1887
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article analyses the semantic features of two constructions characterised by the specific use of morphosyntactic indicators of the category of number. The constructions are based on unusual, unobvious ways of using singular and plural forms of NP. The singular (in the first construction) and plural (in the second) forms of NP give to the constructions a metonymic character. The constructions are described as two types of metonymy, representing two different ways of construal.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00091.szy
2021-10-11
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (2003) Names: A metonymic “return ticket” in five languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 11–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2004) Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. InG. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.321–355.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bierwiaczonek, B.
    (2013) Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2018) How metonymy motivates constructions. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.185–204). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.07bie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.07bie [Google Scholar]
  5. (2020) Figures of speech revisited: Introducing syntonymy and syntaphor. InA. Baicchi, (Ed.) Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language (pp.225–251). Amsterdam & New York: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.10bie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.10bie [Google Scholar]
  6. Brdar, M.
    (2002–2003) Metonymic motivation in English grammar: The case of the tense aspect-mood system. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 47–58(37–50), 37–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2005) Ways of getting around and signalling metonymy in the grammar of noun phrases. Bosanski Jezik, 4, 39–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2007) Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy. Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2009) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.125–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.09brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.09brd [Google Scholar]
  10. Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2016) Metonymische Kompetenz und Grammatikerwerb. InI. Feld-Knapp (Ed.), Grammatik (pp.92–127). Budapest: ELTE Eötvös József Collegium.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dehaene, S.
    (2001) Précis of the number sense. Mind & Language, 16, 16–36. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00154
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00154 [Google Scholar]
  13. Drożdż, G.
    (2017) The puzzle of un(countability) in English: A study in Cognitive Grammar. Katowice: University of Silesia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gradečak-Erdeljić, T.
    (2004) Metonymy and grammatical recategorisation of nouns. InD. Kučanda, M. Brdar & B. Berić (Eds.), Teaching English for life. Studies to honour Prof. Elvira Petrović on the occasion of her 70th Birthday (pp.347–358). Osijek: Filozofski Fakultet.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Koch, P.
    (1999) Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.139–167). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.09koc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.09koc [Google Scholar]
  18. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view, Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2009a) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2009b) Metonymic grammar. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  23. (2017) Grounding, semantic functions, and absolute quantifiers. Text Construction, 10(2), 233–248. 10.1075/etc.10.2.03lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.2.03lan [Google Scholar]
  24. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  25. Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D.
    (1999) Synecdoche as a Cognitive and Communicative Strategy. InA. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, (pp.197–213). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804195.197
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195.197 [Google Scholar]
  26. Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G.
    (Eds.) (1999), Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4. 10.1075/hcp.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Panther, K-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2002) The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.280–319) Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.279 [Google Scholar]
  28. Paszenda, J., & Góralczyk, I.
    (2017) The proper name Misiewicz as nomen appellativum in the current political discourse in Poland, Acta Neophilologica, XIX(2), 65–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2018) Metonymic motivations behind paragonic uses of proper names in political discourse: A cognitive linguistic approach, Linguistica Silesiana, 39, 211–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Peirsman, Y., & Geererts, D.
    (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
  31. Radden, G.
    (2009) Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.199–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.13rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.13rad [Google Scholar]
  32. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modelling: A linguistic perspective, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L.
    (2002) Metonymy, grammar and communication. Alblote: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Pérez Hernández, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21(4), 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Seto, K.
    (1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, (pp.99–120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.06set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.06set [Google Scholar]
  36. Taylor, J. R.
    (2002) Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Waltereit, R.
    (1999) Grammatical constraints on metonymy: On the role of the direct object. InK.-U. Panther & Günter Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.233–253). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.14wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.14wal [Google Scholar]
  38. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1985) Oats and wheat: The fallacy of arbitrariness. InJ. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp.311–342). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.16wie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.16wie [Google Scholar]
  39. (1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00091.szy
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00091.szy
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construal; construction; metonymy; number; plural; singular
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