On Multiple Metonymies within Indirect Speech Acts

Krzysztof Kosecki

doi:10.2478/v10015-007-0010-6

Authors

Krzysztof Kosecki University of Łódź

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-007-0010-6

Keywords:

conceptual distance, construal of salience, idealized cognitive model (ICM), indirect directive, indirect speech act, metonymic chain, metonymy, multiple metonymies, multi-levelled metonymies, zone activation

Abstract

Indirect speech acts are frequently structured by more than a single metonymy. The metonymies are related not only to the illocutionary force of the utterances, but also function within the individual lexemes being their parts. An indirect speech act can thus involve not only multiple, but also multi-levelled operation of conceptual metonymy.

References

Barcelona, A. 2002. ‘‘On the Ubiquity and Multiple-Level Operation of Metonymy’’. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B. and K. Turewicz (eds), 247–259.
Google Scholar

Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds). 2003. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Google Scholar

Fass, D. C. 1997. Processing Metaphor and Metonymy. Greenwich, Conn. and London: Ablex.
Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. and K. Turewicz (eds). 2002. Cognitive Linguistics Today. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Google Scholar

Ortony, A. (ed.). 1979. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Google Scholar

Panther, K.-U. and G. Radden (eds). 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Panther, K.-U. and L. Thornburg. 1999. ‘‘The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Hungarian’’. In: Panther K.-U. and G. Radden (eds), 333–357.
Google Scholar

Panther, K.-U. and L. Thornburg. 2003. ‘‘Introduction: On the Nature of Conceptual Metonymy’’. In: Panther K.-U. and L. Thornburg (eds), 1–20.
Google Scholar

Panther, K.-U. and L. Thornburg (eds). 2003. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Paradis, C. 2003. ‘‘Where Does Metonymy Stop? Senses, Facets and Active Zones.’’ The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 1–15.
Google Scholar

Radden, G. and Z. Kövecses. 1999. ‘‘Towards a Theory of Metonymy’’. In: Panther K.-U. and G. Radden (eds), 17–59.
Google Scholar

Reddy, M. J. 1979. ‘‘The Conduit Metaphor – a Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language’’. In: Ortony A. (ed.), 284–324.
Google Scholar

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and O. Díez Velasco. 2003. ‘‘Patterns of Conceptual Interaction’’. In: Dirven R. and R. Pörings (eds), 489–532.
Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, A. 2003. ‘‘A Construction-Based Approach to Indirect Speech Acts’’. In: Panther K.-U. and L. Thornburg (eds), 105–126.
Google Scholar

Taylor, J. R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar

Vosshagen, Ch. 1999. ‘‘Opposition as a Metonymic Principle’’. In: Panther K.-U. and G. Radden (eds), 289–308.
Google Scholar