Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 151–175

Chapter 6
If-clauses and their figurative basis

| Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
The objective of the chapter is to demonstrate that the cognitive processes of metaphor and metonymy may determine the form of grammatical constructions and may be responsible for the elaboration of their meaning. The positions that constitute the framework in the chapter are: (a) both cognitive processes interact and pave the ground for the semantic organization and the communicative effect of grammatical constructions; (b) metonymy, being subliminal, seems to be more ubiquitous than metaphor, the latter process being most of the times based on preexisting metonymy; (c) each of the two processes operates differently encouraging the use of lexical items from the domain of conditionality. Both figurative processes, it will be claimed, contribute to broadening our understanding of grammar.
Keywords: conditional constructions, course of eventness, hypotheticality, metaphor, metonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Figuration and grammar
    • 1.2Conditionality
  • 2.Hypothetical conditionals
    • 2.1Predictive hypothetical conditionals
    • 2.2Precondition hypothetical conditionals
    • 2.3Supposition hypothetical conditionals
  • 3.Course of events conditionals
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.06ath
References (47)
References
Athanasiadou, A., & Dirven, R. 1996. Typology of if-clauses. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (609–654). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Conditionality, hypotheticality, counterfactuality. In A. Athanasiadou, & R. Dirven (Eds.), On conditionals again (61–96). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Pragmatic conditionals. In A. Foolen, & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics (1–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective [Topics in English Linguistics 30] (31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2004. Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation [Cognitive Linguistics Research 28] (357–374). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barnden, J. 2010. Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. 2007. Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Josip Juraj Strossmayer University Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. 2003. Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 113] (241–266). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. The (non-)metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25] (229–257). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. 2004. Predicate adjectives and grammatical-relational polysemy: The role of metonymic processes in motivating cross-linguistic differences. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation [Cognitive Linguistic Research 28] (321–355). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. 1998. Conditionals and prediction: Time, knowledge, and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Athanasiadou, A. 2005. If and its near synonyms. In A. J. Schuth, K. Horner, & J. J. Weber (Eds), Life in language (97–120). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds). 2003. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses Z., & Radden, & G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9: 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Virtual reality. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 29, 77–103.Google Scholar
2009. Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25] (45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. 2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction [Cognitive Linguistics Research 32] (353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011. Taking stock of figurative language and grammar: Results and prospects. metaphorik.de 21, 21–45.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (Eds.) 1999. Metonymy in language and thought. [Human Cognitive Processing 4]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. 2011. Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In: K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon [Human Cognitive Processing 27] (1–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 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 [Human Cognitive Processing 4] (333–359). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. metaphorik.de 6: 91–116.Google Scholar
2009a. Introduction. On figuration in grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25] (1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. Aspect and metonymy in the French passé simple. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25] (177–195). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. 2002. How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast [Cognitive Linguistics Research 20] (407–437). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. The ubiquity of metonymy. In: J. L. Otal Campo, I. Navarro I Ferrando, & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (11–28). Castelló: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads [Topics in English Linguistics 30] (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 [Human Cognitive Processing 28] (103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. 2014. Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective [Human Cognitive Processing 45]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal-Usón, R. 2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning Construction (33–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. 2007. Finding metaphor in grammar and usage: a methodological analysis of theory and research [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 20]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model for metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. When is metaphor deliberate? In N.-L. C. Johannesson, Alm-Arvius, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the Stockholm 2008 metaphor festival. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.Google Scholar
2011. Are ‘deliberate’ metaphors really deliberate? Metaphor and the Social World, 1(1), 26–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5 (1–2), 179–197.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. 2013. Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions. In G. Fauconnier, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (318–333). The University of Chicago Press. Chicago & London.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1996. Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In P. Bloom et al., (Eds.), Language and Space (211–276). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar