Cover not available
Part of
Figurativity and Human Ecology
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov and Nelly Tincheva
[Figurative Thought and Language 17] 2022
► pp. 107–122

On syntactic categories and metaphors

| Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
This paper aims at studying some syntactic categories in Spanish, namely, atypical subjects and emphatic constructions, in the context of relevant developments in the conceptualization of grammaticalization. The analysis is carried out on the basis of multifaceted and holistic approaches with regard to the dynamic interplay between formal, semantic and pragmatic aspects of Spanish utterances. Attention is drawn to some diachronic and cross-linguistic aspects of the addressed problems. Metaphor and metonymy are regarded as basic ways of grammaticalization.
Keywords: syntactic categories, pragmatics, grammaticalization, subjectification, metaphor, metonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linguistic evolution and syntactic categories
    • 2.1Major trends in linguistic evolution
    • 2.2Pragmatics and cognitive linguistics
    • 2.3Syntactic categories, metaphors and metonymies
  • 3.On some syntactic categories in Spanish
    • 3.1Atypical, “bad” subjects in Spanish
      • 3.1.1The subjects of affective and unaccusative predicates
      • 3.1.2Some parallels with ergative languages and ‘become-languages’
      • 3.1.3Grammaticalization and ontological metaphors
      • 3.1.4“Dativo redundante”
  • 4.The emphatic (cleft) construction (la estructura ecuacional)
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.05pop
References (35)
References
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. New York-London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bechert, J. (1979). Ergativity and the constitution of grammatical relations. In Plank, F., (Ed.), Ergativity (pp. 45–59). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P., S. Levinson. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2015). Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989/2nd ed.). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimitrova, S. (2009). Lingvistichna pragmatika (Linguistic Pragmatics). Sofia: Veles.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, pp. 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell Vidal, M. V. (2005). La comunicación. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (2006). Pragmatics and cognitive cinguistics. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 657–674). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1971). Historical Syntax and Synchronic Morphology. Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 394–415.Google Scholar
(1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York/San Francisco/London: Academic.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. & J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Ordoñez, S. (2000). Temas, remas, focos, tópicos y comentarios. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2008). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Y. (1991). ‘DO-language’ and ‘BECOME-language’: Two Contrasting Types of Linguistic Representation. In Ikegami (Ed.), The Empire of Signs. Semiotic Essays on Japanese Culture (285–326). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457–489). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Martínez Vázquez, M. (1996). Lexical Ergativity in English and Spanish, In Gramática Contrastiva Inglés-Español (pp. 25–44). Huelva: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva.Google Scholar
Moreno Cabrera, J. C. (1987). Fundamentos de sintáxis general. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.Google Scholar
Moreno Cabrera, J. C. (1999). Las funciones informativas: Las perífrasis de relativo y otras construcciones perifrásticas. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Bosque, I., V. Demonte (Der.), I tomo, (pp. 4245–4302). Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
(2002). Curso universitario de lingüística general I: Teoría de la gramática y sintaxis general. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
(2003). Semántica y gramática. Sucesos, papeles semánticos y relaciones sintácticas. Madrid: A. Machado Libros.Google Scholar
Pencheva, M. (1998). Chovekât v ezika. Ezikât v choveka (Man in language. Language in man). Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.Google Scholar
Popova, M. (2012). Semantichni i pragmatichni aspekti na sintaktichnite kategorii v savremenniya ispanski ezik (Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of Syntactic Categories in Modern Spanish). Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In: Cognition and categorization, Rosch, E., Lloyd, B. (eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge University press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1986). From Polysemy to Internal Semantic Reconstruction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 539–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1993). A Synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (Ed.) Advances in Role and Reference Grammar (pp.1–164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Yazik, Kultura Poznanie. (Language. Culture. Thought). Moskva: Russkie slovari (Moscow: Russian Dictionaries), pp. 33–88.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar