Several researchers have discussed which element is preferably chosen as a vehicle in metonymic constructions Langacker (1993) claims that, all other things being equal, these cognitive principles govern the choice of metonymic vehicle: human over non-human, whole over part, concrete over abstract, visible over non-visible. This claim has been made, but no previous case studies regarding these principles have been conducted. To remedy this gap, this paper examines 510 instances of PART FOR WHOLE metonymy in the names of events and accidents in Korean newspapers from 2010 through 2019. The result shows that AGENT is most frequently utilized to refer to whole events, supporting one principle of Langacker, human over nonhuman. CAUSE, PATIENT, and PLACE follows AGENT. INSTRUMENT is not very frequently used unless it achieves its salience through contexts. TIME is observed only once. Considering that TIME was used frequently to name past events, as in the 4.19 Revolution, 5.18 Democratic Movement, the 4.3 Events, the infrequent use of TIME reflects a cultural change in its cognitive salience.

Since sign language uses a visual and gestural mode it has more restrictions in designating concepts compared to spoken language, which uses an auditory-vocal mode. Therefore, sign language is prone to using more metaphorical and metonymical expressions. Since Lakoff and Johnson (1980), many researchers have paid great attention to the observation of the metaphorical and metonymical expressions in various spoken languages. However, the same phenomena have not been thoroughly explored in sign languages, in spite of the fact that sign language frequently employs metaphor and metonymy even in basic words. This paper observes the types of metaphor and metonymy that are used in the adjectives of Korean Sign Language. Because of the arbitrary relation of form and meaning in spoken language, metaphor and metonymy cannot be found in morphologically simple words in spoken language. However, in sign language, metaphor and metonymy are widespread phenomena even in morphologically simple words.

Ju-Shik Kim. 2002. An Examination of Metonymy as Cognitive Process. Studies in Modern Grammar, 157-172. Metonymy as a cognitive process refers to a general cognitive ability that enables speakers to represent a specific object as a whole or its aspects by focusing upon a salient aspect of the object. The purpose of this study is to examine how this metonymical process is materialized in daily speech activities. As a preliminary step for the discussion, a brief review is made on the nature of metonymy in cognitive grammar. A comparative analysis is also made on the difference between metonymy and metaphor so as to give a better picture of the nature of metonymy. The most fundamental difference is that metaphor occurs in the association of source domain and target domain, whereas metonymy happens in a single domain. Based upon this discussion on the nature of metonymy, an attempt is made to explain polysemy in the framework of metonymy. Polysemy is a linguistic phenomenon in which a specific expression can be interpreted as denoting several related meanings. When approaching polysemy from the perspective of metonymy, it is important to note that metonymy occurs in a single domain. In addition, examples are discussed to demonstrate that mytonymy is at work even in the unconscious inference process of everyday speech. In particular, the problem of prototype effect, the problems of conversational implicature, and the problem of the conflict between the pronoun and antecedent are approached in the cognitive framework of metonymy.