Download Metonymical subject changes in Dutch

Metonymical subject changes in Dutch
Josefien Sweep1*
Abstract
Metonymy cannot only shift the interpretation of a word, but also change the argument
type required by a verb. Lexicologists were the first who considered this phenomenon as
metonymy-based. For Dutch direct objects, this type of metonymy has been exhaustively
analysed (Sweep 2012). Subjects can probably undergo the same processes (cf. Waltereit
1998; 1999). Therefore, this preliminary investigation examines subject changes in Dutch,
on the basis of Van Dale’s (2005) use of the lexicological tag subjectverwisseling. After a
classification and demarcation of the heterogeneous set of examples, clear instances of
subject changes in Dutch are provided, different types of subject changes in Van Dale are
identified, and their underlying contiguity patterns are analysed.
•
1 Metonymical subject changes
Metonymy, which was originally regarded as a figure of speech, has a pervasive influence
on sentences in everyday communication. Metonymy can shift the referent interpreted,
as in (1)-(3).
(1)
(2) (3) The ham sandwich is waiting for his check.
[order-client]
I am reading Mulisch.
[producer-product]
The stadium cheered when the favourite team scored. [location-locatum]
In each of these examples the linguistic description refers to an entity (x) which is strongly
associated with another entity (y), such as an order with its client, an author with his
books and a location with the people in it (what is in the location, i.e. locatum). The hearer
knows the association between x and y and understands that x has to be interpreted as ‘y’
in the context given.
Metonymy does not have to cause a referential shift in the interpretation (cf. Sweep
2009). It can also only change the type of argument required by a verb, without shifting
the interpretation of this argument. Examples of this type of metonymy, as exhaustively
analysed in Sweep (2012) for Dutch and German direct objects, are given in (4)-(9).
* ACLC, Universiteit van van Amsterdam/INL, Leiden. Email: [email protected]
Nederlandse Taalkunde, jaargang 18, 2013-2
237
Josefien Sweep
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9) to
to
to
to
to
to
clear the table / the plates
unload a ship / goods
squeeze oranges / juice
weave reeds / baskets
light wood / fire
cure a patient / disease
[location-locatum]
[location-locatum]
[container-content/material-product]
[material-product]
[source-result]
[patient-disease]
Examples (4)-(9) show verbs which can have a direct object of different semantic types,
such as a container or its content, material or a product, etc. As in examples (1)-(3), the
two possible direct objects are metonymically associated to another, especially in the context evoked by the verb. Examples (4)-(9) differ from (1)-(3), because the nouns used
as direct objects receive literal interpretations: Whereas Mulisch in (2), for instance, is
interpreted as ‘a book by him’ and the stadium in (3) stands for ‘the people in it’, ship in
(5) literally refers to ‘ship’ and baskets in (7) does not stand for ‘reeds’.1 In metonymical
object changes, only the possibility of using a certain direct object is influenced by the
metonymical association, and not the interpretation of the object noun itself. These metonymical changes, which have first been described by lexicographers and lexicologists, can
be defined as metonymy-based shifts of a verb’s argument slot (cf. Sweep 2012).2
Subjects show a comparable behaviour as direct objects (cf. Carlberg 1948; Waltereit
1998; 1999; Sweep 2012: 87, 139; cf. also Levin 1993: 53-55, 57). The topic of this preliminary examination will be metonymical subject changes in Dutch, which have not been
analysed in Sweep (2012). On the basis of the data taken from Van Dale (2005), this paper
will demarcate subject changes from other flexible subjects and it will identify different
types of subject change. Subsequently, the underlying metonymical associations of subject
changes in Van Dale will be analysed.
•
2 Examples of subject changes in Van Dale (2005)
Dictionaries provide descriptions and examples of verbs and their possible argument types.
If dictionaries use explicit labels for specific argument realisations, they can be considered
a tagged corpus from which linguistic data can be extracted (cf. Hoeksema 2011, Moerdijk
2008: 151, Sweep 2012: 123). In the Dutch dictionary by Van Dale (2005), the tag subjectsverwisseling (‘subject change’) and its abbreviation subjectsverw. are used for metonymical
shifts in the type of subject that a verb requires (cf. Van Dale 2005: entry subjectsverwisseling; Sweep 2012: 99).
For the present analysis of metonymical subject changes, all instances with these labels
were extracted from Van Dale 2005. In this dictionary, 80 entry words contain the label
1Whether a noun is interpreted literally or metonymically can be supported by some linguistic but problematic
tests (cf. Sweep 2012: 57-70).
2A reviewer rightly remarked that the word “change” suggests that there is a basic argument type and a derived
one (either from a synchronic or from a diachronic point of view). This is a very complicated issue, which will
be left out of further consideration here. The word “change” is solely used as a translation of -verwisseling in the
lexicological tags objectsverwisseling and subjectsverwisseling (cf. Moerdijk 1994; Sweep 2012; cf. also the German
equivalents with -verschiebung or -vertauschung in Carlberg 1948). The presentation of basic and changed subjects
in the examples follows the classifications in the dictionary.
238
Metonymical subject changes in Dutch
“subject change”. The 80 entries consist of 3 attributively used adjectives, 2 adjectives
or adverbs in fixed verbal expressions, and 75 verbs (of which 7 are participles that are
attributively used).3 In the 80 entries, 91 different subject changes are described.
This amount of subject changes is smaller than the number of metonymical object
changes in Van Dale (2005) (i.e. 124 entries with over 165 different object changes, cf.
Sweep 2012: 119, 125). As was the case with the set of object changes taken from dictionaries in Sweep (2012), this set of subject changes is by no means exhaustive. Extracting data
from a dictionary with the help of explicit lexicographic labels serves as a first inventory,
on the basis of which in future research more data can be searched for outside dictionaries.
The 91 subject changes in Van Dale consists of heterogeneous examples. Table 1 provides an overview of different types, which will be discussed in the next section.
type of example
number
examples (inflected entry word underlined)
normal passive instead of
subject change
1
zuur bijt het tafelblad in → de tafel is ingebeten
in a fixed expression
8
er zal geen stuiver te kort komen; vol op de borst zijn; hij
is mankerende; het uur van het afscheid heeft geslagen;
van wal steken; het hart trekt iem. tot iem.; zijn
hoofd slaat uit; ??hij wil het niet weten [wil niet dat
anderen het weten]
adjective
3
een trots gezicht; een vrolijk leventje; een staande
lessenaar
attr. used participle
7
doorgeklonken messen; een hijgende borst; ijlende vaart;
ijlende koorts; een schroeiende dorst; een tintelend gevoel;
een zwoegende borst
referential meton.
6
ik (mijn hand) bloed; de film/school/bioscoop gaat uit; de
loterij trekt deze week; waarover handelt het boek?; de
kachel brandt; de kaars (ipv wax)s loopt af
+ resultative adj.
23
dit boek leest gemakkelijk; het bed ligt hard; deze
schoenen lopen goed; de fiets remt vlug; het geweer schiet
ver; dit mes snijdt gemakkelijk; het boek verkoopt slecht;
de bus zit vol
+ obligatory PP
6
het opstel krielt van de fouten; het boek opent met een
beschouwing; de fabriek weerklinkt van het geraas; de
zee wriemelt van/met leven;
het schip slaat aan stukken; stof zuigt tegen het rooster
changed subjects (without
additional modifiers)
37
het schilderij bladdert af; de muur brokkelt af; de wagen
laadt de vracht; het dak lekt door; de winkel opent
morgen
Table 1: Types of examples marked as subject changes in Van Dale (2005)
3The entry af (‘off’) has not been included in this result, given that the subject change occurs with the verbs
afbladderen (‘to blister off’) and afbrokkelen (‘to crumble off’), which are already included in the result. I consider
such phrasal verbs in Dutch not as syntactic word groups but as similar to normal verbs, a view which can more
often be found among Dutch linguists (for a discussion and references cf. e.g. Sweep 2012: 141-156).
239
Josefien Sweep
•
3 Subject changes or other constructions?
Many of the examples marked as subject changes in Van Dale are very complicated examples, which makes it problematic to use them in an analysis on subject change. Because
of their specific, often idiomatic nature or because of their syntactic complexity, they will
not clarify how subject changes in general work. It is often doubtful whether they are true
instances of subject change. This section will discuss problematic instances and demonstrate that actually only the latter row of table 1 provides clear examples of subject change.
