Cover not available
Part of
Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
Edited by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona and Rossella Pannain
[Human Cognitive Processing 60] 2018
► pp. 185–204

Chapter 7
How metonymy motivates constructions

The case of monoclausal if-only P constructions in English

 | University of Częstochowa
This chapter shows how constructional metonymy, whereby a part Y of a grammatical construction X is used to access the whole construction X, leads to the emergence of new grammatical constructions. Such metonymically motivated constructions are called dependent constructions, as opposed to the autonomous constructions they originally targeted. The construction I consider in detail is the monoclausal if-only P construction. I attempt to demonstrate that, contrary to Dancygier and Sweetser’s (2005), there is no single if-only P construction but, rather, a network of at least four if-only P constructions, which differ in their time reference, epistemic stance and illocutionary force. My proposal shows that the emergence of such dependent constructions is usually motivated by the familiar part-for-whole metonymy.
Keywords: conditional sentence, construction, constructional metonymy, epistemic stance, if-only construction, illocutionary force
Article outline
  • 1.Preliminaries: Conceptual and constructional metonymy in grammar
  • 2.Dancygier and Sweetser’s account of the if-only construction
    • 2.1 if-only P, Q construction
    • 2.2Monoclausal if-only P construction
  • 3.Objections to Dancygier and Sweetser’s analysis
    • 3.1Objection 1: There is no single biclausal if-only P, Q construction
      • 3.1.1 If-only P, Q1
      • 3.1.2 If-only P, Q2
      • 3.1.3 If-only P, Q3
      • 3.1.4 If-only P, Q4
        • 3.1.4.1 If-only P, Q4A
        • 3.1.4.2 If-only P, Q4B
    • 3.2Objection 2: There is no single monoclausal if-only P construction
      • 3.2.1 If-only P1 (metonymically motivated by If-only P, Q1)
      • 3.2.2 If-only P2 (metonymically motivated by If-only P, Q2)
      • 3.2.3 If-only P3 (metonymically motivated by If-only P, Q3)
      • 3.2.4 If-only P4 (metonymically motivated by If-only P, Q4)
    • 3.3Objection 3: The condition is minimally sufficient
    • 3.4Objection 4: I wish performatives are not synonymous with if-only P
    • 3.5Objection 5: Not just a wish but a range of speech acts
  • 4.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.07bie
References (39)
References
Akatsuka, N. 2002. Negative conditionality, subjectivisation and conditional reasoning. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (Eds.), On conditionals again (325–354). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A. 2011. Metaphoric motivation in grammatical structure: The caused motion construction from the perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (149–169). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (313–352). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berk, L. 1999. English syntax: From word to discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1990. Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2007. On formal metonymy. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ held in Lódź, Poland, May 6–7, 2005 (43–67). Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2011. Raising constructions and their metonymic offspring. In B. Bierwiaczonek, B. Cetnarowska, & A. Turula (Eds), Syntax in cognitive grammar (245–257). Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Lingwistycznej.Google Scholar
2013a. Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
2013b. On dependent and autonomous constructions in grammar. In K. Papaja & A. Rojczyk (Eds.), Continuity and change in the English language and culture (9–26). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Zarządzania Ochroną Pracy w Katowicach.Google Scholar
2014. On constructivization – a few remarks on the role of metonymy in grammar. In K. Rudnicka-Szozda & A. Szwedek (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in the making (5–20). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2016. An Introductory English Grammar in Constructions. Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo Akademii im. J. Długosza.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R. 2007. The role of metonymy in motivating cross-linguistic differences in the exploitation of stand-alone conditionals in indirect directives. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’ held in Lódź, Poland, May 6–7, 2005 (175–197). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. 2013. Some reflections on metonymy and word-formation. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics 1(1), 40–62.Google Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar. Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. 2007. Insubordination andits uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. 1990. Epistemic stance and grammatical form in conditional sentences. CLS, 26, (137–162). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
2013. Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (111–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. [Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture]. Chicago & London: The University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2014. Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. A., & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language. Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 2002. A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. 2011. Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (1–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. 2003. Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: the case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy in pragmatic inferencing (127–147). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2011. Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses. In M. Brdar, S. Gries, & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Convergence and expansion (87–114). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). 2011. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (Eds), 2004. Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L. 2010. A constructional account of argument omissions. Constructions and frames 2(2), 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. 2013. Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swan, M. 1995. Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E., & Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vince, M. 1994. Advanced language practice. Oxford: MacMillan Neinemann English Language Teaching.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Bierwiaczonek, Bogusław
2021. On motivation and incoordination in grammar – The case of two Polish exclamative constructions. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Szymańska, Monika
2021. Grammatical metonymy and construal operations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 465 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.