See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303435792

Metaphor, metonymy, and their interaction in the production of semantic

approximations by monolingual children: A corpus analysis

Article  in  First Language · July 2016

DOI: 10.1177/0142723716648845

CITATIONS READS

8 857

2 authors, including:

Lorena Pérez-Hernández
Universidad de La Rioja (Spain)
49 PUBLICATIONS   624 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cognitive modeling, cognitive operations, inference, cognitive pedagogical grammar, cross-linguistic study, Constructicon View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lorena Pérez-Hernández on 02 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

648845
research-article2016
FLA0010.1177/0142723716648845First LanguagePérez-Hernández and Duvignau

FIRST
Article LANGUAGE

First Language
2016, Vol. 36(4) 383­–406
Metaphor, metonymy, © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
and their interaction in sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0142723716648845
the production of semantic fla.sagepub.com

approximations by monolingual
children: A corpus analysis

Lorena Pérez-Hernández
University of La Rioja, Spain

Karine Duvignau
University of Toulouse II-Le Mirail, France

Abstract
The present study looks into the largely unexplored territory of the cognitive underpinnings
of semantic approximations in child language. The analysis of a corpus of 233 semantic
approximations produced by 101 monolingual French-speaking children from 1;8 to 4;2
years of age leads to a classification of a significant number of them as instances of a set of
principle-governed cognitive operations, including metaphor and metonymy-based cognitive
operations, and conceptual complexes, such as metaphtonymies and double metonymies.
The results shed light on cognitive operation preferences and their level of conceptual
complexity at this stage of language development. Additionally, it points to the need to
expand the inventory of functions traditionally assigned to these cognitive operations.

Keywords
Cognitive operations, conceptual complexes, conceptual metaphor and metonymy,
first language acquisition, semantic approximations

Introduction
In spite of the fact that word learning is a pivotal aspect of language development
(Agustín Llach, 2005; Gaskell & Ellis, 2009; Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002; Jiménez

Corresponding author:
Lorena Pérez-Hernández, Department of Modern Languages, University of La Rioja, C/San José de Calasanz,
33, 26004 Logroño (La Rioja), Spain.
Email: lorena.perez@unirioja.es

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

384 First Language 36(4)

Catalán, 1992; Pinker & Jackendoff, 2005), studies on semantic approximations in first
language acquisition are much more scarce than in relation to second language learn-
ing (Agustín Llach, 2011; Singleton, 1999; Zimmerman, 1986, 1987). Understood as
mere byproducts of the process of learning a first language, most of the attention they
have attracted has been directed to their classification (Jaeger, 2005), the identification
of those factors (i.e. conventionality, pre-emption, entrenchment and semantic fit,
among others) that are involved in their gradual disuse (Ambridge, 2013; Ambridge,
Pine, Rowland, Chang, & Bidgood, 2013; Boyd & Goldberg, 2011; Goldberg, 2011),
the tactics and strategies that may help children overcome them (Chouinard & Clark,
2003; Clark & Bernicot, 2008; Ramscar & Yarlett, 2007; Strapp & Federico, 2000), the
exploration of the effects of their correction or the lack of it (Nooteboom, 1980;
Verhallen & Schoonen, 1993), and their consequences on school performance and cog-
nitive delay (Ghassabian et al., 2014).
To date, however, little attention has been paid to the factors that motivate those
semantic approximations and the strategies that underlie their production. A recent
attempt to do so can be found in Duvignau (2002, 2003) and Duvignau, Fossard, Gaume,
Pimenta, and Elie (2007). These authors claim that semantic approximations in child
language stem from analogic and pragmatic strategies, and help young speakers com-
municate their ideas and feelings by making up for their still immature lexical pools. In
this, Duvignau’s account complements previous research on the cognitive bases of
semantic approximations in child language development (Bowerman, 1982; Clark,
1995; Dromi, 1987). In contrast to those semantic approximations emerging from the
interferences of the speakers’ native languages in second language acquisition, most of
those included in our corpus of monolingual children are found not to interfere with
communication, but rather to facilitate it. This particular status sets them apart from
other types of random semantic approximations. In much the same vein, Iozzi and
Barbieri (2009) carried out an experimental study from which it was concluded that in
referential communication, preschoolers appear to produce ‘nonconventional’ messages
involving analogies that allow them to succeed in communicating their thoughts in the
absence of a conventional name for the intended referent.
These initial forays into the analogic and pragmatic nature of semantic approxima-
tions in first language acquisition, however, leave aside equally relevant aspects related
to their cognitive underpinnings. Additionally, the aforementioned accounts on the cog-
nitive bases of semantic approximations in first language acquisition have focused
mainly on general cognitive processes such as those of over- and under-generalizations.
Seeking to offer a more comprehensive view of the phenomenon under consideration,
the present study delves deeper into the conceptual nature of those semantic approxima-
tions produced by children under the general hypothesis that a vast number of them
conform to the workings of a well-structured limited set of cognitive strategies, including
conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy, and conceptual complexes (see below for a
definition of these categories).
Current works on cognitive modeling and language acquisition have coined the terms
metaphoric and metonymic competence (Denroche, 2014; Littlemore, 2015; Littlemore
& Low, 2006) to highlight the relevance of these cognitive strategies in language learn-
ing and teaching. These studies reveal that cognitive metaphor and metonymy allow

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 385

speakers to perform a vast array of linguistic and conceptual functions: understand and
talk about abstract notions which transcend the limits of literal language, understand
word categories, and name individual or collective entities by selection of a single salient
feature, among many others. However, most studies to date have based their investiga-
tion on data produced by adult speakers and, to a lesser extent, on data related to the
comprehension of metaphor and metonymy by young speakers (Klepousniotou & Baum,
2007; Norbury, 2005; Rundblad & Annaz, 2010). Studies on the production of meta-
phoric and, to a larger extent, metonymic expressions by monolingual children are scarce
and mostly linked to mentally-impaired children (Katis & Selimis, 2009; Naylor &
Herwegen, 2012). Still, as Nerlich, Clarke, and Todd (1999) point out, the production of
metaphors and metonymies by young children differs slightly from that of adults in the
sense that children make use of these conceptual tools in order to fill gaps in their imma-
ture lexicons by means of stretching the meaning of those terms they have already
acquired. This ‘compelled’ use of metaphor and metonymy, which lasts on average until
the age of 4;0, contrasts with the ‘creative’ use of these cognitive operations made by
adults, who take advantage of them ‘to express something new by not using the already
available words in their lexicons’ (Nerlich et al., 1999, p. 367).
Metaphor and metonymy, however, are often used as cover terms for a collection of
more specific cognitive operations which underlie our conceptualization of the world.
This article focuses on the role played by several of these cognitive operations in the
production of semantic approximations in the language of young children. A definition
of the cognitive operations and cognitive complexes under analysis is, therefore, in order.
Conceptual metaphor and metonymy are two of the most pervasive cognitive opera-
tions that govern human conceptualization and communication. Conceptual metaphor
was originally defined by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) as understanding one conceptual
domain (i.e. target) in terms of another (i.e. source domain) by means of establishing a
set of systematic correspondences between their corresponding constituent elements. By
way of illustration, the metaphor ARGUMENTS ARE WARS largely structures how we
think and talk about arguments (He attacked every weak point in my argument; He shot
down all my arguments; Your claims are indefensible, etc.).
As observed by Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa (2014; see also Grady [1999]
on this distinction), it should be noted that the notion of conceptual metaphor has often
been used as an umbrella term, which, in fact, covers two distinct types of mental opera-
tions. Thus, comparison operations hinge on the existence of a similarity between the
source and target domains involved in the metaphorical projection (e.g. He is a tiger). On
the other hand, correlation operations take place between two naturally co-occurring
domains of experience, such as when we link physical or mental well-being with an
upright physical position, or illnesses and unhappiness with the lower end of the vertical-
ity image schema (e.g. Cheer up!, I’m down with the flu).
In contrast to metaphor, which establishes connections between two different con-
ceptual domains, metonymy involves a projection within one single domain of experi-
ence. As is the case with metaphor, so-called conceptual metonymy also comprises two
distinct, but related cognitive operations (Ruiz de Mendoza & Galera-Masegosa, 2014,
pp. 92ff.), namely domain expansion and domain reduction operations. Each of them
corresponds to one of the possible types of metonymic projections that may be launched

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

386 First Language 36(4)

between a matrix domain and its subdomains. Domain expansion operations take one of
the subdomains as the source and the matrix domain as the target of the conceptual map-
ping (i.e. source-in-target metonymy), thus expanding the amount of conceptual infor-
mation associated with the source. This is the case with the PRESIDENT FOR
COUNTRY metonymy, for example, as in Obama signed an agreement with the EU. In
turn, domain reduction operations take the matrix domain as the source of the concep-
tual mapping and project it onto one of its subdomains (i.e. target). For instance,
INSTITUTION/COMPANY FOR PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE, as in Volkswagen has
closed down several factories this year.
The possible interaction patterns that can occur between metaphor and metonymy,
traditionally referred to as metaphtonymy, were first described by Goosens (1990), and
have since undergone significant refinement in the works of Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez
(2002), Galera-Masegosa (2010a, 2010b) and Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa
(2011, 2012, 2014). According to these authors, metonymic reductions and expansions
can occur either in the source or the target domain of the metaphoric mapping or in one
of their correspondences. An idiom like catch someone’s ear illustrates this type of
metaphor–metonymy interaction. As Geeraerts (2002, p. 22) explains, the literal mean-
ing ‘take hold of someone’s organ of hearing’ is metonymically extended to ‘to obtain
someone’s attention’, since the physical organ ‘ear’ is metonymically linked to its func-
tion of grabbing attention (PHYSICAL ORGAN FOR ITS FUNCTION). In other
words, ‘materially taking hold of someone’s ear is metonymically conceptualized as a
cause (or at least, a contributing factor) for getting someone’s attention’. Simultaneously,
there is also a metaphorical shift involving the development of ‘catch’ from a material
to an immaterial reading.
Finally, metonymic complexes, labeled as double metonymy, metonymic chains, and
(Multiple source)-in-target metonymies have been amply researched in the literature
(Barcelona, 2005; Brdar-Szabó & Brdar, 2011; Ruiz de Mendoza, 2000; Ruiz de Mendoza
& Pérez-Hernández, 2001; Pérez-Hernández, 2013). In fact, four different patterns of
metonymic conceptual interaction have been identified and shown to be operational at
different levels of linguistic description (Ruiz de Mendoza, 2000; Ruiz de Mendoza &
Galera-Masegosa, 2014): (1) double metonymic expansion; (2) double metonymic
reduction; (3) metonymic reduction plus metonymic expansion; (4) metonymic expan-
sion plus metonymic reduction.
In this context, the present study represents a much needed corpus-based investigation
of conceptual operations and complexes in child language. Current advances in cogni-
tive modeling (Ruiz de Mendoza & Galera-Masegosa, 2014) are applied to the analysis
of our corpus of semantic approximations in the language of a group of monolingual
French-speaking children with a view to assess the productivity of the aforementioned
metaphorical and metonymic strategies, and conceptual complexes (i.e. metaphtony-
mies, double metonymies) in relation to this specific type of linguistic production.
Additionally, the analysis of the data also investigates the level of conceptual com-
plexity of the cognitive operations underlying the production of semantic approxima-
tions in child language. It is thus hypothesized that conceptual complexes, such as
metaphtonymies and double metonymies, due to their inherent conceptual complexity,
will be less frequent than single cognitive operations (metaphor or metonymy).

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 387

Finally, age effects are also considered. For this purpose the data have been organized
in two age groups: one for those semantic approximations produced by children between
1;8 and 3;0 years of age, and a second group for those authored by children between 3;0
and 4;2 years.
The results of the investigation spell out the role played by these cognitive operations
in the language of young children. Additionally, our findings also call for a revision and
extension of the inventory of functions traditionally assigned to cognitive metaphor and
metonymy.
This article unfolds as follows. We first deal with methodological issues and offer a
description of the corpus of analysis (i.e. nature of the participants, the procedure for
data gathering, and the methodology for conceptual metaphor and metonymy identifica-
tion). Next, we offer the results of the analysis of semantic approximations in relation
to those cognitive operations that have been found to govern them. These include meta-
phorical, and metonymic operations, but also cases of conceptual interaction, such as
metaphtonymies and double metonymies. The discussion of the results highlights the
relevance of our research findings both for the field of first language acquisition and for
current theories of cognitive modeling. Finally, we provide a summary with the most
relevant conclusions and some suggestions for further research.

Method
This section provides a description of the participants and the procedure for data collec-
tion. It also explains the criteria used for the classification of the different semantic
approximations produced by the children participating in the study.

Participants
Participants were 101 typically developing, monolingual, French-speaking children from
1;8 to 4;2 years of age, and their parents/legal tutors. Data collection was conducted from
the notes of the participants’ spontaneous productions taken by their parents or legal
caretakers. The children and their parents were located in Toulouse (France). The gender
of the informants was balanced (50% boys, 50% girls). The group was also homogene-
ous as regards social class (i.e. educated middle-class) and ethnicity (i.e. Caucasian).

Procedure
The children produced a total corpus of 233 utterances with a verb pivot containing at
least one conceptual operation, as in Mum, you undress [peel] the apple (Duvignau,
2002). The procedure for data collection entailed several steps. During an initial pre-
liminary phase parents were recruited from several state schools in Toulouse (France)
and they were given information about the nature and purpose of the project, as well as
about their role in gathering data from their children’s speech productions. In this con-
nection, they were given precise instructions about which of their children’s utterances
they should note down. For this purpose, parents were provided with a list of 10 illustra-
tive examples of the type of semantic approximations that they should keep record of

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

388 First Language 36(4)

(i.e. semantic approximations with a verb pivot such as ‘to undress [peel] an apple’).
They were also asked to make a note of the context in which the utterance had taken
place (e.g. My child said ‘Mum is undressing the apple’ while I was peeling his apple)
and of the sense of the production (i.e. what parents thought their children actually
meant when they uttered the sentence containing the semantic approximation). This was
followed by a one-week training phase. The utterances gathered over the first three days
of the training week were revised and parents were told which ones of them were valid
for the research. At the end of the training week, a reliability test was conducted to
compare the parents’ classification of the semantic approximations produced by the
children with a parallel classification performed by the authors of this article. The aver-
age reliabilities for occurrence were 100% (Cohen’s kappa = 1.0) for the parents’ ability
to detect their children’s semantic approximations.
Afterwards, the actual data-gathering phase started. The observation period lasted for
three months, during which parents wrote down those semantic approximations with a
verb pivot that were produced by their children. The conversations between the children
and their parents took place in uncontrolled environments, mostly in the informants’
houses or during family activities in the open air (parks, day trips, holidays, etc.). The
data collected for the research are spontaneous in the sense that they were produced dur-
ing unscripted and unprompted conversations between the children and their parents,
relatives, and/or friends. During those interactions, participants were free to choose any
topic they felt inclined to talk about. The sort of utterances that are of interest to the pre-
sent study are spontaneous and always unanticipated, which justifies the type of method-
ology chosen for data gathering.
Finally, a qualitative analysis of the semantic approximations collected during the
experiment was carried out by the authors in order to classify them into the following
four categories: (1) metaphor-based semantic approximations, (2) metonymy-based
semantic approximations, (3) semantic approximations displaying conceptual interac-
tion, and (4) random lexical errors/slips of the tongue. A detailed description of the first
three categories has been offered in the introduction.

Criteria for classification of semantic approximations

The classification of the semantic approximations produced by the children participat-
ing in the study was performed by analyzing their meaning in context, and subsequently
following the methodological steps established in the Metaphor Identification Procedure
of the Vrije Universiteit-MIPVU (Steen, Dorst, Herrman, Kaal, & Krennmayr, 2010,
p. 769). This method involves several well-defined systematic steps for the identifica-
tion of metaphor-related utterances. A modified version of the MIPVU was also imple-
mented in order to identify those instances of metonymy-related semantic approximations,
as well as those utterances that obey to more complex conceptual interactions of both
metaphoric and metonymic nature. In accordance with the protocol of the MIPVU pro-
cedure, the meaning of those verbs involved in the children’s semantic approximations
were checked in the dictionary to find out if there was a more basic, concrete, human-
related meaning which could also fit the context of the utterance. If this basic meaning
could be identified for a particular verb and if the contextual and the basic meanings

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 389

were distinct but related by same sort of similarity (e.g. swim and sail), then the seman-
tic approximation was marked as involving a metaphorical operation. If the relationship
between them was not based on similarity, but rather on some sort of functional contigu-
ity, cause-effect, or part-whole relationship (e.g. cause–effect, as in go away and disap-
pear), then the semantic approximation was classified as metonymic in nature. Finally,
those semantic approximations involving both of the aforementioned patterns were cat-
egorized as instances of conceptual interaction (see Appendix 1 for a detailed step-by-
step description of the method used in the classification of the semantic approximations
included in our corpus; and see Appendix 2 for examples of the corpus, per category of
semantic approximation).
Once all the semantic approximations produced by the participants had been assigned
to one of the four categories for analysis (i.e. metaphor-based semantic approximations,
metonymy-based semantic approximations, semantic approximations displaying con-
ceptual interaction, and random lexical errors/slips of the tongue) for each of the two age
groups under analysis (i.e. 1;8–3;0 and 3;0–4;2), we proceeded to an analysis of the
results in order to reveal significant trends regarding the frequency of occurrence of each
type of semantic approximation and to assess the frequency of occurrence of metaphor,
metonymy, and conceptual complexes in our data in relation to the age of the children.
Given the fact that metaphorical and metonymic strategies can be internally subdi-
vided into more specific types of cognitive operations, we decided to perform a fine-
grained qualitative study aimed at establishing the specific type of cognitive operation
underlying semantic approximations in each group: metaphor-based strategies (i.e. com-
parison vs. correlation operations), metonymy-based strategies (i.e. domain reduction vs.
domain expansion operations), and strategies involving conceptual interaction (i.e. met-
aphtonymy and double metonymy).

Results and discussion

In the present investigation, we set out to examine the conceptual nature of those seman-
tic approximations found in children’s verbal descriptions of specific actions. Our gen-
eral hypothesis was that many of them stem from the underlying workings of either
metaphorical/metonymic operations, or conceptual interaction patterns. Evaluation of
our initial hypothesis required that the gathered data were analyzed and classified into
four different categories, attending to the type of cognitive strategy involved in their
production, or the lack of it. Table 1 shows the gross numbers and percentages found for
each type of semantic approximation included in our corpus.
At first sight, quantitative results are consistent with our initial hypothesis by showing
that the number of random lexical errors, amounting to just 14.1% of the total number of
occurrences in the corpus, is clearly smaller than the sum of semantic approximations
stemming from particular cognitive operations (metaphoric, metonymic, or conceptual
complexes). If we further examine the relative weight of the different cognitive opera-
tions in the children’s production of semantic approximations, the results yield a preva-
lence of those mappings of a metonymic nature over the rest. Semantic approximations
of a metonymic nature outnumbered those based on metaphoric projections, conceptual
complexes, or random mistakes.

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

390 First Language 36(4)

Table 1.  Number and percentages of semantic approximations per type.

Metaphor- Metonymy- Conceptual Random

based semantic based semantic complexes lexical
approximations approximations errors
No. of 69 [29.6%] 121 [51.9%] 10 [4.3%] 33 [14.1%]
occurrences
[Percentages]

These results are also compatible with our initial expectations of a preference for
those cognitive operations with a lower degree of conceptual complexity in children’s
production of semantic approximations. This is the case with metonymy-based cognitive
operations, whose lower degree of complexity stems from the smaller cognitive distance
involved between the source and target domains (Pauwels, 1999, p. 256), and the lower
amount of conceptual integration involved in this type of conceptual mapping (Coulson
& Van Petten, 2002). Our results also find support in current studies on children’s pro-
cessing of conceptual mappings, which show faster processing times, a better perfor-
mance, and an earlier onset and faster rate of development for metonymy. As pointed out
by Rundblad & Annaz (2010, p. 3), ‘the understanding of metonymy in children exceeds
metaphor comprehension at all points in time throughout childhood to adulthood and [it
also] develops at a faster rate’ (see also Klepousniotou & Baum [2007] for similar
results). The present study, however, is one of the first to show that metonymy is also
preferred over metaphor in the production of semantic approximations in the language of
young children.
Additionally, the results show that the use of conceptual complexes in the production
of semantic approximations by young children is less frequent than that of metaphor or
metonymy-based cognitive operations in isolation. Metaphtonymies and double metony-
mies only amount to 4.3% of the total number of semantic approximations produced by
the participants. These results are compatible with our previous findings regarding the
relative frequency of occurrence of metonymy and metaphor-based operations in the
production of semantic approximations by young children, and are therefore amenable to
the same type of argumentation: a high degree of conceptual complexity of the cognitive
operation underlying the production of a particular type of semantic approximation
steadily correlates with a lower frequency of occurrence of the latter at this stage of lan-
guage development.
Table 2 presents frequencies as a function of age group.
Although the total number of semantic approximations was similar for both age
groups (121 vs. 112), marked differences were found when the type of semantic approxi-
mation and the age of the children were considered in interaction. Younger children
(aged 1;8–3;0) clearly favored the use of semantic approximations based on metonymic
mappings over those based on metaphor. On the contrary, older children (aged 3;0–4;2)
showed a significant increase in the use of metaphor-based approximations, and a mod-
est rise in the production of conceptual complexes. These results are compatible with
previous studies (e.g. Klepousniotou & Baum, 2007; Rundblad & Annaz, 2010) which

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 391

Table 2.  Semantic approximations per cognitive operation and age group.

Age group Metaphor Metonymy Conceptual Random Total no. of

complexes lexical occurrences
errors per age group
1;8–3;0 20 61 2 23 121
3;0–4;2 49 60 8 10 112

had also shown an earlier onset and faster rate of development for metonymy in child
language comprehension. The younger the children, therefore, the more prone they are
to rely on metonymy-based semantic approximations in order to fill the gaps in their
immature lexicons.
The remainder of this section is devoted to a detailed analysis of each of the cognitive
operations at work in the production of semantic approximations.

Metaphor-based semantic approximations

A qualitative analysis of those metaphor-based semantic approximations in our corpus
reveals that the vast majority of them are instances of the GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
metaphor (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Lakoff & Turner, 1989). According to
Krzeszowski (1997, p. 68), the extended version of the Great Chain of Being, employed
in axiological semantics, involves five levels (i.e. GOD > HUMANS > ANIMALS >
PLANTS > INORGANIC THINGS), along which mappings can be performed both
upwards, or downwards, as illustrated by the following examples from our corpus:

(1) NATURAL PHENOMENA ARE HUMAN BEINGS

‘Regarde, maman! Les nuages y pleurent!’
[Look mummy! The clouds are crying [it is raining]!]

(2) MACHINES ARE HUMAN BEINGS

a. ‘Le micro ondes il crie’
[The microwave is shouting [beeping]]
b. ‘Maman, le bateau il nage’
[Mummy, the ship is swimming [sailing]]

(3) HUMAN BEINGS ARE MACHINES

‘Je te répare le genou maman’
[I will repair [cure] your knee]

(4) ANIMALS ARE HUMAN BEINGS

‘Le papillons ils dansent’
[The butterflies are dancing [flying around]]

(5) PLANTS ARE HUMAN BEINGS

‘Les arbres y pondent des fruits’
[Trees lay [grow] fruits]

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

392 First Language 36(4)

The systematic rendering of semantic approximations based on the GREAT CHAIN

OF BEING conceptual metaphor by the children participating in our study offers a solid
argument against those views that question the truly metaphorical status of this type of
utterances produced by young speakers. Winner (1979) was one of the first to question
whether these realizations were true metaphors or just mere overextensions (cf. Gerskoff-
Stowe, Connell, & Smith, 2006; Hoek, Ingram, & Gibson, 1986; Swan, 2012). In a simi-
lar vein, Rundblad and Annaz (2010, p. 550) point out that production studies on
metaphor have often had to struggle to justify that a certain utterance is ‘a conscious
violation of reality motivated by the perception of similarity between the two concepts
compared’. The data from our corpus show that those semantic approximations based on
metaphorical mappings produced by children are not so different from those used by
adults in order to express an abstract notion for which they lack a literal term. In both
cases, a perceived similarity between two independent conceptual domains is exploited
for the purpose of allowing communication and the expression of ideas. The fact that
adults make use of metaphor to express abstract notions, while children do so for the
expression of, in most cases, non-abstract concepts for which their immature lexicon still
lacks a specific word, should not lead us to think that these are two different conceptual
processes. On the contrary, it should motivate an exploration of the possibility that the
inventory of functions traditionally associated with conceptual metaphor is broader than
first thought, and may vary in relation to the age of the speakers. Most studies on concep-
tual metaphor to date have been based on data from adult speakers, which may explain
the present bias towards overlooking the fact that metaphor may have specific functions
in the language of children which are slightly different from those found in adult speech.
Looking in depth into the nature of the metaphor-based semantic approximations in
the corpus of analysis has also revealed a full preference for the use of comparison ver-
sus correlation cognitive operations (see the introductory section for a definition of these
cognitive operations underlying metaphorical uses of language). All 69 occurrences of
metaphor-based semantic approximations in our corpus correspond to comparison oper-
ations, correlation operations yielding zero results. This radical finding is not without
logic, since comparison operations, especially those based on the GREAT CHAIN OF
BEING, which, as noted above, are the most numerous in our corpus, often display
source and target domains that are both concrete and material in nature, and refer to
objects and entities that are observable and are often present in the children’s daily sur-
roundings. On the contrary, correlation operations typically make use of topological
abstractions (i.e. image schemas) as their source domains, and fairly abstract concepts as
their target domains (i.e. illness, health, happiness, etc.), thus being much less compati-
ble with the still inherently concrete, material, and literal world of children. These con-
clusions, however, are to be taken as tentative due to the fact that our analysis is
exclusively based on utterances with a verb pivot. The present study was designed to
investigate the latter in order to compensate for the lack of research on this specific type
of semantic approximation. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to contrast the present
findings with a parallel study of metaphor-based semantic approximations involving the
use of nouns as opposed to verbs, since the former might be more likely to allow meta-
phoric mappings of the correlational type. Additionally, cross-cultural studies have
shown that children acquire nouns before verbs in the earliest stages of lexical

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 393

development (Imai, Haryu, & Okada, 2005; Imai et al., 2008; Longobardi, Rossi-Arnaud,
Spataro, Putnick, & Bornstein, 2015), which might also have a potential influence on the
results stemming from this study.

Metonymy-based semantic approximations

As advanced in the introduction, metonymy-based cognitive operations may be of
two kinds: domain expansion and domain reduction operations. Examples (6) and (7)
from our corpus illustrate the first of these two types of cognitive operation. In (6a)
and (6b), two specific ways of ‘removing’ or ‘taking something away’ are used as
source domains, i.e. ‘déchirer’ (to unstick), in example (6a) and ‘couper’ (to cut out)
in example (6b).

(6)
SPECIFIC FOR GENERIC
a. (visualizing a white whale after a blue whale in an animated cartoon) ‘on lui a
déchiré la bleu à la baleine’
[someone has unsticked [removed] the blue from the whale]
b. (visualizing a white whale after a blue whale in an animated cartoon) ‘on lui a coupé
le bleu à la baleine’
[someone has cut off [removed] the blue from the whale]

In example (7) the effect (i.e. to disappear) has been used as the source domain of a
mapping that has the cause (i.e. the action of hiding) as its target domain:

(7) EFFECT FOR CAUSE

(her brother’s hands are hidden in his sleeves) ‘elles sont effacées ses mains’
[his hands have disappeared [are hidden]]

In turn, domain reduction operations take the matrix domain as the source of the
conceptual mapping and project it onto one of its subdomains (i.e. target). Target-in-
source metonymies of this kind highlight one specific aspect of a concept, as illustrated
by examples (8) to (10) below. Examples (8a), (8b), and (8c) show the use of a superor-
dinate verb ‘casser’ (to break) to refer to three more specific actions that involve the act
of ‘breaking or ruining an object or entity’, namely, ‘to tear up’ in (8a), ‘to cut out’ in
(8b), and ‘to puncture’ in (8c).

(8) GENERIC FOR SPECIFIC

a. (a book page is torn up) ‘est cassé le livre, y faut réparer’
[The book page is broken [torn up], it has to be mended]
b. (a chicken that has been cut out into pieces) ‘Il est cassé le poulet’
[The chicken is broken [cut out in pieces]]
c. (the ball has a puncture) ‘Le ballon est cassé’
[The ball is broken [punctured]]

The two instances of metonymy-based semantic approximations in (9) represent cases

of domain reduction operations of the CAUSE FOR EFFECT metonymy type:

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

394 First Language 36(4)

Table 3.  Metonymy-based semantic approximations per age group and cognitive operation
type.

Age group Metonymy-based semantic approximations

  Domain reduction operation Domain expansion operation Total

1;08–3;00 51 10 61
3;00–4;02 36 24 60

(9) CAUSE FOR EFFECT

a. (looking at his grandmother ironing the clothes) ‘… faut repasser mémée’
[… we have to iron [remove the wrinkles from] grandma]
b. (the public swimming-pool is empty of water) ‘pourquoi elle est renversée la piscine?’
[why has she spilled [emptied] the swimming-pool?]

Similarly, in (10) an action is taken to stand for one of the subactions that it com-
prises. Thus, ‘manger’ (to eat), which generally involves a sequence of actions (i.e.
taking a bite, swallowing it, etc.) stands for the first of them (i.e. to bite or grasp some-
thing with one’s teeth).

