Editor-in-Chief: Newman, John
4 Issues per year
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 2.135
CiteScore 2016: 1.29
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 1.247
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.485
In their article in this issue of Cognitive Linguistics, Piersman and Geeraerts (henceforth P and G), consider a very wide range of semantic shifts to be instances of metonymy. P and G propose a single conceptual process to account for all of these supposed metonymic semantic shifts, namely contiguity. P and G provide a prototype definition of contiguity. In great detail, P and G classify the range of examples of metonymy in their article according to three ‘dimensions’ of prototypicality: strength of contact, degree of boundedness and domain (from space to time to spatiotemporal and ‘categorical’ domain). In this comment, I argue that contiguity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for metonymy, even granting the prototype definition of contiguity provided by P and G; that association, analyzed in terms of domain highlighting (Croft 1993, 2002) provides a valid necessary condition; and that many examples taken by P and G (and other cognitive linguists) to be metonymy are better explained in terms of other theoretical constructs developed in cognitive linguistics.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.