A Study of Chained Metonymic Expressions of Body Part Terms Hand and Head in Hausa

Citation: Gwarzo, Y. A. and Auwal,  M. D. (2025). “A Study of Chained Metonymic Expressions of Body Part Terms Hand and Head in Hausa.” in Ɗunɗaye Journal of Hausa Studies, Vol. 03, No. 02, Pp. 1 – 12. www.doi.org/10.36349/djhs.2025.v03i02.001.

A STUDY OF CHAINED METONYMIC EXPRESSIONS OF BODY PART TERMS HAND AND HEAD IN HAUSA

Yusuf Ahmed Gwarzo

Department of Nigerian Languages, Northwest University, Kano

And

Muhammad Dayyib Auwal

Department of Nigerian Languages, Northwest University, Kano

Abstract:

This study examines the serial structure of chained metonymies associated with the body parts "hand" (hannuu) and "head" (kâi) in Hausa. It focuses on identifying the common metonymic mappings within these chained metonymies and the primary semantic domains in which they occur. The analysis is based on Hilpert’s (2005) chained metonymy model and Conceptual Metonymy Theory, originally proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and later refined by Radden and Dirven (2007). Data were gathered through participant observations, where the literal meanings of expressions involving the body parts were recorded, along with additional meanings that evoked multiple conceptual shifts. The findings reveal that "hand" and "head" are extensively utilized by Hausa speakers to form conceptual expressions through chained metonymies. Moreover, the results support Hilpert’s (2005) claim that chained metonymies typically originate with E-metonymies.

Key words: Chained Metonymies, Conceptual Metonymy, Metonymic Mapping, Categories-Metonymies, Entity-Metonymies, Hausa Language

Introduction

Studies on cognitive semantics take different dimensions to that of the formal semantics. In recent years, studies have been conducted with a cognitive semantic perspective like that of Auwal (2018, 2023), Gwarzo (2019, 2021, 2024) and Imam (2018) among others. However, this study analyzes the serial structure of chained metonymies involving "hand" and "head" in the Hausa language.

Chained metonymy refers to multiple conceptual shifts within a single domain (Hilpert, 2005). The serial nature of metonymy has been explored by many cognitive linguists (e.g., Geeraerts, 2002; Nerlich & Clarke, 2001; Reddy, 1979; Ruiz de Mendoza & Díez, 2002; Zhang, Speelman, & Geeraerts, 2010), showing that the multiple conceptual shifts involved in metonymy not only bring about diachronic semantic change but also play a crucial role in polysemy from a synchronic perspective (Zhang et al., 2010). Seto (1999) proposes a classification of metonymic mapping, and based on this, Hilpert (2005, 2006, and 2007) identified the serial nature of chained metonymies. Within the Hausa language, some attempts have been made to explore the nature of conceptual metonymy (e.g., Almajir, 2011a, 2013a, 2013b; Chamo, 2013; Gwarzo, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2024; Imam, 2018; Shehu, 2019, 2020, 2022; Tsakuwa, Wen, & Lamido, 2023).

Therefore, this study aims to investigate the serial structure of hand and head chained metonymies in Hausa. Specifically, it attempts to identify the serial structure of these chained metonymies, the metonymic mappings that frequently occur within them, and the most common semantic domains where chained metonymies occur regularly in Hausa concrete nouns.

Human body parts are crucial in creating conceptualized expressions such as conceptual metonymy. Kövecses (2002) posits that the human body is the best candidate for the source domain for conceptualized expressions, as it is clearly defined and easily understood. He also stated that body parts frequently employed in metonymical conception include hands, head, face, legs, back, and heart, among others. Therefore, the experiential basis of conceptual metonymy is both bodily and cultural. The human mind is embodied in such a way that our conceptual systems draw heavily on the peculiarities of the human body and the specifics of our physical and cultural environment (Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff& Johnson, 1999; Maalej & Yu, 2011; Yu, 2008).

Moreover, body parts are classified into two main groups: Internal and external parts. Internal body parts include the heart, liver, mind, blood, and nerves, while external body parts include the hand, head (with components such as the eye, nose, and mouth), and legs. As one of the defining characteristics of human beings, the hands and head are crucial body parts that interact with the external world. We act through and hold things with our hands and head. Our bodily experiences with our hands and head form a common experiential base for many shared conceptual metonymies that structure abstract concepts in all languages (Yu, 2008).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study integrates Hilpert’s (2005) model of chained metonymies. Hilpert (2005) argues that a single metonymic mapping is often insufficient to explain the conceptual or semantic shifts observed in certain examples. For instance:

a. Bob gave an interesting paper.

b. material → writing → ideas (Hilpert 2005, p. 2).

Example (a) implies that Bob presented some interesting ideas. While it is possible to propose a direct metonymic mapping where the material "paper" stands for the "ideas" (PAPER STANDS FOR IDEAS), a more intuitive approach involves a chained metonymy: the paper represents the writing on it, which then represents the ideas expressed (PAPER STANDS FOR WRITING → WRITING STANDS FOR IDEAS).

Hilpert (2005) further identifies two types of metonymic mappings that facilitate chained metonymy. The first type involves relations between an entity and its parts, termed E-metonymies. The second type encompasses relations between categories and subcategories, termed C-metonymies. Consider the following illustrations adopted from Hilpert (2005, p. 6):

This framework allows for a detailed analysis of the complex relationships and multiple conceptual shifts within chained metonymies, providing a comprehensive understanding of their structure and function in language.

Methodology

The sources of data collection for this study include participant observation and various literature materials. The literature materials include books, journal articles, novels, dictionaries, and newspapers. The literal meanings of hand and head expressions were identified. Additionally, any meanings beyond the literal that evoked multiple conceptual shifts were also identified and collected. These methods are deemed appropriate given the qualitative and descriptive nature of this research.

Data Presentation and Analysis

The analysis in this study focuses on twenty-two (22) linguistic expressions involving the body parts "hand" and "head." For the hands, there are fourteen (14) expressions, while for the head there are eight (08) expressions. It is important to note that in the process of conceptualization (metonymy, chained metonymy, and metaphor), the meaning extension assigns a new meaning to the lexical item (e.g., face) without altering its grammatical category. Additionally, the item can undergo de-categorization, gradually acquiring more grammatical meaning, thereby becoming grammaticalized (Batic, 2006, p. 18). With this in mind, consider the following analysis of chained metonymies involving the aforementioned body parts in Hausa.

Analysis of Hand Chained Metonymies in Hausa

Hannuu (hand) is one of the body parts that evokes considerable conceptualization in many languages. It is also found in the Hausa language that the hand has been conceptualized to finally extend to mean different things through chained metonymy. Consider the following chained metonymies found in Hausa.

1. HAND FOR ACTIVITY → ACTIVITY FOR SKILL CHAINED METONYMY

In the conceptual shifts below, "hand" was found to be extended serially in Hausa to finally denote skill. Consider the following expressions:

(01)

a.   Tsooho-n   hannuu nèe

b.   old-GEN      hand        COP

c.   ‘Old hand at work’

d.   HAND FOR ACTIVITY → ACTIVITY FOR SKILL (hand → activity → skill)

e.   E (PART FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY)

(02)

a.   Hannuu gàree shi waje-n       aikìi

b.   hand        has    3MSG  space-GEN work

c.   He is skillful at his job/work

d.   HAND FOR ACTIVITY → ACTIVITY FOR SKILL (hand → activity → skill)

e.   E (PART FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY)

In the chained metonymies (01-02) above, an E-metonymy is further extended by C-metonymy. In the HAND FOR ACTIVITY metonymy, the metonymic mapping is a PART FOR PART relation in which an instrument of an action (hand) stands for a related action (activity). In the second metonymy, ACTIVITY FOR SKILL the metonymic mapping can be viewed as SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB-CATEGORY relation, activity as a super-category of human hand stands for its sub-category skill. Therefore, these chained metonymies are coded as E-C.

2. HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR POSSESSION Chained Metonymy 

In the following examples, Hannuu (hand) as a body part term has been serially extended via chained metonymy in Hausa to finally refer to possession in (03-05):

(03)

a.   An          kaamàni nèe dà bindigàa   a   hannuu-naa

b.   be.PFV     arrest   1SG     COP   with    gun         in   hand-1SG

c.   ‘I was arrested with a gun in my hand (possession)’           

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR POSSESSION (hand → holding → possession)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

(04)

a.   Ya-a            kwaashèe saa’oo’ii  15   à    hannu-n-tà

b.   3MSG-PFV    spend         hours       15   in   hand.of-3FSG

c.   ‘He spends 15 hours in her hand (possessions)’                        

