Chapter 5
How metonymy and grammar interact
Some effects and constraints in a cross-linguistic perspective
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.
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
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bauer, L. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M. 2007. 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., & 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. 2008. On the marginality of lexical blending. Jezikoslovlje 9, 171–194.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15–67. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Corbett, G. G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dressler, W. U. 2005. Word formation in natural morphology. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (267–284). Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fortescue, M. 1984. West Greenlandic. London, Sydney & Dover: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fradin, B. 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jespersen, O. 1949. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part 3: Syntax. Vol. 2. London & Copenhagen: George Allen & Unwinn & Ejner Munksgaard.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mattiello, E. 2013. Extra-grammatical morphology in English: Abbreviations, blends, reduplicatives, and related phenomena. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nübling, D. 2001. Auto – bil, Reha – rehab, Mikro – mick, Alki – alkis: Kurzwörter im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Skandinavistik 31(2), 167–199.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunberg, G. 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosphy, 3, 143–184. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunberg, G. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 109–132. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.) 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Plag, I. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pütz, M., & Verspoor, M. 2000. Introduction. In M. Pütz and M. Verspoor (Eds.), Explorations in linguistic relativity (ix–xvi). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![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. 2002. Cognitive operations and and projection spaces. Jezikoslovlje, 3, 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, 21, 321–357. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, R. P., & Minkova, D. 2001. English words: History and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![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)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
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.