Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 283–308

The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making

| University of La Rioja
| University of Almería
This chapter accounts for the different outcomes resulting from the exploitation of different kinds of situational cognitive models (scenarios). Starting from Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera’s (2014) taxonomy of cognitive models, we take a step further by subdividing scenarios into descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory types. It is our contention that the kind of scenario involved constrains the inferential mechanisms activated at the pragmatic levels, which are supported by metonymic activity in the form of metonymic expansion plus metonymic reduction. How such processes can motivate the various formal aspects of constructions is discussed with reference to Kay and Fillmore’s (1999) well-known description of the What’s X Doing Y? construction. This chapter also shows the connections between Langacker’s profile-base relations and the metonymic exploitation of the different kinds of scenarios.
Keywords: metonymic chains, pragmatic inference, profile, base
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Lexical Constructional Model (LCM)
  • 3.Cognitive models
  • 4.Cognitive operations: Metonymy and metonymic chains
    • 4.1Metonymy: Expansion and reduction mechanisms
    • 4.2Metonymic chains
  • 5.Profile-base relations
  • 6.Scenarios, metonymic activity and pragmatic inference
    • 6.1Descriptive scenarios
    • 6.2Attitudinal scenarios
    • 6.3Regulatory scenarios
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.12rui
References (41)
References
Baicchi, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. Special Issue on Cognition and the Brain in Language and Linguistics. Textus, 23, 87–112.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (Eds.) (2011). Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. (2007). Metonymy in grammar. Towards motivating extensions of grammatical cate- gories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.Google Scholar
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
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. (2005). Major strands in cognitive linguistics. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (pp. 69–100). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Peirsman, Y. (2011). Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guiraud, N., Longin, D., Lorini, E., Pesty, S., & Rivière, J. (2011). The face of emotions: A logical formalization of expressive speech acts. In K. Tumer, P. Yolum, L. Sonenberg, & P. Stone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 1031–1038). Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (2008). In defence of iconicity. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 59–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. P. (1999). Grammatical Constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites; Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2003). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.) Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (pp. 163–209). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1978). Expressive illocutionary acts. Journal of Pragmatics 2 (3), 277–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler, & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing Constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplin- ary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirective speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (2005). The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal, I. Navarro, & B. Bellés (Eds.), Cog- nitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Ronan, P. (2015). Categorizing expressive speech acts in the pragmatically annotated SPICE Ireland corpus. ICAME Journal, 39, 25–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore, & J. Taylor (Eds.). Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2015). Entrenching inferences in implicational and illocutionary constructions. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 258–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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., & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary Constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaea, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
(2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives (pp. 62–82). London, UK and Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Kratochvílová, Dana
2024. Review of Peña-Cervel & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Figuring out figuration: A cognitive linguistic account. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Reda, Ghsoon
2023. Evidential propositions as situational scenarios. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & María Asunción Barreras Gómez
2022. Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Inés Lozano-Palacio
2021. On verbal and situational irony. In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2020. The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2023. Review of Lozano-Palacio & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Modeling Irony: A Cognitive-pragmatic Account. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10:1 ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Herrero-Ruiz, Javier
2020. On Some Pragmatic Effects of Event Metonymies. Metaphor and Symbol 35:4 ► pp. 266 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], 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.