Skip to main content

The moustache sits down first”: on the acquisition of metonymy*


This study investigates preschoolers’ ability to understand and produce novel metonyms. We gave forty-seven children (aged 2;9–5;9) and twenty-seven adults one comprehension task and two elicitation tasks. The first elicitation task investigated their ability to use metonyms as referential shorthands, and the second their willingness to name animates metonymically on the basis of a salient property. Although children were outperformed by adults, even three-year-olds could understand and produce metonyms in certain circumstances. Our results suggest that young children may find it easier to produce a metonym than a more elaborate referential description in certain contexts, and that metonymy may serve as a useful strategy in referring to entities that lack a conventional label. However, metonymy comprehension appeared to decrease with age, with older children tending to choose literal interpretations of some metonyms. This could be a result of growing metalinguistic awareness, which leads children to overemphasize literal meanings.

Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Ingrid L. Falkum, Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature, University of Oslo, PO Box 1020 Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway. e-mail:
Hide All

This research was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Research Council of Norway (project no. 205513), awarded to the first author, and by a Beatriu de Pinós postdoctoral fellowship from Generalitat de Catalunya (2010 BP-A 00149), awarded to the second author. We would like to thank the children and staff (especially Chia-wa Yeh and Jennifer Winters) at Bing Nursery School, Stanford; this research would not have been possible without them. We thank Megan O'Neil and Marisa Casillas for all help with the data collection. Also special thanks to Petter Laake and Ewart Thomas for statistical advice, and to Robyn Carston, Eduard Hovy, Georg Kjøll, Brian MacWhinney, Agustín Vicente, and in particular Deirdre Wilson for insightful comments and discussion on earlier drafts. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers whose helpful comments on previous drafts substantially improved the paper. Marta Recasens is currently at Google Inc.

Hide All
Acredolo, L. & Goodwyn, S. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child Development 59, 450–66.
Akhtar, N., Carpenter, M. & Tomasello, M. (1996). The role of discourse novelty in early word learning. Child Development 67, 635–45.
Apresjan, J. D. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics 14(2), 532.
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1), 6782.
Asch, S. & Nerlove, H. (1960). The development of double function terms in children: an exploratory investigation. In Kaplan, B. & Wapner, S. (eds), Perspectives in psychological theory: essays in honor of Heinz Werner, 4760. New York: International Universities Press.
Billow, R. M. (1975). A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental Psychology 11(4), 415–23.
Bloom, P. (2002). Mindreading, communication and the learning of names for things. Mind & Language 1/2, 3754.
Bowerman, M. (1982). Starting to talk worse: clues to language acquisition from children's late speech errors. In Stavy, R. & Strauss, S. (eds), U-shaped behavioural growth, 101–45. New York: Academic Press.
Bushnell, E. W. & Maratsos, M. P. (1984). ‘Spooning’ and ‘basketing’: children's dealing with accidental gaps in the lexicon. Child Development 55, 893902.
Clark, E. V. (1982). The young word maker: a case study of innovation in the child's lexicon. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art, 390425. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, E. V. (1997). Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in acquisition. Cognition 64, 137.
Clark, E. V. & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4), 767811.
Clark, E. V., Gelman, S. A. & Lane, N. M. (1985). Compound nouns and category structure in young children. Child Development 56(1), 8494.
Copestake, A. & Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12(1), 1567.
Crozier, W. R. & Dimmock, P. S. (1999). Name-calling and nicknames in a sample of primary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology 69(4), 505–16.
Deamer, F. (2013). An investigation into the processes and mechanisms underlying the comprehension of metaphor and hyperbole. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University College London.
Doherty, M. & Perner, J. (1998). Metalinguistic awareness and theory of mind: Just two words for the same thing? Cognitive Development 13(3), 279305.
Ervin, S. (1964). Imitation and structural change in children's language. In Lenneberg, E. H. (ed.), New directions in the study of language, 163–89. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76(5), 378–82.
Frisson, S. & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(4), 595613.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Gottfried, G. M. (1997). Using metaphors as modifiers: children's production of metaphoric compounds. Journal of Child Language 24, 567601.
Huttenlocher, J. & Smiley, P. (1987). Early word meanings: the case of object names. Cognitive Psychology 19, 6389.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 434–46.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keil, F. C. (1986). Conceptual domains and the acquisition of metaphor. Cognitive Development 1, 7396.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Konieczna, E. & Kleparski, G. A. (2006). Motivation in language: the case of metonymically motivated innovative nouns in children's speech. Odisea 7, 103–17.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–74.
Levorato, M. C. & Cacciari, C. (2002). The creation of new figurative expressions: psycholinguistic evidence in Italian children, adolescents and adults. Journal of Child Language 29, 127–50.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mittelberg, I. (2006). Metaphor and metonymy in language and gesture: discourse evidence for multimodal models of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D. D. (2001). Serial metonymy: a study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(2), 245–72.
Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D. & Todd, Z. (1999). ‘Mummy, I like being a sandwich.’ Metonymy in language acquisition. In Panther, K. & Radden, G. (eds), Metonymy in language and thought, 361–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Noveck, I. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78, 165–88.
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3(2), 143–84.
Özçalışkan, Ş. (2005). On learning how to draw the distinction between physical and metaphorical motion: Is metaphor an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity? Journal of Child Language 32, 291318.
Papafragou, A. (1996). On metonymy. Lingua 99, 169–95.
Papafragou, A. & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition 86, 253–82.
Pouscolous, N. (2011). Metaphor: For adults only? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 25, 5179.
Rabagliati, H., Marcus, G. F. & Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Shifting senses in lexical semantic development. Cognition 117, 1737.
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (eds), Metonymy in language and thought, 1759. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382439.
Rundblad, G. & Annaz, D. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 28, 547–63.
Schönefeld, D. (2005). Zero-derivation – functional change – metonymy. In Bauer, L. & Valera, S. (eds), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation, 125–55. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
Sperber, D. (1994). Understanding verbal understanding. In Khalfa, J. (ed.), What is intelligence? 179–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stites, L. & Özçalışkan, Ş. (2013). Developmental changes in children's comprehension and explanation of spatial metaphors for time. Journal of Child Language 40, 1123–37.
Tunmer, W. E., Pratt, C. & Herriman, M. L. (eds) (1984). Metalinguistic awareness in children. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Van Herwegen, J., Dimitriou, D. & Rundblad, G. (2013). Development of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in typically developing children and Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities 34(4), 1300–11.
Vosniadou, S. (1987). Children and metaphors. Child Development 58(3), 870–85.
Vosniadou, S. & Orthony, A. (1983). The emergence of the literal–metaphorical–anomalous distinction in young children. Child Development 54, 154–61.
Warren, B. (2006). Referential metonymy. Lund: Publications of the Royal Society of Letters at Lund.
Wilson, D. & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–59. London: Palgrave.
Wilson, D. & Falkum, I. L. (2014). Metonymy and relevance. Paper presented at the Workshop on Relevance, Literariness and Style, Middlesex University, London.
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winner, E. (1988/1997). The point of words: children's understanding of metaphor and irony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winner, E., Engel, M. & Gardner, H. (1980). Misunderstanding metaphor: What's the problem. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 30, 2232.
Winner, E., Rosenstiel, A. K. & Gardner, H. (1976). The development of metaphoric understanding. Developmental Psychology 12(4), 289–97.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Child Language
  • ISSN: 0305-0009
  • EISSN: 1469-7602
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-child-language
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 19
Total number of PDF views: 130 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 622 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th March 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.