Metonymy triggers syntactic argument alternation: vehicle for conductor metonymy as a constraint on lexical-constructional integration

dc.creatorLuana Lopes Amaral
dc.creatorMárcia Maria Cançado Lima
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-13T14:07:31Z
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-08T23:41:30Z
dc.date.available2025-05-13T14:07:31Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0098
dc.identifier.issn1613-3641
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1843/82219
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais
dc.relation.ispartofCognitive Linguistics
dc.rightsAcesso Restrito
dc.subjectMetonimias
dc.subject.otherMetonymy
dc.subject.otherFusion
dc.subject.otherArgument structure
dc.subject.otherArgument alternation
dc.subject.otherVehicle verbs
dc.titleMetonymy triggers syntactic argument alternation: vehicle for conductor metonymy as a constraint on lexical-constructional integration
dc.typeArtigo de periódico
local.citation.epage148
local.citation.issue1
local.citation.spage113
local.citation.volume31
local.description.resumoThis paper explores the role of metonymy in determining a syntactic argument alternation (“conductor-vehicle alternation”) which occurs in English and Portuguese: o piloto acelerou a Ferrari “the driver speeded up the Ferrari”/a Ferrari acelerou “the Ferrari speeded up/sped away”. Since the verbs in the conductor-vehicle alternation have conductor and vehicle arguments (controller and controlled entities), a metonymic process can occur, allowing the vehicle expression to provide access to the conductor participant. To explain how metonymy allows a verb with two participants to be integrated into a construction with a single argument, we assume that metonymy gathers information about both entities involved; the vehicle expression provides mental access to both vehicle and conductor (“fusion”). We also discuss cognitive and pragmatic factors involving the choice of a construction over another. Constructions with vehicle expressions as subject are used when the vehicle is salient or the conductor is unknown. This also explains why dirigir “drive” does not alternate in Portuguese, contrarily to prediction and differently from English drive. We provide a comparative account of the behavior of this verb in both languages. Dirigir, differently from drive, conceptualizes semantic components incompatible with a situation in which the agent/conductor is not salient or is unknown. This research adds to the ongoing body of literature on the role of metonymy in grammar and is a contribution to the understanding of the metonymic process, as a fusion, and also to argument alternation processes and lexical-constructional integration.
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4290-1208
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4159-3661
local.publisher.countryBrasil
local.publisher.departmentFALE - FACULDADE DE LETRAS
local.publisher.initialsUFMG

Arquivos

Licença do pacote

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
License.txt
Tamanho:
1.99 KB
Formato:
Plain Text
Descrição: