Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:2 (2021) ► pp.465–481

Grammatical metonymy and construal operations

On certain metonymic constructions with singular and plural uses of nouns (on the basis of Polish language material)

| Institute of Polish Language, Polish Academy of Sciences

This article analyses the semantic features of two constructions characterised by the specific use of morphosyntactic indicators of the category of number. The constructions are based on unusual, unobvious ways of using singular and plural forms of NP. The singular (in the first construction) and plural (in the second) forms of NP give to the constructions a metonymic character. The constructions are described as two types of metonymy, representing two different ways of construal.

Keywords: metonymy, construal, construction, number, singular, plural
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The category of number as an object of cognitive linguistics research
  • 3.Object and purpose of the analysis
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Construction I – The singular form instead of the plural
    • 4.2Construction II – The plural form instead of the singular
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00091.szy
References
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 (pp. 321–355.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B.
(2013) Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
(2018) How metonymy motivates constructions. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 185–204). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Figures of speech revisited: Introducing syntonymy and syntaphor. In A. Baicchi, (Ed.) Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language (pp. 225–251). Amsterdam & New York: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.
(2002–2003) Metonymic motivation in English grammar: The case of the tense aspect-mood system. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 47–58(37–50), 37–49.Google Scholar
(2005) Ways of getting around and signalling metonymy in the grammar of noun phrases. Bosanski Jezik, 41, 39–61.Google Scholar
(2007) Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy. Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
(2009) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R.
(2016) Metonymische Kompetenz und Grammatikerwerb. In I. Feld-Knapp (Ed.), Grammatik (pp. 92–127). Budapest: ELTE Eötvös József Collegium.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S.
(2001) Précis of the number sense. Mind & Language, 161, 16–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drożdż, G.
(2017) The puzzle of un(countability) in English: A study in Cognitive Grammar. Katowice: University of Silesia Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gradečak-Erdeljić, T.
(2004) Metonymy and grammatical recategorisation of nouns. In D. Kučanda, M. Brdar & B. Berić (Eds.), Teaching English for life. Studies to honour Prof. Elvira Petrović on the occasion of her 70th Birthday (pp. 347–358). Osijek: Filozofski Fakultet.Google Scholar
Koch, P.
(1999) Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139–167). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view, Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009a) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Grounding, semantic functions, and absolute quantifiers. Text Construction, 10(2), 233–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D.
(1999) Synecdoche as a Cognitive and Communicative Strategy. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, (pp. 197–213). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G.
(Eds.) (1999), Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/
. DOI logo
Panther, K-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
(2002) The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 280–319) Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paszenda, J., & Góralczyk, I.
(2017) The proper name Misiewicz as nomen appellativum in the current political discourse in Poland, Acta Neophilologica, XIX(2), 65–76.Google Scholar
(2018) Metonymic motivations behind paragonic uses of proper names in political discourse: A cognitive linguistic approach, Linguistica Silesiana, 391, 211–235.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geererts, D.
(2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G.
(2009) Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 199–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Galera Masegosa, A.
(2014) Cognitive modelling: A linguistic perspective, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L.
(2002) Metonymy, grammar and communication. Alblote: Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Pérez Hernández, L.
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21(4), 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seto, K.
(1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, (pp. 99–120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2002) Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R.
(1999) Grammatical constraints on metonymy: On the role of the direct object. In K.-U. Panther & Günter Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 233–253). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1985) Oats and wheat: The fallacy of arbitrariness. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 311–342). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar