Grammatical metonymy within the 'action' frame in English and Spanish

Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza; Cervel, María Sandra Peña

doi:10.1075/sfsl.60.15rui

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although thus far I have only dealt with one of the five internal constraints proposed in the LCM, the reader may have noted that this constraint is coherent with a fine-nuanced type of analysis (in terms of the attention paid to the rich information codified by the verb) while still taking the form of a broad generalization. Furthermore, in the LCM cognitive phenomena such as high-level metaphor and metonymy are viewed as external constraining factors whose recurrent presence in many of the argument structure constructions discussed in the literature also affect subsumption processes either permitting or disallowing them (see Peña, 2009;Ruiz de Mendoza & Peña, 2008;Ruiz de Mendoza & Pérez, 2001; for examples and details). In other words, external constraints, as will be shown throughout the paper, are based on how lexical structure can be re-construed in order to make it fit into a given construction (e.g.…”

Section: The Lexical Constructional Model: a Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions

Oyón

2014

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on the assumptions made in Construction Grammar(s), the present proposal addresses the debate between formulating broad-scale generalizations of the type postulated by Goldberg (1995) or finer-grained analyses, heavily based on lexical-class identification, as those put forward by Boas (2010Boas ( , 2011, who claims that Goldberg's account leads to the over-generation of ungrammatical examples. The position taken here is that, although Goldberg's theory has largely overlooked the role of verb meaning(s), generalizations in the form of constraints are still necessary to build a fully principled account of lexical-constructional fusion. Taking the family of resultative constructions as a case study, I employ the analytical tools (i.e. the apparatus of so-called internal and external constraints on constructional integration) developed by the Lexical Constructional Model in order to show that a fine-nuanced description can go hand in hand with the postulation of macro-generalizations.

show abstract

Section: The Lexical Constructional Model: a Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions

Oyón

2014

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been argued that this rearrangement has the effect of presenting a caused event as if it were a noncausal process, which is in fact a metaphorical reconstrual of the real structure of the event. The same holds for middles, which generally differ from inchoatives in the presence of an obligatory evaluative element: *My car handles; see Ruiz de Mendoza and Peña (2008) and Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal (2011) for details on this view. Although possible causal agents are usually retrievable from world knowledge or the context of situation both for inchoatives and middles, one of the meaning implications of these constructions is that the causal agent is irrelevant.…”

Section: Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrenching Inferences in Implicational and Illocutionary Constructions

Ibáñez¹

2015

Journal of Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The starting point for the present paper is the classification of constructions, understood as fixed pairings of form and meaning, into four levels of meaning representation, i.e., the argument-structure, implicational, illocutionary and discourse levels. The meaning part of constructions contains fixed and variable elements. In argument-structure constructions the fixed elements are generic and, as such, they are open to parameterization through the integration of lower-level lexical structure into them. For example, the 'caused-motion' construction, which takes the form X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z, can parameterize 'cause to move' by means of such predicates as 'push', 'kick' and 'drag'. In constructions from other levels of description, the fixed part, which is non-generic, contains sets of conditions that are stably realized by specific formal configurations, which are highly idiomatic. For example, the sentence Who's been messing up the bulletin board? is usually not a question about the identity of the person that has performed the described action, but an expression of irritation on the part of the speaker at someone having handled the notices on the board inefficiently. The underlying configuration, which can be labeled Who's Been VP-ing (Y)?, is an implicational construction whose VP componentwhich completes the past perfect form of the fixed part-is necessarily a progressive form, thus indicating that the action has taken place in the recent past and is of consequence to the present moment. The rest of the meaning cannot be derived compositionally but is obtained from previous inferential activity based on the non-grammatical content of the "VP Y" part of the construction: People are expected not to misuse what is not theirs. Such content is a matter of socio-cultural conventions that regulate human interaction with other humans and the inferences originally derived from it have become entrenched through frequent association with the expressive pattern that now constitutes the formal part of the construction. The same is the case with illocutionary meaning, which is often captured by idiomatic constructions. For example, Can't you please stop making noise? derives its combination of directive and expressive force (it is a request and a complaint at the same time) from the entrenchment of meaning implications arising from the fact that it is not socially acceptable for people to act in ways that bother other people. Along these lines, the paper explores other such socio-cultural conventions, examines the type of inferences that they underlie and makes correlations with formal expression patterns. Such a correlation reveals networks of meaning relations among formal patterns that enable us to give structure to the implicational and illocutionary segments of the 'constructicon' of English. It also sets up explicit connections between the constructional and inferential domains of linguistic research.

show abstract

“…Within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics (see Lakoff, 1987;Lakoff & Johnson, 1999) and more specifically in the Cognitive Model Theory, according to Ruiz de Mendoza and Peña Cervel (2008), metonymy (as well as metaphor) is regarded as a way of "modelling our knowledge of the world on a par with propositional (or frame) structure (Fillmore, 1985) and with topological or image-schematic structure (Johnson, 1987)." Frames are established frameworks of knowledge in which propositional relationships among their typical/defining components/participants can be recognized, as in the case of the RESTAURANT FRAME: public premises with a dining room and a kitchen, among other facilities available to customers, where clients can book a table in advance, pay for being served meals by waiters, etc.…”

Section: Grammatical Metonymy In Cognitive Linguisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have been several proposals for metonymy classification (see Croft, 2006;Panther & Thornburg, 2017;Ruiz de Mendoza & Peña Cervel, 2008;Barcelona, 2013, among others). Panther and Tornburg's (2017, p. 280) is especially relevant for the purpose of this work and what follows is a summary.…”

Section: Types Of Metonymymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Metonymy in Teaching the Spanish Verbal System to L2/FL Learners of Spanish

Castro¹,

Cuadrado²

2021

Círc. lingüíst. apl. comun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the application of conceptual metonymy (Lakoff, 1987; Ruiz de Mendoza, 2000; Langacker, 2009; Panther, Thornburg and Barcelona, 2009; Barcelona, 2013) in the development of pedagogical resources for the teaching of the Spanish verbal system to L2/FL learners. To this end, a description is given of the advantages of introducing inferential reasoning using metonymy based on certain principles taken from the Cognitive Grammar model (Langacker, 1987, 1991, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2009) in grammar teaching materials — both descriptions and activities. We focus on tense uses that involve metonymic processes, particularly, the meaning extensions in two Spanish past tenses: (1) the actional meaning of stative verbs when conveyed in pretérito indefinido (preterit), as in Pudimos comprar la casa 'We could buy the house', metonymically extended to Compramos la casa 'We bought the house'; and (2) the distancing use (uso citativo) of pretérito imperfecto (imperfect) when referring to current facts, as in ¿Cómo te llamabas? (How PRO.REFL.2SG call.IPFV.PST.2SG?) 'What was your name again?', which is metonymically extended to (Se me ha dicho/No recuerdo/No he oído) cómo te llamas [('I have been told/I can't recall/I couldn't hear') how PRO.REFL.2SG call.PRES.2SG]. In order to discuss the kind of contribution that this conceptual standpoint can make to the teaching of the Spanish verbal system, the pedagogical potential of some techniques and resources is explored in terms of (a) metonymic and metaphorical reasoning in pedagogical grammar descriptions, (b) consciousness-raising paraphrase exercises focused on meaning indeterminacy, and (c) network building and the use of (dynamic) images to show variable construals in grammatical meaning

show abstract

Grammatical metonymy within the 'action' frame in English and Spanish

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions

Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions

Entrenching Inferences in Implicational and Illocutionary Constructions

The Role of Metonymy in Teaching the Spanish Verbal System to L2/FL Learners of Spanish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About