Metonymy in Motion: How Metonymy Shapes Soccer Narratives and Enhances ELT Practices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v7i1.19515Keywords:
Metonymy, Cognitive semantics, Corpus analysis, English Language Teaching (ELT), Media discourseAbstract
This study addresses a critical gap in sports linguistics by exploring the cognitive semantic role of metonymy in digital soccer journalism, an area that remains underexamined despite its pervasive use in media discourse. Using a corpus-based cognitive semantic approach, this qualitative study examines the prevalence and patterns of metonymy in soccer news articles published on Goal.com. A purposive sampling technique was employed to select 250 news articles collected from August 2021 to May 2024, providing a robust dataset for analysis. The findings reveal that "whole for part" metonymy dominates, where teams, leagues, or nations substitute for individual players or components, reinforcing collective identity and aligning with readers’ cognitive schemas. Metonymic collocations also exhibit consistent patterns, with renowned teams and leagues frequently serving as proxies for players and events, demonstrating a cognitive preference for associating collective entities with their constituents. These results highlight metonymy’s role in simplifying narratives, enhancing audience engagement, and shaping cultural representations in digital sports media. Beyond its linguistic significance, this study contributes to English Language Teaching (ELT) by demonstrating how metonymy-based corpus analysis fosters critical reading, discourse analysis, and media literacy. Sports journalism serves as an engaging pedagogical resource for teaching pragmatic competence and lexical awareness, helping learners decode implicit meanings and cognitive framing. By showcasing metonymy’s role in narrative efficiency and cognitive engagement, this study underscores its broader implications for media studies, cognitive linguistics, sports journalism, and ELT.
References
Amzulescu, M., Chiscop, A., Marin, D., Lare, C., & Popescu, A. (2020). Effects of negative emotions on cognitive schemas. Social Development, 11(1), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.47040/sd0000083
Arapinis, A. (2015). Whole-for-part metonymy, classification, and grounding. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-014-9164-6
Barcelona, A. (2003). Metonymy in cognitive linguistics. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 223–255). John Benjamins Publishing.
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28
Barcelona, A. (2024). Trends in cognitive-linguistic research on metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 11(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00085.bar
Benczes, R. (2011). Putting the notion of “domain” back into metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 197–216). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28
Bisang, W., Hock, H. H., Winter, W., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (Eds.). (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Mouton de Gruyter.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2002). Manner-for-activity metonymy in a cross-linguistic perspective. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 225–246). De Gruyter Mouton.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
Croft, W. (2000). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In B. Peeters (Ed.), The lexicon-encyclopedia interface (pp. 219–250). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
Dancygier, B. (Ed.). (2017). The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Iorwerth, H., & Hardman, A. (2015). The case for inter-national sport: A reply to Gleaves and Llewellyn. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 42(3), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2015.1036876
Kintz, S., & Wright, H. (2016). Semantic knowledge use in discourse: Influence of age. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2016.1150652
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Universality and variation in the use of metaphor. Selected Papers from the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 51–74.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.3
Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. (2017). VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus. In N. Ide & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Handbook of linguistic annotation (pp. 983–996). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0881-2_39
Lakoff, G. (1987). The death of dead metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0202_5
Lakoff, G. (2008). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (2009). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25
Lee, J., & Hamilton, J. T. (2022). Anchoring in the past, tweeting from the present: Cognitive bias in journalists’ word choices. PLOS ONE, 17(3), e0263730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263730
Liang, S. (2023). A corpus-based comparative study of the metaphorical constructs of the Chinese and English popularization discourse about the 5G technology. Journal of Language and Communication, 15(2), 123–145. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14242/113009
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge University Press.
Markert, K., & Nissim, M. (2003). Corpus-based metonymy analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1803_04
Markert, K., & Nissim, M. (2009). Data and models for metonymy resolution. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9087-y
Melnychuk, O. (2023). Schemas and cognitive modelling of narrative. Věda a Perspektivy, 7(26), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.52058/2695-1592-2023-7(26)-201-210
Miguel-Tomé, S. (2020). Towards a model-theoretic framework for describing the semantic aspects of cognitive processes. Adcaij Advances in Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence Journal, 8(4), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.14201/adcaij2019848396
Ononye, C. (2017). Lexico-stylistic choices and media ideology in newspaper reports on Niger Delta conflicts. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i1.6870
Papafragou, A. (1996). On metonymy. Lingua, 99(4), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(96)00016-2
Piñango, M., Zhang, M., Foster-Hanson, E., Negishi, M., Lacadie, C., & Constable, R. (2016). Metonymy as referential dependency: Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic arguments for a unified linguistic treatment. Cognitive Science, 41(S2), 351–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12341
Piquer-Píriz, A. (2017). Jeannette Littlemore. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Pp. 240. ISBN 978-1-107-04362-6. Language and Cognition, 9(3), 568–572. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.3
Radden, G. (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. John Benjamins Publishing.
Radden, G. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). John Benjamins Publishing.
Radden, G. (2003). Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden. John Benjamins Publishing.
Reszegi, K. (2022). Metonymic namegiving from a cognitive perspective. Acta Onomastica, 63(1), 206–225.
Rodríguez, J. C., & Quiroga, S. R. (2024). Linguistic notes on the globalization of Spanish sport in Asia. Journal of Coaching and Sports Science, 3(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.58524/002024333900
Rohman, M. H. (2021). Metonimia dalam berita sepak bola di situs Bola.Net. Jurnal Linguistik dan Sastra, 12(2), 45–60.
Sidabutar, U., & Mulyadi, M. (2023). Kajian metafora dan metonimi pada iklan Gudang Garam “Nyalakan Merahmu.” Jurnal Konfiks, 10(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.26618/jk/10789
Sij, Z., Manshaee, G., Hasanabadi, H., & Nadi, M. (2018). The effects of schema therapy on emotional self-awareness, vulnerability, and obsessive symptoms among patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Modern Care Journal, 15(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5812/modernc.69656
Steen, G. (2005). Metonymy goes cognitive-linguistic. Style, 39(1), 1–11.
Valerievna, K., Shiryaeva, O., & Zheltukhina, М. (2019). Stylistic means of headline creating in the information-analytical media text: Pragmasemantic aspect of metaphor. Xlinguae, 12(4), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2019.12.04.15
Ventresca, M. (2018). The curious case of CTE: Mediating materialities of traumatic brain injury. Communication & Sport, 7(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479518761636
Widyadari, N. G. A. D., Citraresmana, E., & Sobarna, C. (2023). Conceptual metonymy whole for part and part for whole in the Korean drama “The Glory”: A cognitive semantic study. Jurnal Kata, 7(2), 398–410. https://doi.org/10.22216/kata.v7i2.2373
Yin, C., & Yang, F. (2022). The effects of working memory capacity in metaphor and metonymy comprehension in Mandarin–English bilinguals’ minds: An fMRI study. Brain Sciences, 12(5), 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12050633
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
- Author retains the copyright and grants Elsya Journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
- The author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book) with the acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- The author is permitted and encouraged to post his/her work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Elsya Journal is licensed under 