Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 15:1 (2017) ► pp.183–223

On constructional blocking of metonymies

A cross-linguistic view

 | University of Osijek
 | ELTE, Budapest
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.
Keywords: metonymy, construction, Equipollence Hypothesis, blocking, synonymy, grammar, possessive construction, causative construction
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.

Published online: 4 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.08brd
References (64)
References
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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
Bierwiaczionek, B. (2007). Synonymy reactivated. Linguistica Silesiana, 281, 7–21.Google Scholar
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
Brdar, M. (2007a). Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
(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
(2007c). Topic-continuity, metonymy and locative adverbials: A cognitive-functional account. Suvremena lingvistika, 33(1), 13–29.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2009a). Metonymy-induced polysemy and the role of suffixation in its resolution in some Slavic languages. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 58–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R., (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 (pp. 229–257). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Some reflections on metonymy and word-formation. ExELL: Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 11, 40–62.Google Scholar
(2014). Where does metonymy begin?: Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 13–40.Google Scholar
(2017). How metonymy and grammar interact: Some effects and constraints in a cross-linguistic perspective In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 125–149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle 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, 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
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
(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
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curme, G. O. (1931). A grammar of the English language. Vol. 31: Syntax. Heath, Boston.Google Scholar
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
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, Fo. (2011). Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 491, 1305–1358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A. (2011). Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 359–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabakčiev, K. (2000). Aspect in English: A “common-sense” view of the interplay between verbal and nominal referents. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Kremers, J. (2005). Adjectival constructs in Arabic. Linguistische Berichte, 2031, 331–348.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990a). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, (1990b). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Raising and transparency. Language, 71(1), 1–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S., & Panther, K. U. (2014). ‘Author (date)’ constructions in academic discourse. English Text Construction, 71, 215–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 (333–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Panther, K. U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña Cervel, M. S. (2015). A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs. Linguistics, 53(6), 1247–1302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2001). The folk model of language. Metaphorik.de, 11, 55–86.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Reiner, E. (1984). Damqam-īnim revisited. Studia Orientalia, 55(6), 177–182.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2014). Adjectivally headed construct states and the semantics of metonymic predication. Lingua, 1381, 23–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña Cervel, S. M. (2003). Cognitive operations and and projection spaces. Jezikoslovlje, 31, 131–158.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 211, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siloni, T. (2000). Nonnominal constructs. In J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm, & U. Shlonsky (Eds.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar (pp. 301–323). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2015). Metonymies don’t bomb people, people bomb people. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 31, 27–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweep, J. (2012). Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics (pp. 245–271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1986). Noun incorporations in Nahuatl. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference, 21, 455–470.Google Scholar
Vachek, J. (1961). Some less familiar aspects of the analytical trend in English. Brno Studies in English, 31, 9–78.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D., & Lee, S. (2009). A metonymic analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English causative constructions. In K. U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 291–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, R. (1999). Grammatical constraints on metonymy: On the role of the direct object. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden, (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 233–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three 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
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2020. Metonymy meets coercion. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Alicia Galera Masegosa
2020. The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 284 ff. DOI logo

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.