(10) WHOLE (ACTION) FOR ONE OF ITS PARTS

(looking at a horse that has grasped a children’s blanket with its teeth) ‘le cheval il a
mangé le manteau’
[the horse has eaten [bitten] the blanket]

The analysis of the data under the light of the distinction between domain reduction
and domain expansion metonymic mappings yields interesting results. Table 3 shows the
gross numbers for each type of metonymy-based cognitive operation (i.e. domain expan-
sion vs. domain reduction) in relation to each of the age groups:
Although both age groups produced an overall similar number of metonymy-based
semantic approximations (61 vs. 60), younger children were more likely to use domain
reduction operations. This tendency reverted for the group of older children, who dis-
played a more balanced use of both cognitive operations.
The results also showed a general preference for domain reduction operations in both
age groups. This tendency finds an explanation in the nature and level of conceptualiza-
tion of the matrix domain and subdomains functioning as source and target domains
respectively. Domain reduction operations often exhibit a matrix domain that is more
generic than its subdomains. This fits well with the stage of language development of the
participants in our study whose lexical pool is mostly made up of basic level categories
of the type described by Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, and Boyes-Braem (1976). These
basic level categories are concrete, morphologically simple, and correspond to those
words that are first learned and understood by children. Specific subordinate terms hardly
qualify as basic level categories. In fact, a fine-grained analysis of those semantic approxi-
mations based on domain reduction operations in our corpus reveals that they often exploit
the GENERIC FOR SPECIFIC metonymic mapping (as in examples (8a) to (8c) above)

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 395

in which the verb representing the matrix-source domain (i.e. casser) is a basic category,
which is conceptually more general and basic that the corresponding target domains (i.e.
to tear, to cut out, to puncture). A similar phenomenon can be witnessed in relation to the
WHOLE (ACTION) FOR ONE OF ITS PARTS metonymy in example (10), where the
matrix-source domain also exhibits a basic level category (i.e. manger). Alternatively, a
small group of domain reduction operations does not exhibit a basic level term as their
matrix (source) domain, but rather make use of a specific term. This is the case with the
CAUSE FOR EFFECT metonymies in examples (9a) and (9b). The use of specific subor-
dinate verbs, instead of basic level terms as the source domain of the mapping, is possible
in those cases in which the specific terms refer to common, daily actions that permeate a
child’s everyday life environment (e.g. ‘to iron’, ‘to spill’), whereas the corresponding
target domains are too abstract and contextually unrelated to be part of the still immature
lexical knowledge of young speakers (e.g. ‘to remove someone’s wrinkles’, ‘to empty’).
Similarly, those semantic approximations in our corpus based on domain expansion
operations also display source domains, which, though more specific in nature than the
corresponding target domains, are still conceptually more basic and contextually more
accessible than the latter. By way of illustration, consider the use of the verb ‘to unstick’
in example (6a) to refer to the more general action ‘to remove’. In this case the matrix-
target domain (i.e. ‘to remove’) is too general and abstract, while the source domain (i.e.
‘to unstick’) refers to a common recurrent action in the life of a child.
All in all, the more specific a term is, the smaller the chance that it may belong to the
basic level of categorization. Furthermore, matrix domains are often more general than
their subdomains, which explains the fact that domain reduction operations, in which the
former stands for the latter, are more amply used by children in their production of
semantic approximations.

Conceptual complexes and semantic approximations

As shown in Table 1, the data in our corpus also display some instances of conceptual
interaction. These amount to a little over 4% of the total instances of semantic approxi-
mations produced by the participants, but their existence is revealing in that it signals the
onset of more complex forms of conceptualization which will later pervade their adult
language. Their use also shows a slight increase as a function of the age of the partici-
pants. In the group of younger children, there are only 2 occurrences of semantic approxi-
mations based on conceptual interaction patterns, while older children yielded 8 instances
of conceptual complexes (see Table 2).
The patterns of combination of cognitive operations that have proved more produc-
tive among our participants include those of metaphtonymy and double metonymy.
Conceptual interaction based exclusively on metaphorical mappings has yielded no
results. Thus, participants in our study have produced no instances of metaphorical
complexes or metaphorical chains (see Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa [2014,
pp. 96ff.] for a definition of these patterns of interaction). This is in accordance with the
difficulty associated with metaphorical mappings. Metaphor is located at the most figu-
rative end of the continuum of literalness, and therefore, not only metaphor-based
semantic approximations, but also those patterns of conceptual interaction hinging

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

396 First Language 36(4)

exclusively on metaphor result in a higher cognitive cost and a greater difficulty, which
in turn explains their lower frequency of occurrence in a corpus of child language.
Those patterns of semantic approximations based on the interaction of two cognitive
operations that do occur in our data involve either the combination of a metaphor and a
metonymy (i.e. metaphtonymy), or the activation of a double metonymic mapping (i.e.
double metonymy).
Examples (11a) to (11c) from our corpus are instances of metaphor–metonymy inter-
action (i.e. metaphtonymies):

(11) METAPHTONYMIES
a. (in answer to her mother’s question ‘Where have you left your coat?’ in a context in
which it is clear that the coat has disappeared/is not at sight) ‘Il est parti le manteau.’
[The coat has gone/departed]
b. (after seeing how the bathtub is emptied) ‘Voilà… la baignoire elle a tout bu. Elle a
trop soif.’
[…the bathtub has drunk everything. She is very thirsty]
c. (talking with her mother about a pen that doesn’t work) ‘Maman regarde, mon stylo
y est constipé!’
[Look, mummy, my pen is constipated]

All three examples above exhibit a conceptual metaphor exploiting the GREAT
CHAIN OF BEING hierarchy in which three different inanimate objects (i.e. a coat, a
bathtub, and a pen) are conceptualized as animate entities. Thus, in example (11a) we
find a coat that partakes of the ability to move (‘Il est parti le manteau’), in (11b) the child
conceptualizes a bathtub as a thirsty being, and in (11c) the ability to be ‘constipated’,
which is typical of animate entities, is projected onto an inanimate object (i.e. a pen).
These metaphors are combined with three domain reduction operations of the CAUSE
FOR EFFECT type. The metonymy in example (11a) makes the cause (i.e. the action of
leaving) stand for one of its effects (i.e. the disappearance of the entity that leaves). In
example (11b), the action of drinking stands for one of its effects, namely, that the container
holding the liquid is emptied. Finally, in example (11c) the state of constipation is made to
stand for one of its consequences (i.e. in this case, the lack of ink coming out of the pen).
Most of the cases of conceptual interaction in our corpus, however, hang on the com-
bination of two metonymies. Double metonymies, as noted in the introduction, can be of
four different types. Our corpus has yielded several instances of double metonymies
involving a metonymic expansion plus a subsequent metonymic reduction, as illustrated
by examples (12a) and (12b):

(12) DOUBLE METONYMY: SPECIFIC FOR GENERIC FOR SPECIFIC

a. (his mother is drinking her tea) ‘tu mange le thé’
[You eat [drink] your tea]
b. (regarding a dress that has no buttons) ‘Maman, tu peux recoller les boutons’
[Mum, you can glue back together [sew on] the buttons]

In example (12a) the source domain ‘manger’ (to eat) affords access to the general
domain of ‘to ingest food’, which, in turn, serves as source domain for the intended target

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 397

domain (to drink). In a similar way, in (12b), we find a first domain expansion operation
from the specific action of ‘recoller’ (to stick things back together with glue) to the
generic domain of those actions which involve ‘putting things together’, followed by a
second domain reduction operation from that generic concept to the more specific target
domain of ‘sewing’ the buttons.
All in all, however, the number of semantic approximations based on conceptual
interaction is clearly lower than that of those hinging on metaphoric and metonymic
mappings in isolation. This comes as no surprise given the age of the children participat-
ing in the present study. The latter are still mastering the use of single cognitive opera-
tions for the purpose of communicating concepts for which they still lack the orthodox
lexical item. In fact, they still barely make use of these mappings for the expression of
abstract notions (as is mainly the case in adult speech). The use of conceptual metaphor
and metonymy for the expression of figurative meaning, and their extended usage as part
of conceptual interaction patterns, is only to be expected at later stages of language
development.

Conclusions
The results of the present study offer new insights into the nature, motivation, and con-
ceptual strategies involved in the production of semantic approximations in early child-
hood. The analysis of our data supports our initial hypothesis that a significant number
of the semantic approximations found in the language of children obey the underlying
workings of a set of limited cognitive operations (i.e. comparison, domain reduction, and
domain expansion) and, to a lesser extent, to their combination into more complex pat-
terns of conceptual interaction (i.e. metaphtonymies and double metonymies). The fact
that semantic approximations produced by young speakers have their origin in the same
conceptual operations that adult speakers use for other communicative purposes (e.g. the
expression of abstract notions) explains the fact that those parents who participated in
our study were able to recognize and understand the ultimate communicative intention
behind their children’s unorthodox utterances without much ado.
This investigation is one of the first corpus-based studies to assess differences in the
performance of metaphor and metonymy-based cognitive operations in the production of
semantic approximations in child language, since previous studies have focused exclu-
sively on comprehension issues (see Rundblad & Annaz, 2010). While this study can
make a relevant contribution as an initial demonstration of the conceptual basis of
semantic approximations in the language of children, we are mindful that the conclusions
drawn could benefit from a complementary analysis of semantic approximations with a
nominal pivot. Given the fact that cross-cultural studies have pointed to a preference for
the acquisition of nouns over verbs in early stages of language development, it would be
interesting to see if semantic approximations based on nouns display the same preference
for metonymic mappings as those hinging on verbs.
We are also aware that the age period that is the object of our study may be too wide
in nature. Between 1;8 and 4;2, it is possible to find well-described landmarks of lan-
guage acquisition, such as the vocabulary spurt or name deficit phase (Bates & Carnevale,
1993; Bowerman, 1978, 1982; Dromi, 1987; Ganger & Brent, 2004; Gerskoff-Stowe &

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

398 First Language 36(4)

Smith, 1997). This phase is characterized by a noticeable and fast increase in the amount
of words learnt by children (Fenson, Reznick, Bates, & Thal, 1994). It takes place around
the second year of life and has traditionally been associated with a period in which the
language of children is crowded with errors and slips of the tongue, due to the difficulty
involved in processing the quickly expanding number of lexical items and semantic rep-
resentations that abruptly enter the children’s minds. Further research should be devoted
to assess whether or not the rate of true lexical errors versus semantic approximations
based on cognitive operations, during the vocabulary spurt phase, differs from the gen-
eral results presented here for the broader period of time under scrutiny. In fact, our
analysis already suggests that choice of cognitive operations varies as a factor of age
throughout childhood, with younger participants (i.e. 1;8–3;0) favoring the use of meton-
ymy-based cognitive operations in their production of semantic approximations over that
of metaphor-based utterances, and older children (i.e. 3;0–4;2) increasingly turning to
the use of semantic approximations based on the use of metaphor and conceptual com-
plexes (e.g. metaphtonymies and double metonymies). These findings are compatible
with the existing literature indicating that metaphor comprehension, at least, increases
with chronological age (Billow, 1975) and with an increase in world knowledge (Naylor
& Herwegen, 2012; Norbury, 2005; Rundblad & Annaz, 2010). The issue of metaphor
production, though, is more controversial, with some authors (Pollio & Pollio, 1974)
establishing its onset at 8 years of age, others (Billow, 1981; Laganaro, 1997; Piaget,
1962; Winner, 1979) bringing that age back to as early as 2 years old, and yet more recent
studies arguing for metaphor production increasing over development (Katis & Selimis,
2009; Rundblad & Annaz, 2010). An analysis of a longitudinal corpus of semantic
approximations based on metaphorical operations could throw further light on this issue.
Caveats aside, the findings reported in this article invite researchers working within
the field of child language to reconsider the nature and motivation underlying semantic
approximations. The results should also encourage cognitive linguists to revisit the num-
ber of functions associated with cognitive metaphors and cognitive metonymies in rela-
tion to the language of young speakers. If one of their main functions in the language of
adult speakers is to allow the conceptualization and expression of abstract notions which
are not amenable to literal language, young children seem to use the same cognitive
operations for a more basic need, that of allowing the communication of concepts, not
necessarily abstract ones, for which they still lack the correct/proper term.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: The research on which this article is based was financed by the
Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grant no. FFI2013-43593-P.

References
Agustín Llach, M. P. (2005). A critical review of the terminology and taxonomies used in the lit-
erature on lexical errors. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 31, 11–24.

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 399

Agustín Llach, M. P. (2011). Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing. London,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Ambridge, B. (2013). How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations?: A grammaticality
judgement study. Cognitive Science, 37, 508–543.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Chang, F., & Bidgood, A. (2013). The retreat from
overgeneralization in child language acquisition: Word learning, morphology, and verb argu-
ment structure. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4, 47–62.
Barcelona, A. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with par-
ticular attention to metonymic chains. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive
linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bates, E., & Carnevale, G. (1993). New directions in research on language development.
Developmental Review, 13, 436–470.
Billow, R. (1981). Observing spontaneous metaphors in children. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 31, 430–445.
Billow, R. M. (1975). A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental
Psychology, 11, 415–423.
Bowerman, M. (1978). Systematizing semantic knowledge: Changes over time in the child’s
organization of word meaning. Child Development, 41, 977–987.
Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In E.
Wanner, & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319–346).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption
and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 85, 55–83.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of
metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining meton-
ymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Chouinard, M. M., & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evi-
dence. Journal of Child Language, 30, 637–669.
Clark, E. V. (1995). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, E. V., & Bernicot, J. (2008). Repetition as ratification: How parents and children place
information in common ground. Journal of Child Language, 35, 349–371.
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event related
study. Memory & Cognition, 30, 958–968.
Denroche, C. (2014). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York:
Routledge.
Dromi, E. (1987). Early lexical development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Duvignau, K. (2002). La métaphore, berceau et enfant de la langue: la métaphore verbale
comme approximation sémantique par analogie dans les textes scientifiques et les produc-
tions enfantines (2–4 ans) [Metaphor, birthplace and childhood of language: verbal meta-
phor as semantic approximation through analogy in scientific texts and childhood verbal
productions  (2–4 years)]. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation—Linguistics). Université
Toulouse, France.
Duvignau, K. (2003). Métaphore verbale et approximation [Verbal metaphor and approximation].
Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 5–6, 869–881.
Duvignau, K., Fossard, M., Gaume, B., Pimenta, M. A., & Elie, J. (2007). Semantic approxima-
tions and flexibility in the dynamic construction and ‘deconstruction’ of meaning. Linguagem
em (Dis)curso, 7, 371–387.
Fenson, L., Reznick, D., Bates, P.S., & Thal, D. (1994). Variability in early communicative devel-
opment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, Serial no. 242.

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

400 First Language 36(4)

Galera-Masegosa, A. (2010a). A cognitive approach to simile-based idiomatic expressions.

Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 43, 3–48.
Galera-Masegosa, A. (2010b). Metaphoric complexes: A Spanish-English contrastive analysis
of metaphor and metonymy in interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 23,
175–194.
Ganger, J., & Brent, M. R. (2004). Reexamining the vocabulary spurt. Developmental Psychology,
40, 621–632.
Gaskell, M. G., & Ellis, A. W. (2009). Word learning and lexical development across the lifespan.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 36, 3607–3615.
Geeraerts, D. (2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions.
In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast
(pp. 435–465). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gerskoff-Stowe, L., Connell, B., & Smith, L. (2006). Priming overgeneralizations in two- and
four-year-old children. Journal of Child Language, 33, 46–486.
Gerskoff-Stowe, L., & Smith, L. B. (1997). A curvilinear trend in naming errors as a function of
early vocabulary growth. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 37–71.
Ghassabian, A., Rescorla, L., Henrichs, J., Jaddoe, V. W., Verhulst, F. C., & Tiemeier, H. W.
(2014). Early lexical development and risk of verbal and nonverbal cognitive delay at school
age. Acta Paediatrica, 103, 70–80.
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive
Linguistics, 22, 131–154.
Goosens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for
linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323–340.
Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance.
In R. Gibbs, & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from
the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has
it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.
Hoek, D., Ingram, D., & Gibson, D. (1986). Some possible causes of children’s early word over-
extensions. Journal of Child Language, 13, 477–494.
Imai, M., Haryu, E., & Okada, H. (2005). Mapping novel nouns and verbs onto dynamic action
events: Are verb meanings easier to learn than noun meanings for Japanese children? Child
Development, 76, 340–355.
Imai, M., Li, L., Haryu, E., Okada, H., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., & Shigematsu, J. (2008).
Novel noun and verb learning in Chinese-, English-, and Japanese-speaking children. Child
Development, 79, 979–1000.
Iozzi, L., & Barbieri, M. S. (2009). Preschoolers’ use of analogies in referential communication.
First Language, 29, 192–207.
Jaeger, J. J. (2005). Kids’ slips: What young children’s slips of the tongue reveal about language
development. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jiménez Catalán, R. (1992). Errores en la producción escrita del inglés y posibles factores con-
dicionantes [Errors in written English production: possible constraints and factors]. Madrid,
Spain: Universidad Complutense.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Katis, D., & Selimis, S. (2009). The development of metaphoric motion: Evidence from Greek
children’s narratives. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting-Berkeley Linguistics Society, 31,
205–216.

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 401

Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Clarifying further the ambiguity advantage effect in
word recognition: Effects of aging and left-hemisphere damage on the processing of homon-
ymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 103, 148–149.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. (1997). Angels and devils in hell: Elements of axiology in semantics.
Warszawa, Poland: Wydawnictwo Energeia.
Laganaro, M. (1997). Production et compréhension des métaphores chez l’enfant [Production and
understanding of children’s use of metaphors]. Archives de Psychologie, 253, 141–165.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence and communicative language ability.
Applied Linguistics, 27, 268–294.
Longobardi, E., Rossi-Arnaud, C., Spataro, P., Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2015).
Children’s acquisition of nouns and verbs in Italian: Contrasting the roles of frequency and
positional salience in maternal language. Journal of Child Language, 42, 95–121.
Naylor, L., & Herwegen, J. V. (2012). The production of figurative language in typically
developing children and Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33,
711–716.
Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D., & Todd, Z. (1999). ‘Mummy, I like being a sandwich’: Metonymy
in language acquisition. In K-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and
thought (pp. 361–384). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Nooteboom, S. G. (1980). Speaking and unspeaking: Detection and correction of phonological and
lexical errors in spontaneous speech. In V. Fromkin (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance
(pp. 87–95). London, England: Academic Press.
Norbury, C. F. (2005). The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence from
children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 23, 383–399.
Pauwels, P. (1999). Putting metonymy in its place. In K. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy
in language and thought (pp. 255–274). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2013). Illocutionary constructions: (Multiple source)-in-target metonymies,
illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language and Communication, 33(2), 128–149.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition,
95, 201–236.
Pollio, M. R., & Pollio, H. R. (1974). The development of figurative language in children. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 3, 185–201.
Ramscar, M., & Yarlett, D. (2007). Linguistic self-correction in the absence of feedback: A new
approach to the logical problem of language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 31, 927–960.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects
in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy.
In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

402 First Language 36(4)

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven, & R.
Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric
and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3, 1–29.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2012). Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in
phrasal verb interpretation: Metaphoric chains. In B. Eizaga (Ed.), Studies in linguistics and
cognition (pp. 157–185). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Verlag.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez-Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation,
constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357.
Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehen-
sion: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 28, 547–563.
Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Steen, G., Dorst, A. T. G., Herrman, J. B., Kaal, A. A., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). Metaphor in
usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 765–796.
Strapp, C. M., & Federico, A. (2000). Imitations and repetitions: What do children say following
recasts? First Language, 3, 273–290.
Swan, D. W. (2012). How to build a lexicon: A case study of lexical errors and innovations. First
Language, 20, 187–204.
Verhallen, M., & Schoonen, R. (1993). Lexical knowledge of monolingual and bilingual children.
Applied Linguistics, 4, 344–363.
Winner, E. (1979). New names for old things: The emergence of metaphoric language. Journal of
Child Language, 6, 469–491.
Zimmerman, R. (1986). Semantics and lexical error analysis. Englisch-Amerikanische Studien, 2,
294–305.
Zimmerman, R. (1987). Form-oriented and content-oriented lexical errors in L2 learners. IRAL,
25, 55–67.

Appendix 1
Methodological steps followed in the classification of semantic
approximations
Step 1: Identification of metaphorical mappings through application of the MIPVU
methodology (Steen et al., 2010, p. 25):
1. Each of the children’s productions was divided into lexical units.
2. The basic meaning of each lexical item was looked up in a dictionary. By
‘basic meaning’, the MIPVU understands the most physical or concrete mean-
ing listed in the dictionary entry for that lexical item.
3. The basic meaning was compared to the contextual meaning of that lexical
item.

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 403

4. If the basic and contextual meanings were distinct, but could still be related by
some sort of similarity, then the semantic approximation was classified as
involving a metaphorical operation.
Step 2: Identification of metonymic mappings and conceptual complexes through
application of a modified version of the MIPVU methodology:
1. Each of the children’s productions was divided into lexical units.
2. The basic meaning of each lexical item was looked up in a dictionary. By ‘basic
meaning’, the MIPVU understands the most physical or concrete meaning listed
in the dictionary entry for that lexical item.
3. The basic meaning was compared to the contextual meaning of that lexical item.
4. If the basic and contextual meanings were distinct, but could still be linked by
some sort of functional contiguity, cause–effect, or part–whole relationship, then
the semantic approximation was classified as involving a metonymic operation.
Step 3: Those occurrences which fitted the criteria in steps 1 and 2 were classified as
instances of conceptual interaction.
Step 4: Those occurrences which did not fit any of the criteria in steps 1 and 2 were
classified as random lexical errors.
Step 5: Those occurrences classified as metaphorical in step 1 were reanalyzed in
order to distinguish between comparison and correlation operations. This was an
straightforward task since correlation operations invariably involve a spatial and/or
experientially-based concept or embodied image-schemas (e.g. up–down, near–far,
center–periphery, hot–cold, etc.) which are easy to identify (see Johnson, 1987, for an
exhaustive list of image-schemas which may work as source domains of correlational
metaphors).
Step 6: Those occurrences classified as metonymic in step 2 were reanalyzed in order
to distinguish between domain reduction and domain expansion operations. Again,
this task was fairly straightforward since the contextual meaning was taken as the
target domain, thus determining the direction of fit.
Step 7: Steps 1–6 were carried out independently by the two authors of the article,
and the resulting classifications compared in search for mismatches. There was coin-
cidence in all cases.
Step 8: The final classification was revised by two additional cognitive linguists who
agreed on the allocation carried out by the authors.

