Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 151–184

Metonymy meets coercion

The case of the intensification of nouns in attributive and predicative constructions in Spanish

 | University of Almería
Drawing on Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 2006), this chapter furnishes a usage-based analysis of coercion involving the intensification of a prima facie non-gradable category, such as nouns. Our data analysis reveals that, in present-day Spanish, intensifiers (e.g. muy ‘very’, bastante ‘very’, completamente ‘completely’, totalmente ‘totally’, etc.) can felicitously combine, in attributive and predicative contexts, with proper and common nouns connected with fairly disparate semantic areas such as celebrities, animals, internet, music, etc. In these cases, the intensifier coerces the noun into encoding a positive or negative property through a generic for specific metonymic parameterization (Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Pérez Hernández, 2001). The analysis proposed here can nicely capture the semantico-pragmatic commonalities in these two environments, while also accommodating the non-alternation of muy (‘very’) with other intensifiers in lower-level predicative configurations with a concessive interpretation.
Keywords: Cognitive Construction Grammar, intensifier, subjectivity, concession, constructionalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An overview of Cognitive Construction Grammar
  • 3.On the role of subjectivity, metonymy and parameterization
  • 4.The coercion of nouns in attributive and predicative contexts in Spanish
  • 5.The gradable construction with muy (‘very’) as an incipient case of constructionalization
  • 6.A fine-grained analysis of the “X es muy N(=A)” construction in present-day Spanish
    • 6.1Celebrity names
    • 6.2Animals
    • 6.3Place names
    • 6.4Brand names
    • 6.5Company names
    • 6.6Internet
    • 6.7Characters (whether real or fictional)
    • 6.8Time
    • 6.9TV shows
    • 6.10Events
    • 6.11Music (style/lyrics)
    • 6.12Movies
    • 6.13Institutions
    • 6.14Specific institutions
    • 6.15Food
    • 6.16Sports
    • 6.17Clothes
    • 6.18Body parts
  • 7.Closing remarks and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.07gon
References (64)
References
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences, 29, 554–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A. (2015). Constuction learning as a complex adaptive system. Psycholinguistic evidence from L2 learners of English. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bencini, G., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory Language, 43, 640–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (Eds.). (2014). Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 15). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1972). Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring functional-cognitive space (Studies in Language Companion Series 157). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In R. Janda, & B. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. (2018a). Novel metonymies, wine and wineskins, old and new ones. Jezici i kulture u vremenu i prostoru 7(1), 123–134.Google Scholar
(2018b). On the novelty of novel metonymies. Plenary talk delivered at the 11th International Conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association (AELCO/SCOLA), 17th-19th October 2018, Córdoba, Spain.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2017). On constructional blocking of metonymies: A cross-linguistic view. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 183–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (2010). Category change in English with and without structural change. In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90) (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, D., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2010). Argument constructions and language processing: evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 213–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elvira, J. (2005). Metonimia y enriquecimiento pragmático: A propósito de aunque. Dicenda: Cuadernos de Filología, 23, 71–84.Google Scholar
Engelbretson, R. (2007). Stance-taking in discourse. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stance-taking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Leborans, M. J., & C. Sánchez López. (2015). Sentences as predicates: The Spanish construction ser <muy de + infinitive>. In I. Pérez-Jiménez, M. Leonetti, & S. Gumiel-Molina (Eds.), New perspectives on the study of ser and estar (Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 5), (pp. 85–116). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology, 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (1991). Adverbios de modalidad. Verba, 18, 275–321.Google Scholar
(2006). Operadores de intensificación del adjetivo: Los cuantificadores escalares. Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, XXIX, 35–53.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2011a). Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1305–1358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Looks, appearances and judgements: Towards a unified constructionist analysis of predicative complements in English and Spanish. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 264–293). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
(2014). “That’s so a construction!”: Some reflections on innovative uses of “so” in Present-day English. In M. A. Gómez González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. Gonzálvez-García, & A. Downing Rothwell (Eds.), (2014), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space (pp. 271–294). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edition. Revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in mind and society. A functional contribution to the social turn in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P. (2014a). Copular constructions and adjectival uses of bare nouns in French: A case of syntactic recategorization? Word, 60, 89–122.Google Scholar
(2014b). Between adjective and noun: Category/function, mismatch, constructional overrides and coercion. In R. Simone, & F. Masini (Eds.), Word classes: Nature, typology and representations (pp. 203–225). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2018). C’est très théâtre. On the rise and expansion of a productive category changing construction in French. Paper presented at the 10th International Construction Grammar Conference, 16th-20th July 2018, Paris, France.
Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In R. J. Jarvella, & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101–124). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler, & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2011). Stative by construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1359–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions of (inter-)subjectivity. English Text Construction, 5(1), 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. (2000). Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic approach on grammaticalization. In R. Bermudez-Otero, D. Denison, R. M. Hogg, & C. B. McCully (Eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies (pp. 233–258). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics 12(2), 317–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2017). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 42–73). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy, in Barcelona, A. (Ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective (Human Cognitive Processing, 45). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Gómez González, M. A. (2014). Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In Gómez González, M. A., F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & F. Gonzálvez García (eds.). 2014. Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space (pp. 295–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2002). Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 11). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds), A handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularities in semantic change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes (Oxford Studies in Diachronic Linguistics 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2018). Change in category membership from the perspective of construction grammar: A commentary. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (eds), Category change from a constructional perspective (Constructional approaches to Language) (pp. 291–308). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela Manzanares, J., & Rojo López, A. M. (2008). What can language learners tell us about constructions? In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 197–230). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2007). A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 990–1028. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Count-mass coercion, and the perspective of time and variation. Constructions and Frames, 2(1), 33–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2024. Capturing meaningful generalizations at varying degrees of resolution. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Martín‐Gascón, Beatriz
2022. Why in Spanish “Nos Ponemos Contentos” But not “Satisfechos”: A Cognitive‐Linguistic Review of The “Change‐of‐State Verb Ponerse + Adjective” Construction*. Studia Linguistica 76:2 ► pp. 552 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz, Carmen Portero
2022. Forty years of metonymy. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 172 ff. DOI logo
Portero-Muñoz, Carmen
2022. “It’s way too intriguing!” The fuzzy status of emergent intensifiers: A Functional Discourse Grammar account. Open Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 618 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.