1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study contributes to the existing body of research that aims at showing the impact of metonymy in grammar. In this case, new evidence will be provided by exploring the English pseudo-partitive construction of time measurement, illustrated by . By using corpus data, it will be shown that metonymy is at work in many instantiations of this construction. The second noun in these expressions should be semantically eligible for time measurement, that is, a temporal entity or a second-order entity. However, this is not the only type of noun that appears in the second noun slot, which can also be occupied by first and third-order entities as well as places. The presence of an expression of time-measurement in the first part of the construction coerces different ontological categories into a second-order reading and can be regarded as a guide for the correct interpretation when the second noun includes several facets, illustrating the cognitive process of cueing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00106.mun
2022-05-24
2024-02-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A pognitive perspective (Topics in English Linguistics, 30). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2002) On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. InB. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics today (Lódz Studies in Language, 6) (pp.207–224). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2004) Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of seemingly “irregular” grammatical behaviour of English paragon names. InG. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research, 28) (pp.357–374). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (Human Cognitive Processing, 28) (pp.7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell, M., & Portero-Muñoz, C.
    (2022) Time-measurement constructions in English: A corpus-based exploration. InL. Sommerer & E. Keizer (Eds.), English noun phrases from a functional-cognitive perspective: Current issues. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 221) (pp.311–362). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.221.09bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.221.09bel [Google Scholar]
  6. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2003) Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian. InK. U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.241–266). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.17brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.17brd [Google Scholar]
  7. (2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates. 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]
  8. (2009) The (non-)metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. InK. U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (Human Cognitive Processing, 25) (pp.229–257). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.14brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.14brd [Google Scholar]
  9. Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
    (2011) What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy?InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view. (Human Cognitive Processing, 28) (pp.217–248). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.12brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.12brd [Google Scholar]
  10. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2017) How metonymy and grammar interact. InA. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (Human Cognitive Processing, 56) (pp.126–149). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.56.05brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.05brd [Google Scholar]
  11. Dirven, R., & Pörings, R.
    (Eds.) (2002) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2020) Metonymy meets coercion: The case of the intensification of nouns in attributive and predicative constructions in Spanish. InA. Baicchi, (Ed), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (Figurative Thought and Language, 9) (pp.151–184). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.07gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.07gon [Google Scholar]
  15. Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J. L.
    (2008) Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Keizer, E.
    (2007) The English noun phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627699
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627699 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G., & M. Jonhson
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, R. W.
    (1984) Active zones. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 172–188. 10.3765/bls.v10i0.3175
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v10i0.3175 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics. 2vols.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Panther, K. U., & Radden, G.
    (Eds.) (1999) Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4 [Google Scholar]
  24. Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2000) The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (Topics in English Linguistics, 30) (pp.215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Paradis, C.
    (2004) Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264. 10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view. (Human Cognitive Processing, 28) (pp.103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  28. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Pérez-Hernández, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Díez, O. I.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Pérez-Hernández, L.
    (2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implications. InK. U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.05rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.05rui [Google Scholar]
  31. Vos, R.
    (1999) A grammar of partitive constructions. PhD dissertation, Tilburg University.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00106.mun
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00106.mun
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructions; cueing; facetization; metonymy; ontological categories; pseudo-partitives
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