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

404 First Language 36(4)

Appendix 2
Sample list of examples in the corpus (Duvignau 2002),
classified per category of semantic approximation
1. Metaphor-based semantic approximations
1a. Semantic approximations based on comparison operations (69 occurrences).

No. Age Context Occurrence Mapping

[11] 2;2 /voyant une péniche qui se déplace «maman le bateau il nage» INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE
sur le canal – [watching a barge [mummy, the ship, it is ANIMATE ENTITIES
moving along the canal] swimming]
[47] 2;7 /image vidéo de dromadaires «les dromadaires y sont garés» ANIMATE ENTITIES ARE
immobiles – [a video of some [the camels are parked] INANIMATE ENTITIES
motionless camels]
[70] 2;8 /au sujet d’une pomme toute «il est mort le fruit» INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE
ratatinée – [in relation to an apple [it is dead, the fruit] ANIMATE ENTITIES
that is rotten]
[145] 3;5 /au sujet d’une fontaine d’où coule «elle vomit la fontaine» INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE
de l’eau – [in relation to a fountain [it is throwing up, the fountain] ANIMATE ENTITIES
that is overflowing with water]
[167] 3;5 /voyant la démolition d’une maison – «elle va mourir la maison …» INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE
[watching a house being demolished] [it is going to die, the house] ANIMATE ENTITIES

1b. Semantic approximations based on correlation operations: No occurrences.

2. Metonymy-based semantic approximations

2a. Semantic approximations based on domain-reduction operations (87 occurrences).

No. Age Context Occurrence Mapping

[21] 2;5 /regardant la lune – [looking at the «la lune elle est collée dans le CAUSE (coller [to glue]) FOR
moon] ciel» EFFECT (être [to be])
[the moon is glued to the sky]
[23] 2;5 /poulet découpé en morceaux – [the «il est cassé le poulet» GENERIC (casser [to break])
chicken has been quartered into [it is broken, the chicken] FOR SPECIFIC (découper [to
pieces] quarter])
[76] 2;10 /à propos de son nez complètement «il est cassé mon nez» GENERIC (casser [to break])
bouché – [in relation to her nose [my nose is broken] FOR SPECIFIC (boucher [to
which is completely blocked] be blocked])
[185] 3;6 /sa maman rentre de chez le coiffeur. «regardez, Maman a repassé tout CAUSE (repasser [to iron])
D’ordinaire très frisée, elle s’est ses cheveux!» FOR EFFECT (lisser [to
fait faire un brushing pour lisser ses [look, mummy has ironed her straighten])
cheveux – [his mother comes back hair]
from the hairdresser. She usually has
curly hair, but she has had her hair
straightened]
[227] 4;1 /l’enfant est enroué – [the child has «j’ai la voix un peu cassée, mais GENERIC (casser [to break])
become hoarse] elle commence à se reconstruire» FOR SPECIFIC (enrouer [to
[my voice is a bit broken, but it is become hoarse])
beginning to rebuild itself]

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

Pérez-Hernández and Duvignau 405

2b. Semantic approximations based on domain-expansion operations (34 occurrences).

No. Age Context Occurrence Mapping

[110] 3 /Nicolas est malade. En «maman, y a le chauffage EFFECT (chauffage [heating])

pleine nuit, tout fiévreux, il va
réveiller sa maman – [Nicolas is
sick. In the middle of the night,
feverish, he wakes up his mum]
[163] 3;5 /l’enfant brosse les cheveux de
son père – [the child brushes
his father’s hair]
[192] 3;7 /à propos d’une image de
poisson – [in relation to the
picture of a fish]
[213] 3;11 /tendant une feuille qu’il a pris
sur le rouleau – [in relation to
a leaf which he has got stuck to
the roller]
[232] 4;2 /au sujet d’un chew-gum qui a
deux couleurs/parfums – [in
relation to a chewing gum with
two colors/flavors]
dans ma tête…»
[mummy, there is heating in
my head]
«Je t’allonge les cheveux»
[I straighten your hair]
«il habite dans la mer ce
poisson»
[it inhabits the sea, this fish]
«maman j’en ai cueilli une
autre»
[mummy, I have harvested
another one]
«ils ont accrochés deux
couleurs»
[they have hooked up the
two colors]
FOR CAUSE (fièvre [fever]
EFFECT (allonger [to
straighten] FOR CAUSE
(brosser [to brush])
SPECIFIC (habiter [to
inhabit]) FOR GENERIC
(vivre [to live])
SPECIFIC (cueillir [to
harvest]) FOR GENERIC
(prendre [to take])
SPECIFIC (accrocher [to
hook up]) FOR GENERIC
(assembler [to put together])

3. Semantic approximations based on conceptual complexes

3a. Semantic approximations based on metaphor–metonymy interactions (3 occurrences).

No. Age Context Occurrence Mapping

[30] 2;6 /où t’a mis ton manteau?
– [where have you put
your coat?]
[102] 3 /après avoir regardé
la baignoire se vider
– [after seeing how the
bathtub empties]
[103] 3 /son stylo ne fonctionne
plus – [his pen doesn’t
work]
«il est parti le manteau» Metonymy:
[it has gone, my coat] CAUSE (partir [to go]) FOR EFFECT
(disappearance of the coat)
+
Metaphor:
INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE ANIMATE
ENTITIES
«Voilà… la baignoire elle Metonymy:
a tout bu. Elle a trop CAUSE (boire [to drink]) FOR EFFECT
soif» (to empty the container)
[There you are… the +
bathtub has drunk it all. Metaphor:
She is very thirsty] INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE ANIMATE
ENTITIES
«Maman regarde, mon Metonymy:
stylo y est constipé!» CAUSE (être constipé [to be
[Mummy look, my pen is constipated]) FOR EFFECT (lack of ink
constipated!] coming out of the pen)
+
Metaphor:
INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE ANIMATE
ENTITIES

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

406 First Language 36(4)

3b. Semantic approximations based on double metonymies (7 occurrences).

No. Age Context Occurrence Mapping

[56] 2;8 /sa mère s’est servi un thé
– [her mother has served
herself a cup of tea]
[189] 3;6 /au sujet d’un vêtement auquel
il manque des boutons – [in
relation to an item of clothing
which is missing its buttons]
[215] 4 /regardant un avion qui vole
dans le ciel – [watching a
plane flying in the sky]
[218] 4 /observant sa maman qui se
lime les ongles – [observing
her mother who is filing her
nails]
[225] 4 /à table, au repas – [at the
table, during lunch]
«tu peux manger ton SPECIFIC (manger [to eat])
thé» FOR GENERIC (to ingest) FOR
[you can eat your tea] SPECIFIC (boire [to drink])
«maman, tu peux recoller SPECIFIC (recoller [to glue
les boutons» again) FOR GENERIC (to
[mummy, you can glue the join together) FOR SPECIFIC
buttons again] (recoudre [to sew again])
«l’avion marche dans le SPECIFIC (marcher [to walk])
ciel» FOR GENERIC (to move) FOR
[the plane walks in the sky] SPECIFIC (voler [to fly])
«Moi aussi je veux me SPECIFIC (coiffer- [to comb])
coiffer les ongles!» FOR GENERIC (action
[I want to comb my nails of personal hygiene) FOR
too!] SPECIFIC (limer [to file])
«les couteaux ça se SPECIFIC (construire [to build])
construit avec le fer» FOR GENERIC (to make)
[the knives are built with FOR SPECIFIC (fabriquer [to
iron] manufacture])

3c. Semantic approximations based on metaphorical complexes: No occurrences.

Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com by guest on July 12, 2016

View publication stats