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR POSSESSION (hand → holding → possession)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

(05)

a.   Yana            hannuu-n    ‘yan-sàndaa                         

b.   3MSG-IPFV   hand-GEN     police

c.   ‘He is under the police custody (possession)’                

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR POSSESSION (hand → holding → possession)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

In the chained metonymies (03-05) above, an E-metonymy is further extended by E-metonymy. In the metonymy, HAND FOR HOLDING the metonymic mapping is a WHOLE FOR PART relation in which hand stands for the contents it carries. Whereby in the second metonymy, the metonymic mapping is a PART FOR PART relation in which the content carried by the hand stands as the item possessed by the hand. Therefore, these chained metonymies are coded as E-E.     

 

3. HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR CONTROL Chained Metonymy

Similarly, Hannuu (hand) as a body part term was also found to serially extend via chained metonymy in Hausa to finally refer to control, as depicted in (06-09) below:

(06)

a.   Ya-a             ràsu   a      hannu-n-sa      

b.   3MSG-PFV    died    in    hand.of-3MSG        

c.   He died under his control 

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR CONTROL (hand → holding → control)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

(07)

a.   Àl’amàri-n-su     na hannuu-na

b.   Affair-GEN-3PL    IPFV     hand-1SG 

c.   I am in control of their affairs  

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR CONTROL (hand → holding → control)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

(08)

a.   Ƙàasaitacciya-r   masaurata-r        a     tàafi-n     hannu-n-sa

b.   Huge-GEN           kingdom-GEN     in    palm.of   hand-GEN-3MSG

c.   The big kingdom is under his control    

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR CONTROL (hand → holding → control)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

(09)

a.   Na  rantsèe    da     wandà ràayuwa-tà    ke     hannu-n-sa

b.   1SG swear    with   whom    life-3FSG        REL    hand-GEN-3MSG

c.   I swear with whom my life is in his hand (control) 

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR CONTROL (hand → holding → control)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

In the chained metonymies (06-09) above, an E-metonymy is further extended by E-metonymy. In the metonymy, HAND FOR HOLDING the metonymic mapping is a WHOLE FOR PART relation in which hand stands for the contents it carries. Whereby in the second metonymy HOLDING FOR CONTROL, the metonymic mapping is a PART FOR PART relation in which the content carried by the hand stands as the item control by the hand. Therefore, these chained metonymies are coded as E-E.     

4. HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR COOPERATION Chained Metonymy

Similarly, in (10-12) below, Hannuu (hand) as a body part term has been found to serially extended via chained metonymy in Hausa to finally refer to cooperation. Consider the following examples:

(10)

a.   Sabòodà hakà  mu-kà haɗa hannuu dòomin mùraadu-n jàma’àa-r-mù

b.   Because that    POSS-1PL join    hand     for      desire-GEN   people-GEN-1PL

c.   Because of that we cooperate for the development of our people   

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR COOPERATION (hand → holding → cooperation)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

(11)     

a.   Sun    haɗa hannuu kân        yunƙùri-n     yi     wa  ƙungìya-r          rijistàa

b.   3PL     join     hand      over    attempt-GEN  do   COP association-GEN  register

c.   They join hand for registering the association

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR COOPERATION (hand → holding → cooperation)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

(12)

a.   Ta        haɗa hannuu   da   shi       wajen    horar      da    matàasaa

b.   3FSG     join-IPFV     hand      with   3MSG    in        training   the   youth

c.   It cooperates with him in training the youth  

d.   HAND FOR HOLDING→ HOLDING FOR COOPERATION (hand → holding → cooperation)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → E (PART FOR PART)

In the chained metonymies (10-12) above, an E-metonymy is further extended by E-metonymy. In the metonymy, HAND FOR HOLDING the metonymic mapping is a WHOLE FOR PART relation in which hand stands for the contents it carries. Whereby in the second metonymy HOLDING FOR COOPERATION, the metonymic mapping is a PART FOR PART relation in which the content carried by the hand stands as the item conjoin by the hand. Therefore, these chained metonymies are coded as E-E.   