First of all, words which are said to occur with a subject change in a fixed expression
only will not be very useful for this analysis. Such subjects are special, because of the idiomaticity of the sentence they occur in.
Secondly, entry words used attributively do not illustrate subject change very well.
Consider Van Dale’s examples with adjectives in (10) and (11):
(10)
(11)
een
a
een
a
vrolijk
happy
trots
proud
leventje
life
gezicht / schouwspel
view
The life is not happy itself, but it is a life that makes someone happy. In a comparable way,
the view is not proud itself, but it is a view that makes the viewer proud or that shows
people who are proud. However, it is not directly evident that in these cases the subject
has changed. These examples could also be analysed as the adjective having a different
meaning or the adjective being applied to different properties of the noun (cf. e.g. Pustejovsky 1995).
Also with many verbs, shifted subjects only occur if the verb is used attributively.
Examples are given in (12)-(15). Example (12) is given in the entry of staand, which is
classified as an adjective by Van Dale, because it is the present participle of the verb staan
(‘to stand’). Examples (13)-(15) come from verb entries, in which examples with attributively used participles were given.
(12)een staande
lessenaar
astanding lectern
(13)
ijlendekoorts
delirious/raving fever
(14)een tintelend gevoel
atingling feeling
(15) een schroeiendedorst
ascorching thirst
(16)een hijgende borst
agasping chest
It is doubtful whether we should really coin these examples subject change, because these
noun phrases cannot or can hardly be used as sentential subjects with these verbs. Sentences (17)-(21) illustrate this. Only sentence (20) seems to be acceptable.
240
Metonymical subject changes in Dutch
(17) *de lessenaar
the lectern
(18) * de
koorts
the fever
(19) ?? het gevoel
the feeling
(20)de dorst
the thirst
(21) ? zijn borst
his chest
staat
stands [meaning: is suitable to stand at]
ijlt
is delirious/is raving
tintelt
is tingling
schroeit (haar keel)
scorches her throat
hijgt
gasps/is gasping
In addition to the ungrammaticality of most examples with the noun as a sentential subject, examples (16) and (21) can be analysed as involving a metonymical reinterpretation
of the noun, as was the case in examples (1)-(3). The sentence is acceptable, with the subject interpreted as a pars pro toto metonymy. As in (1)-(3), the meaning of this sentence
makes sense if the noun phrase is interpreted in a non-literal way, based on a metonymical
association. This is a third problem, that casts doubt on the fact whether some of these
examples should be classified as subject changes.
There are many more examples, which do not have to be regarded as shifts in the
argument structure, because they could be analysed as well-known metonymical interpretations of the noun. Consider the examples (22)-(26), which are all labelled subjectsverwisseling in Van Dale (2005).
(22)
Ik
bloed.[totum pro parte]
I bleed
‘I am bleeding.’
(23) De school
gaat uit.
[location for people /locatum]
the school goes-out
‘School was over’
(24) De film
gaat uit.
[event for people]
the movie goes-out
‘The movie was over.’ / ‘After the movie, people went home.’
(25) De loterij
trekt deze week. [event for people]
the lottery draws this week
‘The lottery draws are this week.’
(26) De kachel
brandt.
[container for content]
the heater burns
‘The heater is burning.’
These sentences are fully comprehensible, if the noun is metonymically interpreted.
Just as in (21) and as in (1)-(3), no complex shifts in the verbal structure do have to be
assumed. Example (23) even shows a prototypical example of metonymical polysemy (cf.
e.g. Moerdijk 2003).
The same cannot be assumed for an example like (27).
241
Josefien Sweep
(27) Dit kanon schiet grote kogels
thiscannonshoots large
bullets
This sentence does not mean that someone is shooting big bullets with a specific cannon.
Rather, a specific property of the cannon is described: With this cannon it is possible to
shoot big bullets. The fact that the sentence tells us something about the cannon implies
that this subject cannot be interpreted metonymically. In other words, sentence (27) is, in
contrast to examples (22)-(26), a perfect example of subject change, in which no normal
metonymical reinterpretation of the subject can be assumed.
A fourth group of examples in Van Dale (2005) that exhibit more complicated shifts
are subjects which occur in middle alternations (cf. Levin 1993: 25-26). This is illustrated
in (28)-(32).
