In the first half of the paper I critically review some previous attempts to deal with metonymy. I focus in particular on the classical approach, the associationist approach and the Gricean approach. The main point of my criticisms is that the notion of empirical associations among objects is in itself inadequate for a complete descriptive and explanatory account of metonymy.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
On Phrasal Pragmatics and What is Descriptively Referred To.Esther Romero & Belén Soria - 2010 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (1):63-84.
Roman Jakobson on Metaphor and Metonymy.Hugh Bredin - 1984 - Philosophy and Literature 8 (1):89-103.
Food for Thought: Metonymy in the Late Foucault.D. Rubenstein - 1987 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 12 (2-3):194-212.
Metaphor, Metonymy, and Temporal Flow.C. Mason Myers - 1966 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 4 (1):9-13.
Poetic Intuition and the Bounds of Sense: Metaphor and Metonymy in Schopenhauer's Philosophy.Sandra Shapshay - 2008 - European Journal of Philosophy 16 (2):211-229.
Statistical Relevance and Explanatory Classification.John L. King - 1976 - Philosophical Studies 30 (5):313 - 321.
Towards the Use of Automated Reasoning in Discourse Disambiguation.Claire Gardent & Bonnie Webber - 2001 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (4):487-509.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads50 ( #103,257 of 2,159,093 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #132,197 of 2,159,093 )
How can I increase my downloads?