Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation

A metaphor can combine with another metaphor, or a metonymy with another metonymy, into a single meaning unit, thus giving rise to either a metaphorical or a metonymic amalgam. The combination of a metaphor and a metonymy, as discussed in Goossens (1990) and Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez (2002), gives rise to so-called “metaphtonymy”. Amalgams and metaphtonymy are cases of conceptual complexes. Several such complexes have been identified in previous studies (e.g. Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez 2002, Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal 2011). Here we revisit such studies and postulate the existence of metaphoric chains as an additional case of metaphoric complex in connection to the semantic analysis of phrasal verbs. Metaphoric chains, unlike amalgams (Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal 2011), do not involve integrating the conceptual structure of the combined metaphors. Instead, metaphoric chains involve a mapping sequence in which the target domain of a first metaphoric mapping constitutes the source domain of a subsequent metaphor.


I. INTRODUCTION
Phrasal verbs can be studied from a constructional perspective as form-meaning pairings where form cues for meaning activation and meaning is non-compositional (Dirven 2001). Because of their formally fixed and (at least partially) non-compositional semantic nature, phrasal verbs can be considered a special category of idiomatic expression, and their analysis has consequently been regarded as subsidiary to that of idiomatic expressions (cf. Kuiper andEveraert 2004, Makkai 1972).
The Cognitive Linguistics approach to metaphor and metonymy provides an explanatorily elegant framework to account for much of the meaning underlying idiomatic interpretation (cf. Hampe 2000). In this framework, the point of departure is the assumption that the meaning of phrasal verbs is mostly non-arbitrary but largely predictable and therefore sensitive to the use of cognitive operations in their interpretation (cf. Galera-Masegosa 2010, Langlotz 2006. Kövecses and Szabó (1996)  Within this framework, we aim to provide a detailed picture of the various conceptual interaction phenomena identified above. Section II revisits the most relevant approaches that regard metaphor and metonymy as conceptualizing mechanisms. In section III we account for the different ways in which metaphor and metonymy may interact with each other. We also identify several metonymy-metonymy and metaphor-metaphor combination patterns. We critically review existing accounts and make new proposals on the topic. In addition, we present metaphoric chains as a new way in which two metaphors may combine, which has proved to be essential in phrasal verb interpretation.
In this pattern of interaction the target of a first metaphor constitutes the source of a new metaphoric mapping whose target domain reveals the overall meaning of the expression.
Section IV summarizes the main findings of our study.

II.1.1. Earlier version
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) was first proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and developed by Lakoff and a number of associates (e.g. Gibbs 1994, Gibbs et al. 1997, Kövecses 1990, 2002, 2005, Lakoff 1987, Lakoff and Johnson 1999, Lakoff and Turner 1989. Challenging traditional views of metaphor as an embellishing device mainly used within the realms of literature, CMT claims that metaphor is not primarily a matter of language but of cognition: people make use of some concepts to understand, talk and reason about others. In this context, metaphor is described as a "conceptual mapping" (a set of correspondences) from a source domain (traditional vehicle) to a target domain (traditional tenor). The source is usually less abstract (i.e. more accessible to sense perception) than the target.
At the first stages of development of CMT, some preliminary efforts were made to classify metaphors. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) put forward a division between ontological, structural, and orientational metaphor. A few years later, Lakoff and Turner (1989)

II.1.2. Later version
In recent years, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) have argued for the integration of Christopher Johnson's (1999) theory of conflation, Grady's (1997) theory of primary metaphor, Narayanan's (1997) neural theory of metaphor, and Turner's (1996, 2002)  What these contexts have in common is the existence of goal-oriented activities, which are seen as steps taken to reach a destination. By accounting for This is getting nowhere

II.2. Conceptual Metonymy
Metonymy is a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same conceptual domain (Kövecses and Radden 1998: 39 decided to re-brand itself, it is not the company but some its workers (probably members of a directive board) that have made the decision to give a new name to the company itself. The problem here is that the workers (the metonymic target) are themselves part of the company (the metonymic source), so this metaphor actually qualifies as an example of a target-source inclusion.
A well-known example of apparent "part-for-part" metonymy is CUSTOMER FOR ORDER.
According to Taylor (1995: 123), available for anaphoric reference. In the patient example, the patient, which is the metonymic target, is the matrix domain, whereas in the ruler example, the matrix domain is the metonymic source. Both matrix domains, the patient and the ruler, are the antecedents for the anaphoric operation. Stated in more simple terms, this simply means that metonymic anaphora is always conceptual. Interestingly enough, Geeraerts and Peirsman (2011) have found that source-in-target metonymies do not allow for zeugma, while target-in-source metonymies do. Zeugma is the possibility to assign to the same lexical expression two or more predications that carry different senses. For example, as Geeraerts and Peirsman (2011) observe, "red shirts" in *The red shirts won the match stands for the football players wearing such an outfit as a salient part of their uniform.
This is a source-in-target metonymy that cannot be used zeugmatically: *The red shirts won the match and had to be cleaned thoroughly. By contrast, the sentence The book is thick as well as boring allows for zeugma based on two different senses of "book": one, its central (non-metonymic) characterization as a physical object; the other, its noncentral metonymic sense referring to the 'contents of the book'. To us, this analysis additionally suggests that metonymy-based zeugma is also a conceptual phenomenon that combines matrix domain availability and consistency with the metonymic target. In the "red shirts" example, only the "players" domain is available for predication since it is both the matrix domain and the metonymic target. But in the "book" example, where the matrix domain is not a metonymic target, it is possible to set up predications The solvency of the source-in-target/ target-in-source distinction, which involves disregarding the existence of "part-for-part" metonymies, is relevant for the ensuing analysis of interaction patterns, where only either of these two metonymic types plays a role.

III.1. Metaphtonymy
As we advanced in the introduction section, Goossens (1990) was the first scholar to enquire into the interaction between metaphor and metonymy. Note that Fauconnier and Turner's (2002) blending theory, which is about conceptual integration, was originally postulated as a question of multiple mental space activation to account for metaphor, analogy and other cognitive phenomena. Metonymy was not explored in its interaction with metaphor but simply postulated as an optimality constraint (because of its associative nature) on the blending of mental spaces termed the Metonymy projection constraint: "When an element is projected from an input to the blend and a second element from that input is projected because of its metonymic link to the first, shorten the metonymic distance between them in the blend" (Turner and Fauconnier 2000: 139).
For instance, it is generally accepted that the connection between death and a priest's cowl is large. However, in the representation of Death as a skeleton wearing a priestly cowl, the metonymic connection between the cowl and Death is direct and the two spaces can be straightforwardly integrated.
Let us now discuss the different types of metaphor-metonymy interaction or "metaphtonymy" initially put forward by Goossens (1990): (iv) Metaphor within metonymy, which occurs when a metaphor is used in order to add expressiveness to a metonymy, as in to be on one's hind legs, where "hind" brings up the metaphor people are animals.
Even if we acknowledge the originality and elegance of Goossens' work, some remarks need to be made. In the first place, we argue that cases of metaphor from metonymy are We also contend that in pay lip service the metaphor has the idea of 'giving money in return for service' in the source and of 'supporting someone' in the target (cf. That old style bulb has paid service to me for 5 years). Since "lip service" is 'service with the lips', where the lips stand for speaking through their salient instrumental role in such an action, "paying lip service" is resolved metaphorically as "supporting someone (just) by speaking" with the implication that service is not supported by facts. The metonymy is thus part of the metaphoric source (paying service with the lips maps onto promising support without the intention of actually giving it), so there is no loss of the metonymic quality of "lip". 10 Finally, we claim that to be on one's hind legs is not a metaphor within a metonymy, but again another case of metonymic development of a metaphoric source in preparation for it to be mapped onto its corresponding target. The source has a situation in which a horse rears up on its hind legs to attack another animal usually out of fear or in selfdefense. The target has a person that defends his or her views emphatically, usually by standing up while gesturing aggressively with his or her hands and fists. The difference with other cases of metonymic development of a metaphoric source is in the linguistic cueing of the metaphorical scenario, which is based on the non-situational metonymic link between "hind legs" and "horse", which initially activates the ontological metaphor people are animals. The activation of this metaphor facilitates the metonymic creation of the situational metaphor described above. In

III.2. Metaphor-metonymy interaction patterns
This section provides an overview of the patterns of conceptual interaction between metaphor and metonymy originally identified in Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez (2002).   (iv) Metonymic reduction of metaphoric target. The reduction process allows us to see a target element not only in terms of its corresponding source element but also in terms of the matrix domain against which it is put in perspective. Consider the sentence Over the years, this girl won my heart 12 . In this case, the 'love' scenario is conceptualized as the 'winning' scenario. Two straight-forward correspondences are set between 'winning' and 'the winner' in the source domain and 'obtaining' and 'the lover' in the target. However, once we mapped 'the prize' in the source domain onto 'someone's heart' in the target, a metonymic reduction makes 'someone's heart' to stand for 'someone's love'. This metonymy, which is an extension of PLACE FOR INSTITUTION (e.g. Wall Street has always been part of our economy and always will be 13 ), is used for economy purposes to identify the people that are associated with an institution that is in turn identified by the place in which it is known to be located. As a consequence of domain reduction both the institution and the people are given prominence (Croft (1993) has referred to such a process by the term "highlighting", which involves giving primary status to a noncentral subdomain of a cognitive model).

(ii) Double domain expansion: HEAD FOR LEADER FOR ACTION OF LEADING, as in
His sister heads the policy unit.  A person's lips are prominently instrumental in quickly (and thus deftly) speaking. This instrumental role is the starting point for the first metonymy in the complex. The second metonymy highlights the 'ability' element that is essential to understand the full meaning impact of the expression.

III.3. Metaphoric complexes: amalgams and chains
Metaphoric complexes may or may not involve the integration of conceptual structure: metaphoric amalgams require the integration of selected aspects from the metaphors that play a role in the process, while in metaphoric chains there are two subsequent metaphoric mappings such that the target of the first mapping becomes the source of the second (cf. Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa 2012, Ruiz de Mendoza and Pérez 2011). Let us see each of them in turn.

III.3.1. Metaphoric amalgams
The notion of metaphoric amalgam was initially discussed in Ruiz de Mendoza (2008)who simply referred to them as metaphoric complexes -but it has been subsequently developed in Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal (2011). This kind of metaphoric complex, unlike metaphoric chains, involves the integration of the conceptual material of the This is necessary in order to account for all the meaning implications of the expression since on the basis of IDEAS ARE (MOVING) OBJECTS alone we can only derive the implication that there has been an act of communication whereby the addressee has had access to an idea, but not that he has understood idea. This additional implication is provided by the second metaphor, as captured in Figure 11 below. The subsidiary metaphor is activated as a requirement of the target domain, which contains a change of state specification (being silent). There are certain cases in which a metonymy is built into the target domain of a doublesource metaphoric amalgam, as in He burst into tears. The interpretation of this phrasal verb involves the integration of two metaphors, namely EMOTIONAL DAMAGE IS PHYSICAL DAMAGE and EMOTIONAL DAMAGE IS MOTION. Here, we conceptualize the process of experiencing emotional damage both in terms of suffering physical damage ('bursting') combined with motion (moving into a given place), which is used to indicate a change of state on the basis of the primary metaphor (cf. Grady 1997) A CHANGE OF STATE IS A CHANGE OF LOCATION. The outcome of the process of bursting is mapped onto the symptoms of emotional damage, namely tears. Then, through the EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy the tears (the effect) are made to stand for the final state of emotional damage (the cause). Additionally, the initial state (in which the person has not suffered emotional damage) and the final state (in which the person has suffered emotional damage) are identified with the source and destination of motion respectively.

III.3.2. Metaphoric chains
As we advanced in the introduction section, a metaphoric chain is an interactional pattern between two metaphors in which the target domain of one metaphor becomes the source of a subsequent metaphor. Let us examine the interpretation of some phrasal verbs using this pattern of interaction. Consider the sentence [When] they broke away from our church, I stuck to my own 14 . The source domain of the first metaphoric mapping is provided by the semantics of the phrasal verb break away: an object is broken into two or more pieces, and these pieces become separated from one another.
This first metaphoric domain is mapped onto a target domain in which two people (or a person/some people and a given institution) become physically separated. The target domain constitutes the source of a second metaphor, whose target domain is the nonphysical separation. The last metaphoric mapping is grounded in experiential conflation: the fact that two people or a person and an institution are no longer together (either in a relationship or in institutional terms) generally correlates with physical separation. We also need the use of a metaphoric chain in the interpretation of the phrasal verb 'break down' as in the sentence When she died Papa broke down and cried 15 . The source domain of the first metaphorical process arises from the combined semantic structure of the verb and the particle, that is, physical fragmentation ('break') and loss of functionality ('down'). This conceptual material is mapped onto another domain in which there is no physical fragmentation, but there is an object that becomes dysfunctional (as in My car broke down). The implication of dysfunctionality in the first target domain maps onto a situation in which a person becomes emotionally distressed and therefore looses control over himself. This process is schematized as follows:  An alternative interpretation of this phrasal verb arises when the person given away is the bride in the context of a wedding. In this case, the bride is generally walked down the aisle (in order to be "given away") by her father. This particular interpretation does not convey the idea that the initial possessor of the object donates it to whoever may take it, not caring about it anymore (which is the base for the negative feeling that gives rise to the 'betraying' interpretation). In the case of the bride, his father transfers the responsibility of taking care of her to the husband-to-be (e.g. The father of the bride was Our last example shows that metaphoric chains may also interact with metonymy. Consider the sentence Eventually someone got fed up with her behavior and called the cops 19 . A first step in the interpretation of the phrasal verb to be fed up with is the application of the basic metaphors FULL IS UP, which is combined with the imageschema THE HUMAN BODY IS A CONTAINER. These two underlying metaphors allow us to map 'to be fed up' onto 'to be filled to the top with food'. Then we need to metonymically expand this target domain onto a more complex situation in which a person cannot have more food or will get sick. This elaborated target domain constitutes the source of another metaphor whose target domain is a situation in which a person cannot stand someone else's behavior (see figure 19 below).

SOURCE TARGET/SOURCE TARGET
To be in a situation To be in a situation in which one cannot in which one cannot have more food or will stand someone else's get sick behavior Metonymy To be fed up To be filled

IV. CONCLUSIONS
Phrasal verbs are idiomatic constructions consisting of fixed and variable parts where the fixed part can take a degree of variation that stems from the general ability of verbal structure to be fused into various argument structure constructions (e.g. X breaks away with Y; X and Y break away) and to take tense, aspect and other grammatical markers.
The conceptual make-up of phrasal verbs goes beyond the combination of verbal meaning (whether propositional or image schematic) and the image schematic meaning associated with the adverbial particle or the preposition. It may require the combination