metonymy

"we are using one entity to refer to another that is related to it. This is a case of what we will call metonymy." (#60 660)
"Metaphor and metonymy are different kinds of processes. Metaphor is principally a way of conceiving of one thing in terms of another, and its primary function is understanding. Metonymy, on the other hand, has primarily a referential function, that is, it allows us to use one entity to stand for another. But metonymy is not merely a referential device. It also serves the function of providing understanding." (#60 676)
"like metaphors, métonymie concepts structure not just our language but our thoughts, attitudes, and actions." (#60 750)
"In fact, the grounding of métonymie concepts is in general more obvious than is the case with metaphoric concepts, since it usually involves direct physical or causal associations. The part for whole metonymy, for example, emerges from our experiences with the way parts in general are related to wholes. producer for product is based on the causal (and typically physical) relationship between a producer and his product, the place for the event is grounded in our experience with the physical location of events. And so on." (#60 751)

synecdoche

"We are including as a special case of metonymy what traditional rhetoricians have called synecdoche, where the part stands for the whole" (#60 667)

Experience with physical objects provides the basis for metonymy

"Experience with physical objects provides the basis for metonymy." (#60 1095)
"Metonymie concepts emerge from correlations in our experience between two physical entities (e.g., PART FOR WHOLE, OBJECT FOR USER) or between a physical entity and something metaphorically conceptualized as a physical entity (e.g., THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT, THE INSTITUTION FOR THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE)." (#60 1095)

real-world objects standing for entities in the world as defined by the conceptual system of the religion

"Religious rituals are typically metaphorical kinds of activities, which usually involve metonymies—real-world objects standing for entities in the world as defined by the conceptual system of the religion." (#60 3895)

THE HOME STANDS FOR THE PERSON

"it is common in Los Angeles to engage in the ritual activity of driving by the homes of Hollywood stars. This is a metaphorical kind of activity based on the metonymy THE HOME STANDS FOR THE PERSON and the metaphor PHYSICAL CLOSENESS is PERSONAL CLOSENESS" (#60 3900)

In a metonymy, there is only one domain

"In a metonymy, there is only one domain: the immediate subject matter. There is only one mapping; typically the metonymic source maps to the metonymic target (the referent) so that one item in the domain can stand for the other." (#60 4312)

Metonymy and Metaphor

"(Metonymy) San Francisco is a half hour from Berkeley." (#60 4322)
"(Metaphor) Chanukah is close to Christmas." (#60 4328)

experiential correlations: experiential cooccurrence and experiential similarity

"Our general position is that conceptual metaphors are grounded in correlations within our experience. These experiential correlations may be of two types: experiential cooccurrence and experiential similarity. An example of experiential cooccurrence would be the MORE IS UP metaphor, more is up is grounded in the cooccurrence of two types of experiences: adding more of a substance and seeing the level of the substance rise. Here there is no experiential similarity at all. An example of experiential similarity is LIFE IS A GAMBLING GAME, where one experiences actions in life as gambles, and the possible consequences of those actions are perceived as winning or losing. Here the metaphor seems to be grounded in experiential similarity. When such a metaphor is extended, we may experience new similarities between life and gambling games." (#60 2680)

Metaphors are learned when two experiences occur at once → ...

"Metaphors are learned when two experiences occur at once. If a metaphorical link would result in a contradiction in the target domain, it will not be learned. Neurally, contradictions are mutual inhibitions. Any would-be link that would lead to a contradiction with the inherent structure of the target domain will be inhibited; thus it will never be learned." (#60 4201)

difference between correspondences in our experience and similarities

"we have given an account of metaphorical grounding in terms of systematic correspondences in our experience, for example, being dominant in a fight and being physically up. But there is a difference between correspondences in our experience and similarities, since the correspondence need not be based on any similarity. On the basis of such correspondences in our experience, we can give an account of the range of possible metaphors. The weak homonymy position has no predictive power at all and seeks none. It simply tries to provide an after-the-fact account of what similarities there are. Thus, in the cases where similarities can be found, the weak homonymy position still gives no account of why just those similarities should be there." (#60 1996)