Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 125–149

Chapter 5
How metonymy and grammar interact

Some effects and constraints in a cross-linguistic perspective

 | University of Osijek and ELTE, Budapest
 | University of Osijek and ELTE, Budapest
It is often assumed that the relationship between metonymy and grammar is one-way traffic. By applying a cross-linguistic perspective in studying the relationship between grammar and metonymy to the example of so-called embellished clippings and local genitive constructions (arising via an anti-associative-like stage) we demonstrate that whether a certain type of metonymy is available in a given language is dependent on the ecological conditions present in the system (including its word-formation system). The relationship between grammar and metonymy is quite complex: it often involves genuine two-way interaction, and it is often a whole cluster of interrelated structural facts that can formally align potential metonymic source expressions and thus facilitate or, conversely, pre-empt the application of a given metonymy.
Keywords: clipping, anti-associative plural, genitive construction, collective noun, word-formation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.How metonymy and grammar interact
    • 2.1Clippings across languages
    • 2.2From vehicles and locatives to (anti-associative) plurals and collectives via genitives
  • 3.Summing up
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Abbreviations
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.05brd
References (41)
References
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 (254–271). Barcelona: Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & AEDEAN.Google Scholar
Bat-El, O. 2000. The grammaticality of extragrammatical morphology. In U. Doleschal & A. M. Thornton (Eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (61–84). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L, Huddleston R. 2002. Lexical word-formation. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (1621–1721). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. 2007. Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
2009. Metonymy-induced polysemy and the role of suffixation in its resolution in some Slavic languages. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 58–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar M., & Brdar-Szabó, & R. 2014. Croatian place suffixations in -ište: Polysemy and metonymy. In F. Polzenhagen, Z. Kövecses, S. Vogelbacher & S. Kleinke (Eds.), Cognitive explorations into metaphor and metonymy (293–322). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. 2008. On the marginality of lexical blending. Jezikoslovlje 9, 171–194.Google Scholar
Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. 2005. Word formation in natural morphology. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (267–284). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, M. 1984. West Greenlandic. London, Sydney & Dover: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fradin, B. 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1949. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part 3: Syntax. Vol. 2. London & Copenhagen: George Allen & Unwinn & Ejner Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Koch, P. 2001. Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2, 201–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreidler, Ch. 2000. Clipping and acronymy. In G. E. Booij, Ch. Lehmann, J. Mugdan, W. Kesselheim & S. Skopeteas (Eds.), Morphology: An international handbook of inflection and word-formation, Vol. 1 (956–963). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & Barcelona, A. (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. 2013. Extra-grammatical morphology in English: Abbreviations, blends, reduplicatives, and related phenomena. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 1991. The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: the grammaticization of subjects. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine, (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Volume 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers [Typological Studies in Language 19.2] (161–184). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins,. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, D. 2001. Auto – bil, Reha – rehab, Mikro – mick, Alki – alkis: Kurzwörter im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Skandinavistik 31(2), 167–199.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosphy, 3, 143–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 109–132. DOI logoGoogle 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 & Philadelphia: 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 & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.) 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, J., & Huddleston, R. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (323–523). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, M., & Verspoor, M. 2000. Introduction. In M. Pütz and M. Verspoor (Eds.), Explorations in linguistic relativity (ix–xvi). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., Galera Masegosa, A. 2014. Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. 2002. Cognitive operations and and projection spaces. Jezikoslovlje, 3, 131–158.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., & Minkova, D. 2001. English words: History and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweep, J. 2012. Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Utrecht: LOT.Google 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 (233–253). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Muñoz, Carmen Portero
2022. Forty years of metonymy. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 172 ff. DOI logo
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2017. On constructional blocking of metonymies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.