5. HAND FOR PERSON→ PERSON FOR PERSONALITY Chained Metonymy

In other sense, Hannuu (hand) as a body part term was found to be serially extended via chained metonymy in Hausa to finally refer to personality. Consider examples (13-I4) below:

 

(13)

a.   Ta        ga        hannu -n-ta

b.   3FSLsee.PFV    hand-GEN-3FSG

c.   Girl began to menstruate for the first time   

d.   HAND FOR PERSON→ PERSON FOR PERSONALITY (hand → person → personality)

e.   E (PART FOR WHOLE) → E (WHOLE FOR PART)

(14)

a.   Ba     ma   yìn   hannuu   da    shi

b.   NEG   1PL   do     hand     with   3MSG

c.   He is too senior for us to shake hands with

d.   HAND FOR PERSON→ PERSON FOR PERSONALITY (hand → person → personality)

e.   E (PART FOR WHOLE) → E (WHOLE FOR PART)

In the chained metonymies (13-14) above, an E-metonymy is further extended by E-metonymy. In the metonymy, HAND FOR PERSON the metonymic mapping is a PART FOR WHOLE relation in which hand as a part of person stands for the whole person. Whereby in the second metonymy PERSON FOR PERSONALITY, the metonymic mapping is a super category for sub category relation in which the person as super category stands for it personality. Hence, these chained metonymies are coded as E-C.

Analysis of Head Chained Metonymies in Hausa

Kâi (head) is one of the body parts that evokes considerable conceptualization in many languages. It is also found in the Hausa language that the head has been conceptualized to finally extend to mean different things through chained metonymy. Consider the following chained metonymies found in Hausa.

1. HEAD FOR BRAIN → BRAIN FOR INTELLIGENCE Chained Metonymy

In the following set of examples, kâi (head) is used serially to finally refer to a person's intelligence. Consider the following illustration: 

(15) 

a.   Yaarò-n      nân   bâa shi      dà      kâi

b.   Boy-GEN    this    NEG      3MSG  have  head

c.   This boy does not have much intelligence

d.   HEAD FOR BRAIN → BRAIN FOR INTELLIGENCE (head → brain → intelligence).

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY).

(16)

a.   Ya              naa    dà    kâi

b.   3MSG-IPFV   has   with   head

c.   He is keen intelligence 

d.   HEAD FOR BRAIN → BRAIN FOR INTELLIGENCE (head → brain → intelligence).

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY).

In the chained metonymies (15-16), an E-metonymy is further extended by C-metonymy. The metonymy HEAD FOR BRAIN is a WHOLE FOR PART relation in which head is presumed as a container of brain stands for the brain.  Whereas the metonymic mapping in BRAIN FOR INTELLIGENCE is a SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUBCATEGORY relation in which the brain as a super-category responsible for so many things in the human body stands for its sub-category intelligence. Therefore, the chained metonymy above takes the coding E-C.

2. HEAD FOR BRAIN→ BRAIN FOR COOPERATION Chained Metonymies

In the following set of examples, kâi (head) is used serially to finally refer to a person's cooperation, as in (17-19):

(17)

a.   Sun    haɗa kâi       don  yi     wa   juunaa   taimako-n  gaggaawaa

b.   3PL     join    head   for   do   COP   each      help-GEN   emergency

c.   They cooperate together to do an emergency service

d.   HEAD FOR BRAIN→ BRAIN FOR COOPERATION (head → brain → cooperation)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY)

(18)

a.   Sun  saabà   haɗa  kâi     a    yi    abu       taarè

b.   3PL   usual   join   head   in   do   thing   together

c.   We usually cooperate to do thing together 

d.   HEAD FOR BRAIN→ BRAIN FOR COOPERATION (head → brain → cooperation)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY)

(19)

a.   Nìijeeriyaa  ta        saamù   haɗi-n      ka-n           a'luumàr-ta     

b.   Nigeria        3FSG   found   join-GEN   head-GEN   society.of-3FSG

c.   Nigeria got the cooperation of its society

d.   HEAD FOR BRAIN→ BRAIN FOR COOPERATION (head → brain → cooperation)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY)

In the chained metonymies (17-19) above, an E-metonymy is extended by C-metonymy. In the metonymy, HEAD FOR BRAIN the metonymic mapping is a WHOLE FOR PART relation in which head as container of brain stands for the contents it carries (brain). Whereby in the second metonymy BRAIN FOR COOPERATION, the metonymic mapping is a SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUBCATEGORY relation in which the brain as a super-category responsible for so many things in the human action stands for its sub-category cooperation. Thus, these chained metonymies received the coding E-C.

3. HEAD FOR BRAIN→ BRAIN FOR AGREEMENT Chained Metonymy

In another examples, kâias a body part was found to be serially extended in Hausa to finally refer to agreement. Consider the following examples in (20-22) below:

(20)

a.   Abookà-n  gaabaa  sun        baa dà    kâi

b.   friend.of   enemy   3PL-PFV  give     head

c.   The enemy agreed to stop fighting

d.   HEAD FOR BRAIN→ BRAIN FOR AGREEMENT (head → brain → agreement)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY)

(21)

a.   Ka-n-su              ya     gàmu

b.   head-GEN-3MPL   do   joint

c.   They are unanimous (agreed) 

d.   HEAD FOR BRAIN→ BRAIN FOR AGREEMENT (head → brain → agreement)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY)

(22)

a.   Da     mu    dà     su     dukkan-mu   ya-a        zo    ɗaya

b.   And   1PL   and   3PL   all    head-1PL   3PFV   come  one

c.   We agreed with each other      

d.   HEAD FOR BRAIN→ BRAIN FOR AGREEMENT (head → brain → agreement)

e.   E (WHOLE FOR PART) → C (SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUB- CATEGORY)

In the chained metonymies (20-22) above, an E-metonymy is extended by C-metonymy. In the metonymy, HEAD FOR BRAIN the metonymic mapping is a WHOLE FOR PART relation in which head as container of brain stands for the contents it carries (brain). Whereby in the second metonymy BRAIN FOR AGREEMENT, the metonymic mapping is a SUPER CATEGORY FOR SUBCATEGORY relation in which the brain as a super-category responsible for so many things in the human action stands for its sub-category cooperation. Thus, these chained metonymies above take the coding E-C.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study investigates the serial structure of hand and head chained metonymies in Hausa. The analysis found that "hand" was serially extended via chained metonymy in Hausa to refer to skill, possession, control, cooperation, and personality. Whereas "head" was found to be extended to refer to intelligence, cooperation, and agreement, respectively. The analysis also revealed that hand and head share some chained metonymies, as both were extended to finally denote cooperation. The findings further reveal that only two metonymic mappings were consistent throughout the analysis: the E-E metonymy was the most common, occurring twelve times, and the E-C metonymy, which occurred ten times. Another significant finding is that the two body parts are extensively used by Hausa speakers to create conceptual expressions through chained metonymies, consistent with the findings of Hilpert (2005, 2007), Deignan and Potter (2004), and Gwarzo (2017, 2019, 2024). Additionally, the finding supports Hilpert's (2005) assertion that chained metonymies typically begin with E-metonymies. The analysis shows that no chained metonymy starts with C-metonymies, indicating that C-metonymies are rarely found at the beginning of a chained metonymy.

References

Almajir, T. S. (2013a). The Polysemy of Body Part Terms in Hausa within the Frame of Image Schemas. Studies of the Department of African Languages and Cultures, No. 47, 93-111.

Almajir, T. S. (2013b). Idiomatic Lexis of Body Component Expressions in Hausa. In Ndimele, O. M., Ahmad M. &Yakasai H. M. (Eds.). Language, Literature and Culture in Multilingual Socisety: A Festschrift for Adamu Abubakar Rasheed. Port Harcourt: M&J Grand Orbit Communications Ltd, 541-558.

Almajir, T. S. (2013c). Shortening Conceptual Distance: A Case of Hausa Metonymies. HarsunanNijeriya, Vol XXII1, 106-117.

Auwal, M. D. (2023). A Cognitive Semantic Study of Hausa Hypernym. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Bayero University, Kano.

Auwal, M. D. (2018). The Metaphoricty of English and Arabic Slogans: A Cognitive Semantic Approach. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation. Bayero University, Kano.

Batic, G. C. (2006). Towards A Hausa Metaphorical Lexicon: Body Part Nouns. Aion66/1-4, 17-45.

Brdar-Szabo, R., &Brdar, M. (2011). What do Metonymic Chains Reveal about the Nature of Metonymy? In Benczes, R. Barcelona, A. &Ruize de Mendoza-Ibanez, F.J. (Eds.). Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View 217-248. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.         

Chamo, I. Y. (2013). Metonymy in Hausa Film Discourse.HarsunanNijeriya, Vol XXII1, 99-105.

