains (rose - love), and works on //similarity//. Metonymy involves concepts within one domain (sax player - saxophone :: operator - instrument ), and works on //contiguity//:
'It is a basic feature of metonymically related vehicle and target entities that they are "close" to each other in conceptual space. Thus, the producer is conceptually close to the product (because he is the one who makes it), the place of an institution is conceptually "close" to the institution itself (because most institutions are located in particular physical places), gloves are conceptually close to baseball players (because some baseball players wear gloves), and so on. In the traditional view of metonymy, this feature of metonymy is expressed by the claim that the two entities are contiguously related, or that the two entities are in each other's proximity. In the cognitive linguistic view, this claim is accepted and maintained but given a more precise formulation; namely, it is suggested that a vehicle entity can provide mental access to a target entity when the two entities belong to the same domain, or as Lakoff puts it, the same idealized cognitive model (ICM). (p 174 )
Deletions:
Metaphor involves bringing tother two domains. Metonymy, one domain:
'It Is a basic feature of metonymically related vehicle and target entities that they are '*close" to each other in conceptual space. Thus, the producer is conceptually close to the product (because he is the one who makes it), the place of an institution is conceptually "close" to the institution itself (because most institutions are located in particular physical places), gloves are conceptually close to baseball players (because some baseball players wear gloves), and so on. In the traditional view of metonymy, this feature of metonymy is expressed by the claim that the two entities are contiguously related, or that the two entities are in each other's proximity. In the cognitive linguistic view, this claim is accepted and maintained but given a more precise formulation; namely, it is suggested that a vehicle entity can provide mental access to a target entity when the two entities belong to the same domain, or as Lakoff puts it, the same idealized cognitive model (ICM). (p 174 )
Additions:
'It Is a basic feature of metonymically related vehicle and target entities that they are '*close" to each other in conceptual space. Thus, the producer is conceptually close to the product (because he is the one who makes it), the place of an institution is conceptually "close" to the institution itself (because most institutions are located in particular physical places), gloves are conceptually close to baseball players (because some baseball players wear gloves), and so on. In the traditional view of metonymy, this feature of metonymy is expressed by the claim that the two entities are contiguously related, or that the two entities are in each other's proximity. In the cognitive linguistic view, this claim is accepted and maintained but given a more precise formulation; namely, it is suggested that a vehicle entity can provide mental access to a target entity when the two entities belong to the same domain, or as Lakoff puts it, the same idealized cognitive model (ICM). (p 174 )
