1887
Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The interaction between metonymy and grammar is commonly understood, in keeping with the classical cognitive linguistic doctrine about cognitive operations motivating linguistic structures, as unilateral – conceptual metaphor and metonymy shaping the grammatical system. However, we argue in this article that one of the possible corollaries of the Equipollence Hypothesis ( Mairal & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2009 ; Ruiz de Mendoza & Luzondo Oyón, 2012 ) covers a truly bilateral interaction between grammatical structures and cognitive processes. The Equipollence Hypothesis is shown to allow for grammatical phenomena facilitating or constraining, i.e. blocking, the application of conceptual metonymies and their expressions across domains of linguistic inquiry. Specifically, we show in four case studies that grammatical constructions may actually pre-empt lexical (and grammatical) metonymy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.1.08brd
2017-08-18
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aronoff, M.
    (1976) Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barcelona, A.
    (2012) Metonymy in, under and above the lexicon. In S. M. Alegre , M. Moyel , E. Pladevall , & S. Tubau (Eds.), At a time of crisis: English and American studies in Spain. Works from the 35th AEDEAN Conference UAB/Barcelona 14–16 November 2011 (pp.254–271). Barcelona: Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona/AEDEAN.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bierwiaczionek, B.
    (2007) Synonymy reactivated. Linguistica Silesiana, 28, 7–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Booij, G.
    (2015) Word-formation in construction grammar. In O. Müller Peter , I. Ohnheiser , S. Olsen , & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe 40.1 (pp.188–202). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brdar, M.
    (2007a) Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2007b) Where have all the metonymies gone?In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’, held in Łódź, Poland, May 6–7, 2005 (pp.69–86). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2007c) Topic-continuity, metonymy and locative adverbials: A cognitive-functional account. Suvremena lingvistika, 33(1), 13–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brdar, M. (2009a) Metonymy-induced polysemy and the role of suffixation in its resolution in some Slavic languages. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 58–88. doi: 10.1075/arcl.7.03brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.03brd [Google Scholar]
  9. (2009b) Metonymies we live without. In K. U. Panther , L. L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.259–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25.15brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.15brd [Google Scholar]
  10. Brdar, M. , & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2009) The (non-)metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. In K. U. Panther , L. L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.229–257). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25.14brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.14brd [Google Scholar]
  11. (2013) Some reflections on metonymy and word-formation. ExELL: Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1, 40–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2014) Where does metonymy begin?: Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 13–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2017) How metonymy and grammar interact: Some effects and constraints in a cross-linguistic perspectiveIn A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp.125–149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins doi: 10.1075/hcp.56.05brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.05brd [Google Scholar]
  14. Brdar, M. , Brdar-Szabó, R. , Gradečak-Erdeljić, T. , & Buljan, G.
    (2001) Predicative adjectives in some Germanic and Slavic languages: On the role of metonymy in extending grammatical constructions. Suvremena lingvistika, 27(1–2), 35–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brdar, M. , Kučanda, D. , Gradečak-Erdeljić, T. , & Milić, G.
    (2005) Novine u novinama. In J. Granić (Ed.), Semantika prirodnog jezika i metajezik semantike (pp.131–140). Zagreb/Split: Hrvatsko društvo za primijenjenu lingvistiku.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brdar-Szabó, R. , & Brdar, M.
    (2003) Referential metonymy across languages: What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other?International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 85–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2004) Predicative adjectives and grammatical-relational polysemy: The role of metonymic processes in motivating cross-linguistic differences. In G. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (321–355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Curme, G. O.
    (1931) A grammar of the English language. Vol.3: Syntax. Heath, Boston.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Frei, H.
    (1972) Sylvie est jolie des yeux. In A. Sechehaye (Ed.), Melanges de linguistique offerts à Charles Bally (pp.185–192). Geneva: Slatkine.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gonzálvez-García, Fo.
    (2011) Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49, 1305–1358. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.037 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hopper, P. J.
    (1991) Dispersed verbal predicates in vernacular written narrative. In L. A. Sutton , C. Johnson , & R. Shields (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on the grammar of event structure (pp.402–413). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1997) When ‘grammar’ and discourse clash. In J. Bybee & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp.231–247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.82.15hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.15hop [Google Scholar]
  26. Janda, L. A.
    (2011) Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 359–392. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2011.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.014 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kabakčiev, K.
    (2000) Aspect in English: A “common-sense” view of the interplay between verbal and nominal referents. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9355‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9355-7 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kiparsky, P. (1983) Word formation and the lexicon. In F. Ingemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 MidAmerica Linguistics Conference (pp.3–22). Lawrence: University of Kansas.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. König, E. , & Haspelmath, M.
    (1989) Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (Ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe (pp.526–606). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kremers, J.
    (2005) Adjectival constructs in Arabic. Linguistische Berichte, 203, 331–348.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Langacker, R. W.
    (1990a) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1990b) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  33. (1995) Raising and transparency. Language, 71(1), 1–62. doi: 10.2307/415962
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415962 [Google Scholar]
  34. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  35. Li, S. , & Panther, K. U.
    (2014) ‘Author (date)’ constructions in academic discourse. English Text Construction, 7, 215–248. doi: 10.1075/etc.7.2.03li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.2.03li [Google Scholar]
  36. Mairal, R. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.153–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  37. Mathesius, V.
    (1961) Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny na základy obecny lingvitickém [A functional analysis of contemporary English on a general linguistic basis]. Prague: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Onysko, A. , & Michel, S.
    (2010) Introduction: Unravelling the cognitive in word formation. In A. Onysko & S. Michel (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on word formation (1–25). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110223606.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223606.1 [Google Scholar]
  39. Panther, K. U.
    (2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Panther, K. U. , & Thornburg, L. L.
    (1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K. U. Panther , & G. Radden , (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (333–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
  41. (2000) The effect-for-cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (215–231). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Panther, K. U. , Thornburg, L. L. , & Barcelona, A.
    (Eds.) (2009) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25 [Google Scholar]
  43. Peña Cervel, M. S.
    (2015) A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs. Linguistics, 53(6), 1247–1302. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0032
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0032 [Google Scholar]
  44. Quirk, R. , & Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Radden, G.
    (2001) The folk model of language. Metaphorik.de, 1, 55–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Radden, G. , & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  47. Radden, G. , & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  48. Reiner, E.
    (1984) Damqam-īnim revisited. Studia Orientalia, 55(6), 177–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rothstein, S.
    (2014) Adjectivally headed construct states and the semantics of metonymic predication. Lingua, 138, 23–54. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Luzondo Oyón, A. (2012) Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. In M. Brdar , I. Raffaeli , & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp.117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Otal Campo, J. L.
    (2002) Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Peña Cervel, S. M.
    (2003) Cognitive operations and and projection spaces. Jezikoslovlje, 3, 131–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Pérez Hernández, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. doi: 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  55. Siloni, T.
    (2000) Nonnominal constructs. In J. Lecarme , J. Lowenstamm , & U. Shlonsky (Eds.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar (pp.301–323). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.202.14sil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.202.14sil [Google Scholar]
  56. Stallard, D.
    (1993) Two kinds of metonymy. InProceedings of the 31st annual meeting of Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.87–94). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/981574.981586
    https://doi.org/10.3115/981574.981586 [Google Scholar]
  57. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2015) Metonymies don’t bomb people, people bomb people. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3, 27–50. doi: 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0003 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sweep, J.
    (2012) Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Traugott, E. C.
    (1982) From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics (pp.245–271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.24.09clo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.24.09clo [Google Scholar]
  60. (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. doi: 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tuggy, D.
    (1986) Noun incorporations in Nahuatl. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference, 2, 455–470.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Vachek, J.
    (1961) Some less familiar aspects of the analytical trend in English. Brno Studies in English, 3, 9–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Ziegeler, D. , & Lee, S.
    (2009) A metonymic analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English causative constructions. In K. U. Panther , L. L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.291–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25.18zie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.18zie [Google Scholar]
  64. Waltereit, R.
    (1999) Grammatical constraints on metonymy: On the role of the direct object. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden , (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.233–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.14wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.14wal [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.1.08brd
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.1.08brd
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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