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 (32)
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 (1)

Cited by one other publication

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 5 january 2025. 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.