Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 126–149

Chapter 5
How metonymy and grammar interact

Some effects and constraints in a cross-linguistic perspective

| University of Osijek and ELTE, Budapest
| University of Osijek and ELTE, Budapest

It is often assumed that the relationship between metonymy and grammar is one-way traffic. By applying a cross-linguistic perspective in studying the relationship between grammar and metonymy to the example of so-called embellished clippings and local genitive constructions (arising via an anti-associative-like stage) we demonstrate that whether a certain type of metonymy is available in a given language is dependent on the ecological conditions present in the system (including its word-formation system). The relationship between grammar and metonymy is quite complex: it often involves genuine two-way interaction, and it is often a whole cluster of interrelated structural facts that can formally align potential metonymic source expressions and thus facilitate or, conversely, pre-empt the application of a given metonymy.

Keywords: clipping, anti-associative plural, genitive construction, collective noun, word-formation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.How metonymy and grammar interact
    • 2.1Clippings across languages
    • 2.2From vehicles and locatives to (anti-associative) plurals and collectives via genitives
  • 3.Summing up
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Abbreviations
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.05brd
References

References

Barcelona, A.
2012 Metonymy in, under and above the lexicon. In S. M. Alegre, M. Moyel, E. Pladevall & S. Tubau (Eds.), At a time of crisis: English and American studies in Spain. Works from the 35th AEDEAN Conference UAB/Barcelona 14–16 November 2011 (254–271). Barcelona: Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & AEDEAN.Google Scholar
Bat-El, O.
2000 The grammaticality of extragrammatical morphology. In U. Doleschal & A. M. Thornton (Eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (61–84). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Bauer, L.
1983 English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L, Huddleston R.
2002 Lexical word-formation. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (1621–1721). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.
2007 Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
2009 Metonymy-induced polysemy and the role of suffixation in its resolution in some Slavic languages. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 58–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar M., & Brdar-Szabó, & R.
2014 Croatian place suffixations in -ište: Polysemy and metonymy. In F. Polzenhagen, Z. Kövecses, S. Vogelbacher & S. Kleinke (Eds.), Cognitive explorations into metaphor and metonymy (293–322). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
2008 On the marginality of lexical blending. Jezikoslovlje 9, 171–194.Google Scholar
Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T.
1995 Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G.
2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U.
2005 Word formation in natural morphology. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (267–284). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, M.
1984 West Greenlandic. London, Sydney & Dover: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fradin, B.
2003 Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
1949 A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part 3: Syntax. Vol. 2. London & Copenhagen: George Allen & Unwinn & Ejner Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Koch, P.
2001 Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2, 201–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
1998 Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreidler, Ch.
2000 Clipping and acronymy. In G. E. Booij, Ch. Lehmann, J. Mugdan, W. Kesselheim & S. Skopeteas (Eds.), Morphology: An international handbook of inflection and word-formation, Vol. 1 (956–963). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
2009 Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & Barcelona, A. (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H.
1969 The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E.
2013 Extra-grammatical morphology in English: Abbreviations, blends, reduplicatives, and related phenomena. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M.
1991 The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: the grammaticization of subjects. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine, (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Volume 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers [Typological Studies in Language 19.2] (161–184). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins,. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, D.
2001 Auto – bil, Reha – rehab, Mikro – mick, Alki – alkis: Kurzwörter im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Skandinavistik 31(2), 167–199.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G.
1979 The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosphy, 3, 143–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
1999 The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden, (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 The EFFECT-FOR-CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
(Eds.) 2009 Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, J., & Huddleston, R.
2002 Nouns and noun phrases. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (323–523). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
2003 Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, M., & Verspoor, M.
2000 Introduction. In M. Pütz and M. Verspoor (Eds.), Explorations in linguistic relativity (ix–xvi). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
2007 Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, A.
2002 Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., Galera Masegosa, A.
2014 Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L.
2002 Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña Cervel, S.
2002 Cognitive operations and and projection spaces. Jezikoslovlje, 3, 131–158.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
Stockwell, R. P., & Minkova, D.
2001 English words: History and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweep, J.
2012 Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R.
1999 Grammatical constraints on metonymy: On the role of the direct object. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden, (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (233–253). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2017. On constructional blocking of metonymies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz, Carmen Portero
2022. Forty years of metonymy. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 172 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 september 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.