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. 251–273

Metonymic patterns of count-to-mass and mass-to-count changes and their implications for metonymy research

ORCID logo | University of Silesia
This chapter formulates a proposal for dealing with two of the notorious problems of countability and uncountability in English: the problem of nouns changing their grammatical properties from count to mass and mass to count, and establishing the regularities of such changes. On the basis of the assumptions of Cognitive Grammar (e.g., Langacker, 2000, 2008), the chapter shows how, through an analysis of 30 count and 30 mass nouns (Drożdż, 2017), one more dimension arises: the metonymic one. This dimension enables a juxtaposition of this kind of research with that of Cognitive Metaphor Theory / Cognitive Metonymy Theory (Radden & Kövecses, 1999; Kövecses 2010, etc.), where comparable, conceptual structures are indicated. This leads to a discussion of certain issues concerning the methodology of metonymy analysis, the types of structures determined within both approaches, and their ultimate properties.
Keywords: cognitive grammar, countability and uncountability in English, lexicogrammar, metonymy, schematicity, semantic extension
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Countability and uncountability
  • 3.Cognitive Grammar
    • 3.1The status of senses of lexical units
    • 3.2Metonymy
    • 3.3Schematicity
    • 3.4Lexicogrammar
  • 4.The procedure
  • 5.The analysis
  • 6.Conclusions and discussion
    • 6.1Countability and uncountability
    • 6.2Schemas of metonymic extension
    • 6.3Metonymic issues from the CG perspective
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.10dro
References (51)
References
Allan, K. (1980). Nouns and Countability. Language 56(3), 541–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2003). Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: An analysis and a few modest proposals. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 223–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (Eds.). (2011). Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., & Pannain, R. (Eds.). (2018). Conceptual Metonymy. Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2007). Metonymy in Grammar. Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.Google Scholar
Bunt, H. (1985). Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clausner, T., Croft, W. (1997). Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 247–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. (2010). Looking back at thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & Ł. Wirszaka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action (pp. 11–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Drożdż, G. (2016). From the meaning of the concrete noun to its grammatical property and back. In G. Drożdż (Ed.), Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and Applications (pp. 95–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The Puzzle of (Un)Countability. A Study in Cognitive Grammar. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
(2020a). New insights into English count and mass nouns – the Cognitive Grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics, 24(4), 833–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). Grammar vs. lexicographic practice – a few remarks on what English dictionaries do not say about countable and uncountable nouns (though they should). Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 44 (3), 141–149.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1965). Linguistics and the English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2016). Definition. In P. Durkin (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lexicography (pp. 94–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31, 91–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1984). Active Zones. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 172–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987a). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1987b). Nouns and Verbs. Language, 63, 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Reference-Point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Nominal Structure in Cognitive Grammar. The Lublin Lectures. Lublin: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar
Lipka, L. (1992). An Outline of English Lexicology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (ed.) (2020). Mass and Count in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ostler, N., & Atkins, B. T. S. (1991). Predictable Meaning Shift: Some Linguistic Properties of Lexical Implication Rules. In J. Pustejovsky, & S. Bergler (Eds). Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation (pp. 87–100). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. (1983). Grammar. Second Edition. Bristol: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2009). Introduction: On figuration and grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2017). Semantics for Counting and Measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2014). On the Nature and Scope of Metonymy in Linguistic Description and Explanation: Towards Settling Some Controversies. In J. Littlemore, & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2002). Cognitive Modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taraszka-Drożdż, B. (2014a). Schémas d’extension métaphorique. A partir de l’analyse des contenus et des organisations conceptuels de certaines unités lexicales se référant a la lumiere. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
(2014b). Encyclopaedic knowledge in an account of metaphorical extension. In G. Drożdż, & A. Łyda (Eds.), Extension and Its Limits (pp. 126–142). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2016). Lexical and grammatical dimensions of metaphor: A Cognitive Grammar perspective. In G. Drożdż (Ed.), Studies in Lexicogrammar. Theory and Applications (pp. 175–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2020). Cognitive linguistic approaches. In B. Aarts, J. Bowie, & G. Popova (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickens, M. (1992). Grammatical Number in English Nouns. An Empirical and Theoretical Account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar