Home Linguistics & Semiotics Metonymic patterns of count-to-mass and mass-to-count changes and their implications for metonymy research
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Metonymic patterns of count-to-mass and mass-to-count changes and their implications for metonymy research

  • Grzegorz Drożdż
View more publications by John Benjamins Publishing Company
Figurativity and Human Ecology
This chapter is in the book Figurativity and Human Ecology

Abstract

This chapter formulates a proposal for dealing with two of the notorious problems of countability and uncountability in English: the problem of nouns changing their grammatical properties from count to mass and mass to count, and establishing the regularities of such changes. On the basis of the assumptions of Cognitive Grammar (e.g., Langacker, 2000, 2008), the chapter shows how, through an analysis of 30 count and 30 mass nouns (Drożdż, 2017), one more dimension arises: the metonymic one. This dimension enables a juxtaposition of this kind of research with that of Cognitive Metaphor Theory / Cognitive Metonymy Theory (Radden & Kövecses, 1999; Kövecses 2010, etc.), where comparable, conceptual structures are indicated. This leads to a discussion of certain issues concerning the methodology of metonymy analysis, the types of structures determined within both approaches, and their ultimate properties.

Abstract

This chapter formulates a proposal for dealing with two of the notorious problems of countability and uncountability in English: the problem of nouns changing their grammatical properties from count to mass and mass to count, and establishing the regularities of such changes. On the basis of the assumptions of Cognitive Grammar (e.g., Langacker, 2000, 2008), the chapter shows how, through an analysis of 30 count and 30 mass nouns (Drożdż, 2017), one more dimension arises: the metonymic one. This dimension enables a juxtaposition of this kind of research with that of Cognitive Metaphor Theory / Cognitive Metonymy Theory (Radden & Kövecses, 1999; Kövecses 2010, etc.), where comparable, conceptual structures are indicated. This leads to a discussion of certain issues concerning the methodology of metonymy analysis, the types of structures determined within both approaches, and their ultimate properties.

Downloaded on 20.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/ftl.17.10dro/html
Scroll to top button