Bi-directional Functionality and Bi-directional Functionality and Metonymy in Semantic Change and Metonymy in Semantic Change and

Word FormationWord Formation

Nico Kimm, Daniel Schulzek & Anselm Terhallekimm@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de

schulzek@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de

terhalle@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de

Heinrich-Heine-Universität DüsseldorfResearch group on „Functional Concepts and Frames“

1

0 Outline1. Metonymy

State of the art Langacker (1987, 2008) Missing restrictions

2. Frames Cognitive representation in frames Frame attributes

3. Metonymy and frames Modeling metonymies Bi-directional functionality

4. Consequences of bi-directional functionality Semantic change Agent nominalization Compounding

5. Conclusion

2

1 METONYMY

3

1.1 State of the art

Metonymy: shift from a concept A activated by a linguistic expression to a concept B that is in some sense contiguously related to A (cf. Radden and Kövecses 1998: 39)

Example

(1) a. The locality stands for the institution

Washington passes a new law.

b. The part stands for the whole.

I noticed several faces tonight.

c. The contained stands for the container

Pass me the salt, please.

Goal of this talk: specifying the conditions under which a concept A can be shifted metonymically to a concept B

4

1.2 Langacker (1987, 2008)

Let A and B be concepts.

DEFINITION base, profile base: arm, profile: hand, elbow

B is a base for a profile A iff A presupposes B.

DEFINITION domain domain = base: arm, profile: hand, elbow

B is a domain iff B is a base for at least one profile concept.

DEFINITION domain matrix domain matrix: working, boss, person profile: employee

B1 … Bn constitutes a domain matrix for A iff B1, …, Bn are bases for the profile A.

DEFINITION metonymy

Metonymies are conceptual shifts within a domain or a domain matrix, not across domains.

Criterion for an identification of metonymical shifts (in the sense of Langacker)

Let A be a concept that is shifted to a concept B. If both A and B presuppose the concept B as a base, the shift will be a metonymical one.

5

1.3 Missing restrictions

Example

(2) a. The university starts early in the morning.

b. #The university gave a bad term paper to me.

›university institution‹ ›teaching‹ ›student‹

Metonymical shifts from ›university institution‹ to ›teaching‹ as well as to ›student‹ should be possible

However:

A metonymical shift is only possible in (2a), not in (2b)! Langacker: no convincing motivation for a domain including ›university

institution‹ and ›teaching‹, but not ›student‹

6

presuppose domain ›academic activity‹

2 FRAMES

7

Frames in the sense of Barsalou (cf. Barsalou 1992)• Recursive attribute-value structures• Attributes: Properties of category members that have to be specified (COLOR,

SHAPE)• Values: specifications of attributes (›red‹, ›round‹)

Barsalou frames (in contrast to domains as theoretical constructs): empirically sound format of cognitive representation

Logical modeling of frames in the project „Functional Concepts and Frames“as directed connected graphs (cf. Petersen 2007)• Central node: concept that is represented by the frame (double border)• Attributes represented as arcs• Values represented as nodes

Angular nodes: arguments concerning the syntax-semantics interface Round nodes: other values

2.1 Cognitive representationin frames

8

4-cylinder

automaticCOLOR

TRANSMISSION

PRODUCER

ENGINEHORSEPOWER

car

Functions in the mathematical sense that assign specific values to the concept represented by the frame

Attributes• are right unique• express relations between concepts

Values: subtypes of attributes On the linguistic surface, attributes can be expressed

• nominally The length of the bridge is three meters.• verbally The bridge measures three meters.• adjectively The bridge is three meters long.

2.2 Frame attributes

9

3 METONYMY AND FRAMES

10

3.1 Modeling metonymies

Lexical unit: contains fully specified conceptual representation of its primary interpretation (cf. Bierwisch 1983)

derivation of contiguous concepts: by set of functions

example: university ›university institution‹

flocation (›university institution‹) = ›university building‹

fprocess (›university institution‹) = ›events that occur at the university‹

fprinciple (›university institution‹) = ›university as a part of civilization‹

Metonymies: conceptual shifts that can be captured by a simple frame transformation the referring node is shifted to another node it is linked to

example: The university starts early in the morning.

11

RESPONSIBILITY

teachinguniversity (institution) teachinguniversity

(institution)PURPOSE

3.2 Bi-directional functionality

Supposition: Metonymical shifts require a 1-to-1 correspondence between the concept A that is shifted and the concept B the concept A is shifted to

Attributes in frames are functional There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between A and B iff A and B are linked by

arcs going in both directions bi-directional link Bi-directional functionality: necessary condition for metonymical shifts

Argument for necessity of bi-directional functionality:

12

Bi-directional functionality guarantees that the referent of the linguistic expression whose meaning is shifted can be uniquely identified (cf. Hawkins 1978, Löbner 1998)

a. The university demonstrates against tuition fees.b. #The university gave a bad term paper to me.