(28) Dat boek leest / verkoopt goed.
thatbook
reads/
sellswell
‘That book reads / sells well.’
(29) Het
mes snijdt gemakkelijk.
theknife
cutseasily
‘The knife cuts easily.’
(30) Het
matras
ligt hard.
thematrasslies
hardly
‘The matrass feels hard.’
(31) Die schoenen lopen gemakkelijk.
those
shoeswalk
comfortably
‘Those shoes are comfortable for walking.’
(32) De fiets remt
vlug.
the bicycle brakes fast/quickly
‘The bicycle can brake quickly.’
Given that the adverb is obligatory in the sentence, these examples cannot be explained
as merely a metonymical shift of the subject type.
In a comparable way, sentences in which all arguments seem to be swopped simultaneously should not be solely regarded as a change of the subject argument. This applies to
subject changes with obligatory prepositional phrases, in which often the original subject
occurs. Also in a sentence such as (33) all arguments are simultaneously changed. Carlberg, who studied subject changes and object changes in German, analysed such structures
as different from object and subject changes (cf. Carlberg 1948: 21).
(33) a. Die jurk past (mij) niet.
thatdress
suitsme
not
b.
Ik
pasdie jurkniet.
Isuitthat dress
not
‘That dress doesn’t suit me.’
Interestingly, no examples of this kind are tagged as subject changes in Van Dale (2005).
Only one example is slightly similar to (33). This example is shown in (34).
242
Metonymical subject changes in Dutch
(34) a. Het werk rouleert / de taken rouleren
the work
circulatesthe tasks
circulate
b. Werouleren *het werk / (de taken).
wecircultate the work / (the tasks)
‘We take turns.’
This example shows a subject change from ‘what as to be done’ (in (34)a) to the ‘persons
that have to do this’ as the subject (in (34)b). The subject change in (34) could also be
used in a transitive construction with the tasks as a direct object (cf. (34)b). In that case,
all arguments are swopped, in a comparable way as in (33). However, with rouleren the
usage of direct objects is limited to certain nouns and is always optional.
On the basis of these considerations, we can conclude that in fact only the last row
in table 1 provides clear metonymical subject changes (such as examples (27) and (34)).
These examples, which are 37 in total, will be further analysed in the next section.
•
4 Analysing subject changes
Among the 37 instances of subject changes (cf. the last row of table 1), we can still distinguish different types, as shown in table 2.
specific type
number
example
argument reduction: transitive → intransitive
qualitative valency changes of subject:
2 different types of subjects
8
(35), (36), (42), (43)
(27), (34), (37), (38),
(39), (40), (41), (44)
29
Table 2: A classification of subject changes in verb entries without obligatory modifiers (last row table 1)
The first row shows subject changes that occur with a simultaneous change, a reduction,
in the number of arguments. In these examples, the object of a verb occurs as the subject.
Examples (35)-(36) illustrate shifts from a direct object to a subject.
(35) a. Ik hang de was
uit
Ihang
the laundry
out
‘I am hanging the laundry out.’
b.
De
washangt uit.
the laundry hangs-out
‘The laundry is hanging / hangs (out)’
(36) a. Ik heb de pagina’s
doorgenummerd.
Ihave
the pages
through-numbered
‘I have numbered the pages continuously from the beginning to the end’
b.
De
pagina’s nummeren door.
the
pages
number [V]-through
‘The pages are continuously numbered.’
243
Josefien Sweep
The influence of metonymy on the number of arguments (i.e. on quantitative valency) has
more often been examined. Many linguists claim that metonymy could be a motivating
factor for changes in the number of arguments (cf. Brdar 2007, Koch 2001: 210-211, Ruiz
de Mendoza & Pérez 2001: 334-336, Ruiz de Mendoza & Díez 2003: §3.3).
With metonymical object changes, quantative valency changes were not taken into
account, because they do not affect the type of the direct object (Sweep 2012: 127): A
change from an intransitive to a transitive sentence, as in he walked the dog (cf. Ruiz de
Mendoza & Díez 2003), does not change the object; it only provides the verb a new object
that was not present before. However, with subject changes, this is different. Because of
the fact that all sentences contain a subject, quantitative valency shifts often brings about a
subject change. In the data taken from Van Dale, 8 examples of this kind occur (cf. table 2).
