What is it about?
This article investigates how metonymy, a cognitive process traditionally treated as purely conceptual, plays a fundamental role in grammar. Rather than limiting metonymy to isolated lexical shifts (e.g., a ham sandwich for “customer”), the authors demonstrate that metonymy systematically motivates grammatical behavior, shapes constructional meaning, and interacts with other linguistic operations. The paper distinguishes rigorously between metonymy and metaphor, defining metonymy as a domain‑internal, one‑correspondence mapping and identifying two main types: source‑in‑target and target‑in‑source mappings. Using this framework, the article shows how metonymy underlies a wide range of grammatical phenomena, including imperative predicates (Be quiet!), valency alternations (The door opened), deverbal nominalizations (a deep cut), noun recategorization (three Johns, too much chair), argument‑structure adjustments (begin the beer), and even modal meanings (I must go implying desire). The authors conclude that metonymy and grammar interact bidirectionally: metonymy motivates grammatical patterns, and grammatical constructions impose constraints on metonymic interpretation.
Featured Image
Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This work is important because it demonstrates that metonymy is not just a semantic curiosity but a structuring principle of grammar itself. The article shows that many grammatical constructions—imperatives, valency alternations, modal auxiliaries, noun conversions, anaphora, and more—cannot be fully explained without reference to metonymic mappings. By grounding grammatical behavior in conceptual operations, the authors provide a unified account that strengthens both Cognitive Linguistics and functional grammar. Furthermore, the paper offers refined analytical tools, such as the domain availability principle and the domain precedence principle, which explain how anaphoric pronouns select their referents in metonymic contexts. This contributes to a deeper understanding of coherence, reference, and meaning in discourse. Overall, the study significantly advances the idea that grammar emerges from meaning and conceptual structure rather than existing independently of them.
Perspectives
Writing this article was an opportunity to demonstrate that metonymy is far more pervasive and structurally significant than commonly assumed. I particularly enjoyed showing how subtle conceptual operations—often unnoticed—shape grammatical constructions across the language. It was rewarding to develop tools for distinguishing metonymy from metaphor, to reveal the role of generic ICMs such as the action and deontic frames, and to uncover the systematic principles governing metonymic anaphora. My hope is that this work encourages linguists to view grammar and meaning not as separate modules but as deeply integrated systems, with metonymy serving as one of the cognitive engines driving both
Professor Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza
University of La Rioja
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Metonymy and the grammar, Language & Communication, October 2001, Elsevier,
DOI: 10.1016/s0271-5309(01)00008-8.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
