Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Metonymy of a predicate, in which the source event implies the target event, is called . This paper focused on a Japanese productive predicational metonymy, , and described its linguistic preference in terms of aspectual construal based on a corpus-driven quantitative investigation. The results revealed that an event that is bounded and durative is preferred as the metonymic vehicle in metonymy. The two cognitive principles, and , were proposed to explain the linguistic preference. It was suggested that the two principles can be subsumed under the fundamental cognitive principle of G G, and that this general principle governs metonymic preference of both predicates and nominal phrases.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
    (2003) The manner for activity metonymy across domains and languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4 (1), 43–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Croft, W.
    (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  4. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm 4: Selected papers from SICOL-’97 (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 (2), 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hasegawa, Y.
    (2015) Japanese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139507127
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507127 [Google Scholar]
  8. Janda, L. A.
    (2004) A metaphor in search of a source domain: The categories of Slavic aspect. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (4), 471–527. 10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.471
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.471 [Google Scholar]
  9. Kindaichi, H.
    (1976) Kokugo doushi no ichi-bunrui [A classification of Japanese verbs]. InH. Kindaichi (Ed.) Nihongo doshi no asupekuto [Aspect of Japanese verbs] (pp.5–26). Tokyo: Mugishobo.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M.
    (2007) Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12 (2), 72–79. 10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Langacker, R. W.
    (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Panther, K.
    (2015) Metonymic relationships among actuality, modality, evaluation, and emotion. InJ. Daems, (Eds.), Change of paradigms–New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (pp.129–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Panther, K., & Thornburg, L.
    (1999) The Potentiality for Actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. InK. Panther, and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.333–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
  16. (2000) The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.215–231). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2003b) Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. InPanther, K., and Thornburg, L. (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.03pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.03pan [Google Scholar]
  18. (2003c) Metonymy and lexical aspect in English and French. Jezikoslovlje, 4 (1), 71–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2007) Metonymy. InD. Geeraerts, and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK. Panther, and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  21. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Hernández, L. P.
    (2003) High-level modal metonymies in English and Spanish. Jezikoslovlje, 4 (1), 103–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sato, T.
    (1994) Tadoushi hyougen to kaizaisei [Transitive expressions and intermediary causatives]. Nihongo Kyoiku [Japanese Education], 84, 53–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sawada, J.
    (2008) Nihongo no kaizai-shieki koubun o megut-te: Ninchi-gengogaku to goyoron no setten [On the intermediary causative construction in Japanese: A crossroad of cognitive linguistics and pragmatics]. Kodama, K., & Koyama, T. (Eds.), Gengo to ninchi no mekanizumu: Yamanashi Masa-aki kyouju kanreki kinen ronbun-shu [Mechanisms of language and cognition: A festschrift for Professor Masa-aki Yamanashi on his 60th birthday] (pp.61–73). Tokyo: Hitsujishobo.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2009) Nihongo no tadoushi-bun to jueki-koubun no koubun nettowaaku: Nishi-ei-go no taishou-bunseki o hukume-te [A constructional network of transitive and benefactive constructions: A contrastive analysis on Japanese and English]. KLS, 29, 215–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Shibatani, M.
    (1976) Causativization. InM. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Japanese generative grammar (pp.239–294). Tokyo: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368835_007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368835_007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Taoka, C.
    (2000) Aspect and argument structure in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester.
  28. Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.
    (1997) Speech act metonymies. InW. Liebert, G. Redeker, and L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp.205–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  29. Vendler, Z.
    (1967) Linguistics in philosophy. Itbaca: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Zacks, J. M.
    (2008) Event perception. Scholarpedia, 3 (10), 3837. 10.4249/scholarpedia.3837
    https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.3837 [Google Scholar]
  31. Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B.
    (2001) Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (1), 3–21. 10.1037/0033‑2909.127.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ziegeler, D., & Lee, S.
    (2009) A metonymic analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English causative constructions. InK. Panther, L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.291–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.18zie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.18zie [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): aspect; cognitive principle; linguistic preference; predicational metonymy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error