Deignan, A. & Potter, L (2004). A corpus study of metaphors and metonyms in English and Italian, Journal of Pragmatics 36/7, 1231-1252.

Galadanci, M. K. M. (1976). An Introduction to Hausa Grammar. Ibadan: Longman Nigeria.

Geeraerts, D. (2002). The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Composite Expressions. In Pörings R. &Dirven R. (Eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 435-465.

Greenberg, J. H. (1963). The Languages of Africa (Vol. 25) Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Gwarzo, Y.A. (2024). Body Part Terms as a Source of Chained Metonymies in Hausa. Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture, 3(2), 142-149.

Gwarzo, Y. A. (2021). A Cognitive Analysis of Chained Metonymies in Hausa Proper Nouns. Algaita Journal of Current Research in Hausa Studies Bayero University, Kano 14(2), 1-7.

Gwarzo, Y. A. (2019). A Cognitive Analysis of Chained Metonymies in Hausa Nouns. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Bayero University Kano, Nigeria.

Gwarzo, Y. A. (2017). Chained Metonymies of Concrete Nouns in Hausa. Bayero University Journal of Linguistics Vol. 4, No. 1. (54-67).

Gwarzo, Y. A. (2015). A Study of Metaphoric and Metonymic Expressions of Body Part Terms Hand and Head in Hausa. Unpublished M.A Dissertation, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics. University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Hilpert, M. (2007). Chained Metonymies in Lexicon and Grammar. In: Radden G., Kopcke K.M., Berg S. &Siemund P. (Eds.). Aspects of meaning construction, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 77-98.

Hilpert, M. (2006). Keeping an Eye on the Data: Metonymies and Their Patterns. In: Stefanowitsch A. &Gries S.T. (Eds.). Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 52-123.

Hilpert, M. (2005). Chained Metonymies. In: Newman J. & Rice S.A (Eds.). Experimental and Empirical Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI Publication.

Imam, H. (2018). Metonymy in Hausa and Arabic Discourse. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Bayero University Kano, Nigeria.

Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason: University of Chicago Press.

Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.    

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453-486.      

Maalej, Z. A., & Yu, N. (2011). (Eds.). Embodiment via Body Parts: Studies from Various Languages and Cultures (Vol. 31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Nerlich, B. &Clerke, D. (2001). Serial Metonymy: A Study Reference-Based Polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2:2. 245-272.

Newman, P. (2000). The Hausa Language:An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven.

Mewman, P. (2022). A History 0f the Hausa Language: Reconstruction and Pathways to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Radden, G., &Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Reddy, M. J. (1979). The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in our Language about Language. In: Ortony A. (Ed.). Metaphor and thought, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 164-201.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez, F. J. &Diéz Velasco, O. I. (2002). Patterns of Conceptual Interaction. In: Dirven R. &Porings R. (Eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton Gruyter 501-546.

Sani, M.A.Z. (2009). SiffofinDaidaitacciyar Hausa. Kano: Benchmark Publishers Limited.

Seto, K. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 91–120). John Benjamins Publishing Company

Shehu, A. (2020). The conceptualization of ido ‘eye’ in Hausa. Body part terms in conceptualization and language usage, 12, 247-268.

Shehu, A. (2022). The cultural conceptualization of jini ‘blood’ in Hausa. Journal of the Nigerian Languages Project, 4, 3-19.

Shehu, A. (2019). The Conceptualization of ‘mouth’ in Hausa and Fulfulde. Linguistics Evidence of Cultural Distance: Hausa in Cross-Cultural Communication. Warsaw: Elipsa.

Tsakuwa, M. B., Wen, X., & Lamido, I. (2023). A chained metonymic approach to ίdὸ ‘eye’ constructional metonymies in Hausa. Cognitive Linguistics, 34(2), 165-196.

Yu, N. (2008). The Chinese Heart as the Central Faculty of Cognition. In Sharifian, F. Dirven R., Yu, N. and S. Niesmeir (Eds.). Culture, Body and Language: Conceptualization of Internal Body Organs across Languages and Culture, 131-168. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from Body and Culture. In Gibbs, R.W. (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 247-261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zhang, W., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2010). Chained Metonymies in Chinese Compounds. Proceedings of8th International Conference on Researching and Applying Metaphor, Amsterdam June 30 – July 3, 2010.