Cover not available
Part of
À la recherche de la prédication: Autour des syntagmes prépositionnels
Sous la direction de Christiane Marque-Pucheu, Fryni Kakoyianni-Doa, Peter A. Machonis et Harald Ulland
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 32] 2016
► pp. 89–104

Metaphorical construction in Spanish pseudo-partitives and PP-adverbials

This paper deals with the metaphorical exploitation of nouns like avalancha ‘avalanche’, nube ‘cloud’ and ola ‘wave’ in Spanish pseudo-partitive constructions (PPCs) of the type avalancha de información ‘avalanche of information’ and PP-adverbials, such as la gente entró en avalancha ‘the people entered in avalanche’.1 Based on an analysis of the structure and meaning of PPCs, including their possibilities of restructuring, the paper argues that the conceptual blending processes which take place at the NP and sentence levels are not isolated phenomena, but follow identical semantic principles for the cognitive integration of concepts triggered by prepositions. Although Spanish functions as the example language in this paper, the observations and results presented here apply to many other languages.
Keywords: conceptual blending, metaphor construction, prepositional phrases, pseudo-partitives, restructuring
Published online: 24 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.32.05mul
References (30)
References
Blanco, X. (2002). Les determinants figés. Langages, 145, 61–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. (2003). Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2), 283–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buvet, P.A. (1993). Les déterminants nominaux quantifieurs. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris 13.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Climent, S. (2001). Individuation by partitive constructions in Spanish. In P. Bouillon, & F. Busa (Eds.), The language of Word Meaning (pp. 192–215). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. (1985). Sur les déterminants dans les expressions figées. Langages, 79, 89–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1986). Grammaire transformationnelle du français 2 – Syntaxe du nom. Malakoff: Cantilène.Google Scholar
Guillet A. & Leclère C. (1981). Restructuration du groupe nominal. Langages, 63, 99–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. (2004). The syntagmatics of metaphor. International Journal of Lexicography, 17(3), 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Metaphoricity is gradable. In A. Stefanowitsch, & S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy (pp. 17–35). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. (1996). Studies on the Syntax and Semantics of Partitive and Related Constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. & Busa, F. (1999). The compositional interpretation of compounds. In E. Viegas (Ed.), Breadth and Depth of Semantics Lexicons (pp. 167–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, E. (2007). The English Noun Phrase. The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2001). “A piece of the cake” and “a cup of tea”: Partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Ö. Dahl, & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact, vol. 2, [pp. 523 – 568]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopjevskaja-Tamm M. (2006). Partitives. In Keith Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, Volume 9, 2nd edition (pp. 218–221). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2009). A lot of grammar with a good portion of lexicon: towards a typology of partitive and pseudopartitive nominal constructions. In J. Helmbrecht, Y. Nishina, Y.-M. Shin, S. Skopeteas, & E. Verhoeven (Eds.), Form and Function in Language Research. Papers in Honour of Christian Lehmann (pp. 329–346). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S. & Huumo, T. (2014). Introduction. In S. Luraghi, & T. Huumo (Eds.), Empirical Approaches to Language Typology [EALT], Volume 54: Partitive Cases and Related Categories (pp. 1–13). München, DEU: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mirto, I.M. & Necker, H. (2007). Complex Nominal Determiners. A Contrastive Study. In P. Ramat & E. Roma (Eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas: Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective (pp. 215–243). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, H.H. (2006). Explaining metaphorical partitive constructions. In I. Baron, H. Korzen, I. Korzen, H. Nølke, & H.H. Müller (Eds.), Grammatica. Festschrift in honour of Michael Herslund (pp. 361–376). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Müller, H.H. & Korzen, I. (2014). The Copenhagen Dependency Treebank (CDT). Extending syntactic annotation to other linguistic levels. In K. Gerdes, E. Hajičová, & L. Wanner (Eds.), Dependency Linguistics. Recent advances in linguistic theory using dependency structures (pp. 75–98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge (Mass.) & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1977). Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In P. Culivor, A. Akmaijan, & P. Wasow (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 283–316). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. (1996). The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verveckken, K. (2012). Towards a constructional account of high and low frequency binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics 23(2), 421–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2015). Binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Conceptually-driven analogy in diachrony and synchrony. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vos, R. (1999). A Grammar of Partitive Constructions. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

San Julián Solana, Javier
1970. La heterogeneidad estructural de las pseudopartitivas en español. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 75 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.