Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 95–120

From the meaning of the concrete noun to its grammatical property and back

The property of countability and uncountability is one of important characteristics of English nouns. At the same time, it is an issue of considerable controversy. On the one hand, Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 334) maintain that many nouns can be used with count and mass interpretations. On the other hand, Langacker (2008: 142) claims that probably all nouns can be used as countable and uncountable. The chapter explores this issue. Its aim is to suggest a methodology that checks Langacker’s claim. In order to do so, we take the CG stance and trace sense extensions of five concrete nouns classified by dictionaries as solely countable. The chapter indicates also certain regularities in this kind of sense extensions.
Keywords: Cognitive Grammar, countable and uncountable nouns, extension of meaning
Published online: 4 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.54.05dro
References
Crystal, D.
2004 Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, R.
2002 Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (75–111). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.
2010 Looking back at thirty years of cognitive linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & Ł. Wirszaka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action (11–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Drożdż, G.
2014a Experiential foundations of countability and uncountability in English. In A. Łyda & G. Drożdż (Eds.), Dimensions of the word (106–133). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2014b Metonymic extension as the process underlying the change of count and mass properties of nouns. In G. Drożdż & A. Łyda (Eds.), Extension and its limits (83–109). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Elmer-Dewitt, P.
1994 Bards of the Internet. Time 4 July, 66–67.Google Scholar
Gast, V.
2006 Introduction. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik. Special issue: The Scope and Limits of Corpus Linguistics – Empiricism in the Description and Analysis of English, 54(2), 113–120.Google Scholar
Hale, C., & Scanlon, J.
1999 Wired style: Principles of English usage in the digital age. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1990 Concept, image, symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007 Cognitive grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (421–462). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindstromberg, S.
2010 English prepositions explained. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLaury, R.
1995 Vantage theory. In J. Taylor & R. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (231–276). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A.
2001 Corpus Linguistics. An Introduction. Second Edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, J.
2008 Spoken corpora: Rationale and application. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 6(2), 27–58.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
2006 Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartnik, J.
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
2007 Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
1999 Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roland, D., & Jurafsky, D.
2002 Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. In P. Merlo & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The lexical basis of sentence processing: Formal, computational and experimental issues (325–345). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.R., & MacLaury, R.
1995 Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.R.
2002 Cognitive grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
1999 The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Dictionaries

CD – Cambridge Dictionaries Online
[URL]
CoD – Collins English Dictionary
[URL]
LED – Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
[URL]
MD – Macmillan Dictionary
[URL]
OED – Oxford Dictionaries
[URL]
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Drożdż, Grzegorz
2022. Metonymic patterns of count-to-mass and mass-to-count changes and their implications for metonymy research. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2023. 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.