3.2 Bi-directional functionality

13

UNIVERSITYstudent body

university (institution)

STUDENT BODY

studentstudent

MEMBER MEM

BER

MEMBER

student

4 CONSEQUENCES OF BI-DIRECTIONAL FUNCTIONALITY

14

4.1 Semantic change Metonymy: innovative non conventionalised use of a word Conventionalization of metonymical use: semantic change Semantic change as evidence for cases where metonymy was particularly successful Examples from French:

15

Fr. cuisine:

1155 ›food preparation‹1170 ›room for food preparation‹1170 ›prepared food‹1740 ›persons who work in the kitchen‹20th c. ›kitchen interior‹

and many more...

LOCATION

PURPOSE

kitchen (room)

kitchen (interior)

PUR

POSE LO

CA

TIO

N

INSTR

UM

ENTS FI

TTIN

GS

cooks

AG

ENT

TASK

to cook

1740 meal

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

RIG

IN

1155 1170

1170

20th c.

Example

Fr. composition ›to compose a piece of music‹ > ›piece of music‹ > ›structure of this piece‹

La composition de cette chanson a duré un an (The composition of this song took one year) J‘aime beaucoup cette composition de Chopin (I like this composition by Chopin very much) La composition de cette chanson est remarquable (The composition of this song is

remarkable)

3) ›piece of music‹ is an object which has a STRUCTURE

1) ›to compose a piece of music‹ has as RESULT the ›piece of music‹

4.1 Semantic change

16

4) A piece of music is defined by its structure => the value of STRUCTURE is functionally mapped onto ›piece of music‹5) ›to compose a piece of music‹, ›piece of music‹ and ›structure‹ are bidirectionally linked => two step metonymical shift of the referring node becomes possible

to compose a piece of music RESULT

ORIGIN STRUCTURE

to compose a piece of music

1585

piece of music structurestructurepiece of music

1680

DEFINES

2) ›piece of music‹ originates from the composition process

4.2 Agent nominalization

-er nominalization in English results in a conceptual shift within the event structure representation

-er suffixation: morphological reflex of a metonymy

Example to drive >> driver

1) frame of ›to drive‹: event and agent node are linked by bi-directional arcs

2) In case of -er suffixation, the central node is shifted to the agent node

17

to drive

THEMEOBJECTIVE

AGENT

to drive

driver

4.3 Compounding

Bi-directional functionality explains one specific construction of Stekauer’s (2009) Onomasiological Type III where the linking event has to be construed from the compound constituents:

Object – action – Instrumentsoup ›eat‹ spoon

Example soup spoon

1) frames of ›soup‹ and ›spoon‹ are linked to the event frame ›to eat‹2) the event frame integrates its arguments3) unification of the frame structures Bi-directional functionality: precondition for unification

18

soup

PURPOSE

to eatINSTRUMENT THEME

to eat

spoon

INSTRUMENT

PURPOSETHEME

PURPOSE

THEME

to eat

spoon

INSTRUMENT

PURPOSE

soup

5 Conclusion

Metonymy: contiguity based shift from a concept A to a concept B Langacker: metonymies are conceptual shifts within a domain or a domain matrix,

not across domains #The university gave a bad term paper to me (university stands for ›single

student‹) should be possible

However: need for additional constraints? #In the seventies, the university had long hair and used to smoke and knit during

the lectures. (bi-directional functionality but no shift possible)

19

=> Necessary restriction for a metonymical shift: 1-to-1 correspondence between concepts A and B

5 Conclusion

In short: Langacker’s definition of metonymy: not sufficient to exclude some cases where a

metonymical shift is not possible Bi-directional functionality: prerequisite for a metonymical shift or a compound

construal process to become possible Still additional constraints needed

20

?

Langacker

Condition:bi-directional functionality

Actual cases where metonymy is possible

Thank you for listening!!!

Special thanks to the German Research Foundation for funding the research unit „Functional Concepts and Frames“ (www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/fff/)

6 Literature

Barsalou, Lawrence (1992): Frames, Concepts and Conceptual Fields. In: Lehrer, Adrienne; Kittay, Eva F. (eds.): Frames, Fields, and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, page 21-74.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1987): Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. (2008): Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Petersen, Wiebke (2007): Representation of Concepts as Frames. In: Latvijas Universitāte (ed.): The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication. Manhattan KS: New Prairie Press, page 151-170.

Radden, Günter; Kövecses, Zoltán (1998): Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37-77.

Bierwisch, Manfred (1983): Semantische und konzeptuelle Repräsentation lexikalischer Einheiten. In: Rudolf Ruzicka & Wolfgang Motsch (Hg.): Untersuchungen zur Semantik. Berlin. [= studia grammatica 22]. pp.61-99.

22

6 References

Hawkins, John A. (1978): Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.

Löbner, Sebastian (1998): Definite Associative Anaphora. Ms. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universität. http://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~loebner/publ/DAA-03.pdf

Stekauer, Pavol (2009): Meaning predictability of novel context-free compounds. In: Lieber, Rochelle; Stekauer, Pavol (Hrsg): The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford University Press. pp 431-470.

23

Thanks for Your Attention!

Thank youfor listening!!!

Special thanks to the German Research Foundation for funding the research unit “Functional Concepts and Frames“ (www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/fff/)