Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:2 (2021) ► pp.465–481

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Grammatical metonymy and construal operations

On certain metonymic constructions with singular and plural uses of nouns (on the basis of Polish language material)

 | Institute of Polish Language, Polish Academy of Sciences
Published online: 11 October 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00091.szy
Abstract
This article analyses the semantic features of two constructions characterised by the specific use of morphosyntactic indicators of the category of number. The constructions are based on unusual, unobvious ways of using singular and plural forms of NP. The singular (in the first construction) and plural (in the second) forms of NP give to the constructions a metonymic character. The constructions are described as two types of metonymy, representing two different ways of construal.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The category of number as an object of cognitive linguistics research
  • 3.Object and purpose of the analysis
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Construction I – The singular form instead of the plural
    • 4.2Construction II – The plural form instead of the singular
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Barcelona, A. (2003). Names: A metonymic “return ticket” in five languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 11–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 321–355.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). How metonymy motivates constructions. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 185–204). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Figures of speech revisited: Introducing syntonymy and syntaphor. In A. Baicchi, (Ed.) Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language (pp. 225–251). Amsterdam & New York: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2002–2003). Metonymic motivation in English grammar: The case of the tense aspect-mood system. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 47–58(37–50), 37–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Ways of getting around and signalling metonymy in the grammar of noun phrases. Bosanski Jezik, 41, 39–61.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy. Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2009). When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R. (2016). Metonymische Kompetenz und Grammatikerwerb. In I. Feld-Knapp (Ed.), Grammatik (pp. 92–127). Budapest: ELTE Eötvös József Collegium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. (2001). Précis of the number sense. Mind & Language, 161, 16–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drożdż, G. (2017). The puzzle of un(countability) in English: A study in Cognitive Grammar. Katowice: University of Silesia Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gradečak-Erdeljić, T. (2004). Metonymy and grammatical recategorisation of nouns. In D. Kučanda, M. Brdar & B. Berić (Eds.), Teaching English for life. Studies to honour Prof. Elvira Petrović on the occasion of her 70th Birthday (pp. 347–358). Osijek: Filozofski Fakultet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, P. (1999). Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139–167). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view, Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009a). Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009b). Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (1999). Synecdoche as a Cognitive and Communicative Strategy. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, (pp. 197–213). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (Eds.) (1999), Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
.
Panther, K-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2002). The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 280–319) Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paszenda, J., & Góralczyk, I. (2017). The proper name Misiewicz as nomen appellativum in the current political discourse in Poland, Acta Neophilologica, XIX(2), 65–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Metonymic motivations behind paragonic uses of proper names in political discourse: A cognitive linguistic approach, Linguistica Silesiana, 391, 211–235.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geererts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2009). Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 199–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modelling: A linguistic perspective, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar and communication. Alblote: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21(4), 321–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seto, K. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, (pp. 99–120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waltereit, R. (1999). Grammatical constraints on metonymy: On the role of the direct object. In K.-U. Panther & Günter Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 233–253). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Oats and wheat: The fallacy of arbitrariness. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 311–342). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue