Chapter 5
How metonymy and grammar interact
Some effects and constraints in a cross-linguistic perspective
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.
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
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bauer, L.
1983 English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M.
2007 Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
2008 On the marginality of lexical blending.
Jezikoslovlje 9, 171–194.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T.
1995 Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension.
Journal of Semantics, 12, 15–67.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Corbett, G. G.
2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dressler, W. U.
2005 Word formation in natural morphology. In
P. Štekauer &
R. Lieber (Eds.),
Handbook of word-formation (267–284). Dordrecht: Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fortescue, M.
1984 West Greenlandic. London, Sydney & Dover: Croom Helm.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fradin, B.
2003 Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jespersen, O.
1949 A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part 3: Syntax. Vol. 2. London & Copenhagen: George Allen & Unwinn & Ejner Munksgaard.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
1998 Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view.
Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mattiello, E.
2013 Extra-grammatical morphology in English: Abbreviations, blends, reduplicatives, and related phenomena. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nübling, D.
2001 Auto – bil, Reha – rehab, Mikro – mick, Alki – alkis: Kurzwörter im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Skandinavistik 31(2), 167–199.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunberg, G.
1979 The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy.
Linguistics and Philosphy, 3, 143–184.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunberg, G.
1995 Transfers of meaning.
Journal of Semantics, 12, 109–132.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Plag, I.
2003 Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pütz, M., & Verspoor, M.
2000 Introduction. In
M. Pütz and
M. Verspoor (Eds.),
Explorations in linguistic relativity (ix–xvi). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbach, A.
2002 Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., Galera Masegosa, A.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L.
2002 Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña Cervel, S.
2002 Cognitive operations and and projection spaces.
Jezikoslovlje, 3, 131–158.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L.
2001 Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction.
Language and Communication, 21, 321–357.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, R. P., & Minkova, D.
2001 English words: History and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweep, J.
2012 Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Utrecht: LOT.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 june 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.