Article published In: Living Metaphors and Metonymies
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1] 2022
► pp. 156–171
Metonymic hitting
Published online: 24 May 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00105.rad
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00105.rad
Abstract
The chapter is concerned with the metonymic use of hit in expressions such as hit the
road. The metonymic nature underlying these expressions has already been noticed by Ruhl, Ch. (1989). On
monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. and Hirtle, W. (2013). Making
sense out of meaning: An essay in lexical
semantics. Québec: McGill-Queens University Press.. The present study focuses on the mapping of the literal use of
hit as the metonymic source to its target. The metonymic source is characterized by the use of
hit as an Achievement verb in sentences such as The ball hit the window. The metonymic
target in hit the road comprises two events, motion to a goal and a subsequent action. The relevant part of
meaning resides in the unexpressed action. The action is inferred from the close relationship between a type of thing and
potential actions afforded by the thing. In Let’s hit the road, the type noun road affords
metonymic “routes” to three motivated kinds of actions: ‘travelling’, ‘beginning a journey’ and ‘leaving’.
Article outline
- 1.Background
- 2.Use of hit in simple sentences describing simple events
- 3.The Achievement verb hit in force-dynamic scenarios
- 4.Hit in complex events describing actions
- 4.1The hit the Ntype-construction
- 4.2Multiple senses of hit-expressions
- 4.3Actions afforded by types of things
- 4.4Metonymic routes leading to the senses of hit the road
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (15)
Barcelona, A. (2009). Motivation
of construction meaning and form: The roles of metonymy and
inference. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy
and metaphor in
grammar (pp. 363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2011). Reviewing
the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining
metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus
view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2015). Metonymy. In E. Dąbrowska & E. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook
of cognitive
linguistics (pp. 143–167). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Fillmore, Ch. (1970). The
grammar of hitting and
breaking, In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings
in English transformational
grammar (pp. 120–133). Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions
at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Greenberg, S. R. (1966). Families
of idioms in American English. Unpublished talk, Annual Meeting of LSA.
Hirtle, W. (2013). Making
sense out of meaning: An essay in lexical
semantics. Québec: McGill-Queens University Press.
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations
of cognitive grammar, Vol II1. Descriptive
application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2009). Introduction:
On figuration in grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy
and metaphor in
grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.