On constructional blocking of metonymies
A cross-linguistic view
The interaction between metonymy and grammar is commonly understood, in keeping with the classical cognitive linguistic doctrine about cognitive operations motivating linguistic structures, as unilateral – conceptual metaphor and metonymy shaping the grammatical system. However, we argue in this article that one of the possible corollaries of the Equipollence Hypothesis (Mairal & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2009; Ruiz de Mendoza & Luzondo Oyón, 2012) covers a truly bilateral interaction between grammatical structures and cognitive processes. The Equipollence Hypothesis is shown to allow for grammatical phenomena facilitating or constraining, i.e. blocking, the application of conceptual metonymies and their expressions across domains of linguistic inquiry. Specifically, we show in four case studies that grammatical constructions may actually pre-empt lexical (and grammatical) metonymy.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: On the interaction between metonymy and grammar
- 2.The Equipollence Hypothesis and metonymy blocking
- 3.Constructional blocking of metonymy
- 3.1Metonymy blocked by word-formation constructions: The case of object-material metonymies
- 3.2Predicative possessive constructions
- 3.3The controller for controlled metonymy and causative constructions
- 3.3.1The anatomy of this metonymy
- 3.3.2
controller for controlled/causative metonymy across languages
- 3.4Papers in papers
- 4.Some concluding remarks about the blocking of metonymy by grammar
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
This article is currently available as a sample article.
References (64)
Aronoff, M.
(
1976)
Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 (pp. 254–271). Barcelona: Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona/AEDEAN.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bierwiaczionek, B.
(
2007)
Synonymy reactivated.
Linguistica Silesiana, 281, 7–21.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Booij, G.
(
2015)
Word-formation in construction grammar. In
O. Müller Peter,
I. Ohnheiser,
S. Olsen, &
F. Rainer (Eds.),
Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe 40.1 (pp. 188–202). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M.
(
2007a)
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.
(
2007b)
Where have all the metonymies gone? In
K. Kosecki (Ed.),
Perspectives on metonymy: Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Perspectives on Metonymy’, held in Łódź, Poland, May 6–7, 2005 (pp. 69–86). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M.
(
2007c)
Topic-continuity, metonymy and locative adverbials: A cognitive-functional account.
Suvremena lingvistika, 33(1), 13–29.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M.
(
2009b)
Metonymies we live without. In
K. U. Panther,
L. L. Thornburg, &
A. Barcelona (Eds.),
Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 259–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
(
2013)
Some reflections on metonymy and word-formation.
ExELL: Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 11, 40–62.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
(
2014)
Where does metonymy begin?: Some comments on Janda (2011).
Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 13–40.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M., Kučanda, D., Gradečak-Erdeljić, T., & Milić, G.
(
2005)
Novine u novinama. In
J. Granić (Ed.),
Semantika prirodnog jezika i metajezik semantike (pp. 131–140). Zagreb/Split: Hrvatsko društvo za primijenjenu lingvistiku.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
(
2003)
Referential metonymy across languages: What can cognitive linguistics and contrastive linguistics learn from each other? International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 85–105.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
(
2004)
Predicative 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 (321–355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W.
(
2001)
Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Curme, G. O.
(
1931)
A grammar of the English language. Vol. 31: Syntax. Heath, Boston.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frei, H.
(
1972)
Sylvie est jolie des yeux. In
A. Sechehaye (Ed.),
Melanges de linguistique offerts à Charles Bally (pp. 185–192). Geneva: Slatkine.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
(
1995)
Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
(
2006)
Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gonzálvez-García, Fo.
(
2011)
Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction.
Linguistics, 491, 1305–1358.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, P. J.
(
1991)
Dispersed verbal predicates in vernacular written narrative. In
L. A. Sutton,
C. Johnson, &
R. Shields (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on the grammar of event structure (pp. 402–413). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, P. J.
(
1997)
When ‘grammar’ and discourse clash. In
J. Bybee &
S. A. Thompson (Eds.),
Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 231–247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Janda, L. A.
(
2011)
Metonymy in word-formation.
Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 359–392.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kabakčiev, K.
(
2000)
Aspect in English: A “common-sense” view of the interplay between verbal and nominal referents. Dordrecht: Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kiparsky, P. (
1983)
Word formation and the lexicon. In
F. Ingemann (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 1982 MidAmerica Linguistics Conference (pp. 3–22). Lawrence: University of Kansas.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, E., & Haspelmath, M.
(
1989)
Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In
J. Feuillet (Ed.),
Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe (pp. 526–606). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kremers, J.
(
2005)
Adjectival constructs in Arabic.
Linguistische Berichte, 2031, 331–348.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1990a)
Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1990b)
Subjectification.
Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1995)
Raising and transparency.
Language, 71(1), 1–62.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1999)
Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
Mathesius, V.
(
1961)
Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny na základy obecny lingvitickém [
A functional analysis of contemporary English on a general linguistic basis]. Prague: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Onysko, A., & Michel, S.
(
2010)
Introduction: Unravelling the cognitive in word formation. In
A. Onysko &
S. Michel (Eds.),
Cognitive perspectives on word formation (1–25). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K. U.
(
2005)
The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In
F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza &
M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.),
Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![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: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K. U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
Peña Cervel, M. S.
(
2015)
A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs.
Linguistics, 53(6), 1247–1302.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(
1985)
A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G.
(
2001)
The folk model of language.
Metaphorik.de, 11, 55–86.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
(
1999)
Towards a theory of metonymy. In
K. U. Panther &
G. Radden (Eds.),
Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reiner, E.
(
1984)
Damqam-īnim revisited.
Studia Orientalia, 55(6), 177–182.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rothstein, S.
(
2014)
Adjectivally headed construct states and the semantics of metonymic predication.
Lingua, 1381, 23–54.
![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., &
Luzondo Oyón, A. (
2012)
Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. In
M. Brdar,
I. Raffaeli, &
M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.),
Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. M.
(
2003)
Cognitive operations and and projection spaces.
Jezikoslovlje, 31, 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, 211, 321–357.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siloni, T.
(
2000)
Nonnominal constructs. In
J. Lecarme,
J. Lowenstamm, &
U. Shlonsky (Eds.),
Research in Afroasiatic grammar (pp. 301–323). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stallard, D.
(
1993)
Two kinds of metonymy. In
Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 87–94). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stefanowitsch, A.
(
2015)
Metonymies don’t bomb people, people bomb people.
Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 31, 27–50.
![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)
Traugott, E. C.
(
1989)
On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change.
Language, 65(1), 31–55.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tuggy, D.
(
1986)
Noun incorporations in Nahuatl.
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference, 21, 455–470.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vachek, J.
(
1961)
Some less familiar aspects of the analytical trend in English.
Brno Studies in English, 31, 9–78.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
Amaral, Luana & Márcia Cançado
2020.
Metonymy triggers syntactic argument alternation:vehicleforconductormetonymy as a constraint on lexical-constructional integration.
Cognitive Linguistics 31:1
► pp. 113 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Alicia Galera Masegosa
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.