In:Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 283–308
The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making
Published online: 12 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.12rui
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.12rui
Abstract
This chapter accounts for the different outcomes
resulting from the exploitation of different kinds of situational
cognitive models (scenarios). Starting from Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera’s
(2014) taxonomy of cognitive models, we take a step
further by subdividing scenarios into descriptive, attitudinal, and
regulatory types. It is our contention that the kind of scenario
involved constrains the inferential mechanisms activated at the
pragmatic levels, which are supported by metonymic activity in the
form of metonymic expansion plus metonymic reduction. How such
processes can motivate the various formal aspects of constructions
is discussed with reference to Kay and Fillmore’s (1999) well-known description of the
What’s X Doing Y? construction. This chapter
also shows the connections between Langacker’s profile-base
relations and the metonymic exploitation of the different kinds of
scenarios.
Keywords: metonymic chains, pragmatic inference, profile, base
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The Lexical Constructional Model (LCM)
- 3.Cognitive models
- 4.Cognitive operations: Metonymy and metonymic chains
- 4.1Metonymy: Expansion and reduction mechanisms
- 4.2Metonymic chains
- 5.Profile-base relations
- 6.Scenarios, metonymic activity and pragmatic inference
- 6.1Descriptive scenarios
- 6.2Attitudinal scenarios
- 6.3Regulatory scenarios
- 7.Concluding remarks
Notes References
References (41)
Baicchi, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2010). The
cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within
the theoretical perspective of the Lexical-Constructional
Model. Special Issue
on Cognition and the Brain in
Language and Linguistics.
Textus, 23, 87–112.
Barcelona, A. (2005). The
multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse,
with particular attention to metonymic
chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive
Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary
Interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (Eds.) (2011). Defining
metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus
view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brdar, M. (2007). Metonymy
in grammar. Towards motivating extensions of grammatical
cate- gories and
constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2017). On
constructional blocking of metonymies: A cross-linguistic
view. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics 15(1), 183–223.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What
do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of
metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining
Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus
view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dirven, R. (2005). Major
strands in cognitive
linguistics. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive
Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary
Interaction (pp. 69–100). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame
semantics. In Linguistic
Society of
Korea (Ed.), Linguistics
in the morning
calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
Geeraerts, D. & Peirsman, Y. (2011). Zones,
facets, and prototype-based
metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining
Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus
View (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Grady, J. (1999). A
typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation
vs.
resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor
in cognitive
linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Guiraud, N., Longin, D., Lorini, E., Pesty, S., & Rivière, J. (2011). The
face of emotions: A logical formalization of expressive
speech
acts. In K. Tumer, P. Yolum, L. Sonenberg, & P. Stone (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents
and Multiagent
Systems (pp. 1031–1038). Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
Johnson, M. (1987). The
body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination,
and
reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. P. (1999). Grammatical
Constructions and linguistic generalizations: the
What’s X Doing Y?
construction. Language, 75(1), 1–34.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women,
Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the
Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations
of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites;
Vol. 2: Descriptive
Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Michaelis, L. A. (2003). Word
meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic
meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.) Cognitive
Approaches to Lexical
Semantics (pp. 163–209). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2009). Levels
of description and explanation in meaning
construction. In C. Butler, & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing
Constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The
role of conceptual metonymy in meaning
construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive
Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplin- ary
interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A
cognitive approach to inferencing in
conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 30, 755–769.
Pérez, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2002). Grounding,
semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in
indirective speech
acts. Journal of
Pragmatics, 34, 259–284.
Radden, G. (2005). The
ubiquity of
metonymy. In J. L. Otal, I. Navarro, & B. Bellés (Eds.), Cog-
nitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and
metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
Ronan, P. (2015). Categorizing
expressive speech acts in the pragmatically annotated SPICE
Ireland corpus. ICAME
Journal, 39, 25–45.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The
role of mappings and domains in understanding
metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor
and metonymy at the
crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2011). Metonymy
and cognitive
operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining
metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus
view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2013). Meaning
construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression
in the Lexical Constructional
Model. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking
constructions into functional linguistics: The role of
constructions in
grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2014). On
the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description
and explanation: towards settling some
controversies. In J. Littlemore, & J. Taylor (Eds.). Bloomsbury
companion to Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.
(2015). Entrenching
inferences in implicational and illocutionary
constructions. Journal of
Social
Sciences, 11(3), 258–274.
(2017). Metaphor
and other cognitive operations in interaction: from basicity
to
complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor:
Embodied Cognition, and
Discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary
Constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic
realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations
in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural
Aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive
Modeling. A Linguistic
Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2008). Levels
of description and constraining factors in meaning
construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional
Model. Folia Linguistica Acta
Societatis Linguisticae
Europaea, 42(2), 355–400.
(2011). Constraints
on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption
in the Lexical-Constructional
Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic
Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive
Perspectives (pp. 62–82). London, UK and Oakville, CT: Equinox.
Cited by (12)
Cited by 12 other publications
de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz & Inés Lozano Palacio
2025. Understanding ironic echoing. In What makes a Figure [Figurative Thought and Language, 19], ► pp. 248 ff.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Inés Lozano-Palacio
2021. On verbal and situational irony. In Figurative Language - Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 213 ff.
Errami Fennane, Salma
Navarro i Ferrando, Ignasi & Antonio José Silvestre-López
Reda, Ghsoon
2025. Evidential propositions as situational scenarios. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:1 ► pp. 152 ff.
Kratochvílová, Dana
2024. Review of Peña-Cervel & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Figuring out figuration: A cognitive linguistic account. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 289 ff.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & María Asunción Barreras Gómez
2022. Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 15 ff.
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2020. The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 19 ff.
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2023. Review of Lozano-Palacio & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Modeling Irony: A Cognitive-pragmatic Account. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10:1 ► pp. 246 ff.
Herrero-Ruiz, Javier
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.
