25.2998, Confs: Pragmatics, Cognitive Science/Belgium
The LINGUIST List
linguist at linguistlist.org
Mon Jul 21 19:54:03 UTC 2014
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-2998. Mon Jul 21 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 25.2998, Confs: Pragmatics, Cognitive Science/Belgium
Moderators: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>
Malgorzata E. Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <gosia at linguistlist.org>
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org
Anthony Aristar <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.
Editor for this issue: Anna White <awhite at linguistlist.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:53:49
From: Xinren Chen [cxr3354182 at 163.com]
Subject: Understanding Metonymy: Context and Cognition
E-mail this message to a friend:
Understanding Metonymy: Context and Cognition
Date: 26-Jul-2015 - 31-Jul-2015
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Contact: Xinren Chen
Contact Email: cxr3354182 at 163.com
Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science; Pragmatics
The cognitive turn in linguistics has brought forth new insights into traditional tropes such as metaphor and metonymy. As in the case of metaphor, metonym has come to be seen as a ubiquitous cognitive phenomenon reflected in language rather than an occasional witty or rhetorical process. Unlike the use of metaphor whose cognitive processing has been extensively studied from cognitive-pragmatic perspectives (Carston 2002; Pilkington 2000; Sperber & Wilson 1986/1995; Wilson 2003), however, that of metonymy has received relatively less attention, leaving a lot of important issues in need of adequate explanation. These issues mainly include the following: i) In what context is a (referential) expression interpreted metonymically? ii) What kind of pragma-cognitive processes are involved in assigning the metonymic interpretation? iii) What is the selective mechanism in cases of competing candidate metonymic interpretations? iv) What is the cognitive effect that ensues from the use of metonymy? v) To what extent are current models of interpretation pertaining to metonymy amenable to empirical tests?
This panel will focus on, while not limited to, these major issues of metonymy research and seek to speculatively and empirically tackle the explanatory power of the current theoretical models, such as Gradient Salience Hypothesis by Giora (1997, 2003), Relevance Theory by Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995) and Wilson and Sperber (2012), and Mental Space Theory and Blending Theory by Fauconnier (1994) and Fauconnier and Turner (2002), in hope of seeking new viable cognitive accounts of metonymy used in context. A range of social-cognitive contextual factors such as lexical knowledge, grammatical knowledge, familiarity with metonymic usages, knowledge about the frequency of metonymic usages, genre knowledge, background assumptions, knowledge of co-text, and recognition of the current interactional goal will be explored and tested to reveal their possible effect on the interpretation of metonymy, in terms of its cognitive path, pattern, principle and predictability.
All the individual studies contributed to this panel will be conducted on the basis of authentic data from a variety of sources. Diverse methodology will be adopted across the panel, including speculative theorizing, qualitative analysis, corpus-based analysis, and various forms of experimental research like eye tracking survey, ERP study, RP test, event-related functional magneticresonance imaging (fMRI) and think-aloud protocol.
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-2998
More information about the Linguist