Table 2 shows that most examples only display a type shift of the subject, i.e. a qualitative valency change, without any other formal changes in the argument structure. Only
the number of optional parts of the sentence changes due to the subject change (cf. e.g.
(44) below). Examples (37)-(40) illustrate qualitative valency changes in the subject.
(37) a. Debloemen
kwamen uit.
the
flowers came-out
b.
De
knoppen kwamen uit.
the
buds
came-out
‘The flowers/buds sprouted.’
(38) a. Deverf bladdert af.
the
paint
flakes-off
b.
De
deurbladdert af.
the
doorflakes-off
‘The paint is flaking/peeling off.’
(39) a. Bijhet raamkozijn
lekt
de regen door.
at the window-frame
leaks
the rain through
‘Rain leaks through the window-frame.’
b. Bij
regen lekt het raamkozijn
door.
withrainleaks
thewindow-framethrough
‘With rain the window-frame leaks.’
(40) a. Hetwater kooktover.
the
water
boils-over
b. Deketel kooktover.
the
kettle
boils-over
‘The water / kettle boils over.’
Because it can be assumed that these subject changes are metonymy-based (cf. e.g. Carlberg 1948: 24ff, Dowty 2000: 126, Waltereit 1998; 1999), the metonymical association
between both possible objects, i.e. their contiguity relation, must play an important role.
Therefore, I analysed the types of contiguity relations that occurred with metonymical
subject changes. Table 3 provides an overview. In the table, contiguity relations are counted for all 37 subject changes and separately for the 29 qualitative valency shifts.
244
Metonymical subject changes in Dutch
metonymical association
number
(out of 37)
number
(out of 29)
example
- locatum
21
21
(37), (38), (39)
- content
2
2
(40)
- agent/actor
4
3
(27), (43), (44)
- instrument/means
1
1
- agent
6
0
(35), (36)
- patient
1
1
(34)
2
1
(41), (42)
location
container
instrument/means
agent/actor
patient
agent
other
Table 3: Metonymical associations (contiguity) of the ‘changed subject’-‘other subject’
The most frequent change occurs between a locatum-subject and a location-subject. It
should be noted that container-content contiguity is a special form of location-locatum,
which makes the total number of location-locatum subject changes 23 (out of 29/37).
Location-locatum is also the most frequent contiguity pattern with object changes (cf.
examples (4)-(5); Sweep 2012).
Other contiguity patterns are exemplified in (41)-(42). (41) shows a location-subject,
which is different from normal location-locatum shifts in that the verb hobbelen does not
express an action between the location and the locatum (as in (37)-(40)). Example (42)
shows a possessor-possessed contiguity.
(41) De keien hobbelen zo.
the stones bump/rock so much
‘[A car/bicycle/a person] is bumping on these stones.’
(42) a. Deeigenaar opent morgen de nieuwe winkel.
the
owneropens
tomorrow
the
newshop
‘The owner opens the new shop tomorrow.’
b. Denieuwe winkel opent morgen.
the
newshopopenstomorrow
‘The new shop opens tomorrow.’
Example (42)b is a subject change which reduces the number of arguments by making the
verb intransitive. Most of the subject changes that make a verb intransitive can only be
explained by patient-agent relations, as in (35)-(36) above.
This might suggest that the subject changes with a shift between intransitive and transitive usage of the verb (i.e. causative-inchoative alternations, cf. Levin 1993: 27ff) are
possibly different from other metonymical subject changes. However, some of these alternations follow contiguity patterns, which also occur with qualitative valency changes in
the subject. Examples (43) and (44), for instance, both follow instrument-agent contiguity,
but only (43) shows a change in the number of arguments (argument reduction).
245
Josefien Sweep
(43) a. Dekapitein
keert
het schip.
thecaptain
turns
the ship
‘The captain turns the ship.’
b. Het schip keert.
The ship turns
‘The ship is turning/turns.’
(44) a. De havenarbeider laadt de vracht (in het schip).
the dock-labourer loads thecargo into the ship
‘The docker is loading the cargo (into the ship).’
b.
Hetschip
laadt
de
vracht.
theshiploads
the
cargo
Shifts between agents and their instruments or means, as in (43), (44) and also (27) above,
were not found with object changes. This makes sense, because the subject and not the
object is the primary syntactic position for agents.
•
5 Conclusions and further research
In this preliminary investigation of metonymical subject changes, I analysed all 91 examples with the label subjectsverwisseling / subjectsverw. in Van Dale (2005). The examples
contained very heterogeneous structures. After discussing the differences among them in
section 3, I examined 37 examples in more detail in section 4.
To a certain extent, analysing subject change turns out to be more complicated than
analysing object change. Changes from transitive constructions to intransitive constructions (or the other way around), for instance, are not directly relevant for an analysis of
object changes (cf. Sweep 2012: 127), but they cannot be left out of consideration in an
examination of subject changes.
The metonymy of subject change is comparable to object change. The most frequent
metonymical pattern underlying these subject changes, i.e. location-locatum, also motivates most object changes.
The set of examples taken from van Dale (2005) is by no means exhaustive. Rather,
these subject changes can serve as a starting point for finding more examples in future
research. These could subsequently be used to clarify the metonymy involved in subject
changes. The metonymy could, for instance, be modelled with the help of frame semantics,
as has been done for object changes (cf. Sweep 2012: Ch. VIII). More examples could also
be used to investigate the relation between subject changes as discussed in this analysis
and so called logical metonymy (cf. Pustejovsky 1995: 53ff). Furthermore, related syntactic constructions such as middle alternations and also causative-inchoative alternations
deserve more attention, especially with respect to their possible relation to metonymy.
Examples in other languages than Dutch could also be used to examine subject changes
in more detail. The fact that the English translations do not fully match the Dutch examples indicates that a comparison of subject changes in English and Dutch could be fruitful.
For romance languages, it is known that often reflexives must be used, if the argument
structure is changed. Such constructions have also been analysed as metonymy-based
246
Metonymical subject changes in Dutch
(cf. Waltereit 1998: 109ff; 1999: 242ff). A comparison with Germanic equivalents will be
interesting. This is left for further research.
•
References
Brdar, M. (2007). Metonymy in Grammar. Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions. Osijek (Faculty of Philosophy Josip Juraj Strossmayer University) Nakladnik.
Carlberg, B. (1948). Subjektsvertauschung und Objektsvertauschung im Deutschen. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.
Dowty, D. (2000). ‘The garden swarms with bees’ and the fallacy of ‘argument alternation’.
In Yael, R. & C. Leacock (eds.). Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, pp.
111-128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoeksema, J. (2011). Het WNT: een Waarlijk Nuttig Tool? Nederlandse Taalkunde, 16(2),
152-159.
Koch, P. (2001). Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 201-244.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago/
London: University of Chicago Press.
Moerdijk, F. (1994). Handleiding bij het Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT). ’s-Gravenhage: Sdu Uitgevers.
Moerdijk, F. (2003). The codification of semantic information. In Sterkenburg, P. van (ed.):
A practical Guide to Lexicography, pp. 273-296. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Moerdijk, F. (2008). Das “Algemeen Nederlandse Woordenboek” (ANW) und “elexiko” ein Vergleich. In Klosa, A. (ed.). Lexikografische Portale im Internet, pp. 143-151. Mannheim: Institut für deutsche Sprache (IDS).
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass. /London: The MIT Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. & O.I. Díez Velasco (2003). High-level metonymy and
linguistic structure. In Inchaurralde, C. & C. Florén (eds.). Interaction and Cognition in
Linguistics, pp. 189-210, Frankfurt/New York: Peter Lang.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & L. Pérez Hernández (2001). Metonymy and grammar:
motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication, 21(4), 321-357.
Sweep, J. (2009). Metonymy without a referential shift. Adding evidence to the discussion.
In Botma, B. & J. van Kampen (eds.). Linguistics in the Netherlands. [AVT 26], pp. 103114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Sweep, J. (2012). Metonymical Object Changes. A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German .
[LOT dissertation series 309] Utrecht: LOT (Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap / Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics).
Van Dale (2005). Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse Taal. 14e druk. Utrecht: Van Dale
Lexicografie. [CD-ROM]
Waltereit, R. (1998). Metonymie und Grammatik: Kontiguitätsphänomene in der französischen
Satzsemantik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Waltereit, R. (1999). Grammatical constraints on metonymy: the role of the direct object.
In Panther, K.-U. & G. Radden (eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought, 233-255.
Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
247