Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 77–107

Chapter 3
Doing Tsukahara and the Epley in a cross-linguistic perspective

| ELTE, Budapest
| University of Osijek
This chapter studies eponymous verb constructions (EVCs) in medical and sports discourse in English, German, Croatian and Hungarian. These are constructions consisting of a light verb such as to do and an eponymic noun phrase denoting events. A cross-linguistic comparison reveals that, unlike in English, the productivity of EVCs containing reduced eponymic constructions is severely constrained in German, Croatian and Hungarian. These contrasts can be related not only to some structural givens of the languages in question, such as the availability of articles in the language in question, the entrenchment of light verbs, the gender system, but also to the fact that languages can more or less easily accommodate complex metonymies.
Keywords: eponym, grammatical construction, light verb, metonymy, proper noun
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What counts as eponymy?
    • 2.1From names to (common) nouns
    • 2.2Types of eponyms, structural and semantic
    • 2.3 Eponymy and metonymy
  • 3.Eponymous verb constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.04brd
References (51)
References
Anderson, J. M. 2003. On the structure of names. Folia Linguistica, 37, 347–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. On the grammatical status of names. Language, 80(3), 435–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. 2007. The grammar of names. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2003. Names: A metonymic ‘return ticket’ in five languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 11–41.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 (357–374). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007. The multi-level role of metonymy in grammar and discourse: A case study. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the international conference “Perspectives on metonymy,” held in Łódź, Poland, May 6–7, 2005 (103–131). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009. Partitive restrictive modification of names in English: arguments for their metonymic motivation. Quaderns de filología. Estudis lingüístics, 14, 33–56.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. 2007. When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Or, Some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (125–142.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Metonymies we (don’t) translate by: The case of complex metonymies. Argumentum, 10, 232–247.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., Brdar-Szabó, R., Gradečak-Erdeljić, T., & Buljan, G. 2001. Predicative adjectives in some Germanic and Slavic languages: On the role of metonymy in extending grammatical constructions. Suvremena lingvistika, 27(1–2), 35–57.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R. 2009. Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (323–336). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C. 2001. Light verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences, 23(4–5), 551–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colman, F. 2008. Names, derivational morphology, and Old English gender. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 44, 29–52.Google Scholar
Colman, F., & Anderson, J. 2004. On metonymy as word-formation: With special reference to Old English. English Studies, 85(6), 547–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curme, G. O. 1931. A grammar of the English language. Vol. 3: Syntax. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
Filipović, R. 1992. Metonimija u funkciji formiranja anglicizama u europskim jezicima. Suvremena Lingvistika, 18(2), 63–72.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. S. 1997. A new dictionary of eponyms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garfield, E. 1983. What’s in a name? The eponymic route to immortality. Current Contents, 47, 5–16.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 1989. Principles of monolingual lexicography. In F. J. Hausmann, O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand, & L. Zgusta (Eds.), Wörterbücher. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie – Dictionaries. An international encyclopedia of lexicography – Dictionnaires. Encyclopédie internationale de lexicographie, 1 (287–296.). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gradečak-Erdeljić, T. 2009. Iconicity of the verbal expression – The case of “light” verbs in English. In M. Brdar, M. Omazić, & V. Pavičić Takač (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to English: Fundamental, methodological, interdisciplinary and applied aspects (3–26). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Gradečak-Erdeljić, T., & Brdar, M. 2012. Constructional meaning of verbo-nominal constructions in English and Croatian. Suvremena lingvistika, 38(1): 29–46.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2007. Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body-part terms. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (77–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imamović, A. 2006. Limitations on metonymic uses of -ion nominalizations. Jezikoslovlje, 7(1–2), 45–65.Google Scholar
2009. Motivation for different metonymic readings of – ion nominalizations. In M. Brdar, M. Omazić, & V. Pavičić Takač (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to English: Fundamental, methodological, interdisciplinary and applied aspects (69–96). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
1942. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI: Morhology. London & Copenhagen: George Allen & Unwin, & Ejner Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. 2004. Peut-on sauver un sens de denomination pour les noms propres? Functions of Language, 11(1), 115–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2005. Construction Grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (101–162). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langendonck, W. van. 2005. Proprial names and proprial lemmas. In E. Brylla, & M. Wahlberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st international congress of onomastic sciences, Uppsala 19–24 August 2002 (315–323). Uppsala: Språk-och Folkminnesinstitutet.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. 1992. A theory of vocabulary structure: Retrospectives and prospectives. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Thirty years of linguistics evolution (243–256). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Proper names: Linguistic aspects. In E. K. Brown, & J. Miller (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories (311–313). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lipka, L. 2006. Naming Units (NUs), Observational Linguistics and reference as a speech act, or, What’s in a name. SKASE journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3(3), 30–39.Google Scholar
Macpherson, G. (Ed.). 1999. Black’s medical dictionary. London: Cooper.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V. 1961. Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny na základĕ obecnĕ lingvistickém [A functional analysis of contemporary English on a General linguistic basis]. Prague: Nakladatelství československé akademie věd.Google Scholar
1976. Über die Notwendigkeit der Stabilität in der Literatursprache. In J. Scharnhorst, & E. Ising (Eds.), Grundlagen der Sprachkultur – Beiträge der Prager Linguistik zur Sprachtheorie und Sprachpflege. Teil 1 (86–102). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Pang, K.-y. S. 2010. Eponymy and life-narratives: The effect of foregrounding on proper names. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5): 1321–1349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. 1999. Introduction. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (1–14). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulgram, E. 1954. Theory of names. Berkeley, California: American Name Society.Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N., & Gerrig, R. J. 1999. Eponymous verb phrases and ambiguity resolution. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 612–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. 2014. Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. 2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (33–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (Eds.). 1989. The Oxford English dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In L. A. Sutton, Ch. Johnson, & R. Shields (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (480–519). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2008a. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (23–45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008b. ‘All that he endeavoured to prove was …’: on the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual contexts. In R. Kempson, & R. Cooper (Eds.), Language change and evolution (143–177). London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: how do they intersect? In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (19–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: evidence from the history of a Composite Predicate Construction in the history of English. In G. Trousdale, & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (33–67). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ullmann, S. 1962. Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vachek, J. 1961. Some less familiar aspects of the analytical trend in English. Brno Studies in English, 3, 31–44.Google Scholar
Van Hoof, H. 2001. La traduction des éponymes médicaux banalisés de langue anglaise. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’s Journal, 46(1), 82–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2023. Figuratively used product names: From ergonyms to eponyms and paragons. Lingua 290 ► pp. 103552 ff. DOI logo
Herrero-Ruiz, Javier
2020. On Some Pragmatic Effects of Event Metonymies. Metaphor and Symbol 35:4 ► pp. 266 ff. DOI logo

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