first international symposium on figurative thought … · metonymy and metaphor in bulgarian...
TRANSCRIPT
Metonymy and metaphor in
Bulgarian compounds
First International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language
25-26 April 2014, Thessaloniki, Greece
Alexandra Bagasheva, [email protected]
Objectives Discussion of the role of metonymy and metaphor
in lexicogenesis - "to provide more comprehen-
sive and consistent descriptions of individual word-
formation phenomena" (Ungerer 2007: 651).
Consistent cognitive linguistics analysis of
verbocentric compounds in Bulgarian - “meaning is
language-specific to a considerable extent. It is this
imagery that has to be described, not the presumably
universal cognitive representations that these
conventional images construe” (Langacker 1987: 47).
Outline
Metonymy in lexicogenesis
Metonymy and frames
Metonymy, metaphor and frames
in Bulgarian verbocentric
compounds
Metonymic processing of language
vs. processing metonymic language Processing metonymic language as Paris has dropped
hemlines this year vs. metonymic processing of language
which is a general cognitive strategy for filling out “gaps
by inferring some rich source of information”, like a
FRAME, “from the simple mention of some salient part
of that knowledge” (Gibbs 1999: 69).
The operation of metonymy in lexicogenesis (LG)
belongs to METONYMIC PROCESSING OF
LANGUAGE.
Metonymy in WF: a) greater diversity than lexical
metonymy (Janda 2011); b) distinct from
lexical/referential, speech act, illocutionary and
discourse metonymy.
Previous studies on metonymy in WF in
terms of
event schema conceptual derivations in conversion
(Dirven 1999);
category shifts in conversion (Farrell 2001);
the conventional metonymy SALIENT PROPERTY
FOR CATEGORY/PROPERTY FOR REFERENT in
so-called bahuvrihi compounds (as in English: red
neck, pick pocket; Huddleston and Pullum 2002);
creativity in compounding (Benzecs 2006);
figure-ground alignment in conversion (Ungerer
2007);
a general SOURCE FOR TARGET pattern in
affixation (Janda 2011).
The nature of metonymy in LG
LG metonymy - onomasiology-based
metonymy, guiding the creation of a new
symbol for а target concept.
LG metonymy - a formal cognitive
operation.
Cognitive operations
Cognitive operation - “any mental mechanism
whose purpose is to contribute to the
inferential processes that are necessary to
derive a full semantic representation out of a
linguistic expression” (Fransico Jose Ruiz de
Mendoza Ibanez 2011: 104).
Formal cognitive operations (FCO) vs. content
cognitive operations (CCO)
FCO – cuing, selection, integration and
abstraction – higher-level operations
preparing the conceptual material for the
successful accomplishment of lower-level
inferencing processes.
CCO – metaphor, metonymy, etc. – lower
level processes that people use to make
inferences and construct meaning on the
basis of linguistic cues.
Lexicogenesis
i) grammatical schematization, or the establishment
of instantiated and elaborated schemas;
ii) an interface phenomenon of an onomasiological
(Stekauer 1998) nature actualized in constructions
with different degrees of schematicity on the basis
of analogical creations based on an exemplar or
„leader word‟ (as Ykaov Malkiel 1966, in Adams
2001);
iii) establishing an analogy and constructing a new
naming unit with some of the same properties,
creating a neologism, as well as the initial use and
comprehension of established/entrenched words.
Lexicogenesis of VCCs
invariably associated with a verbal frame
which underlies the processes of
constructing associated concepts as a
generalized reflection of perceived reality
in human consciousness and the
realization of these concepts in language
in accordance with the available naming
means (Štekauer 2005: 49);
frame-based metonymic manipulation of
internal constituency.
Frames
“Frames, which are relevant not only to
metonymies but also to certain types of word
formation, can - and in fact, should - be defined
onomasiologically, so that even cross-over links
within one and the same frame realized in different
languages, concepts which have not yet been
expressed, senses of a given word which do not
yet exist, and new words which have not yet
been fanned can all be provided for” (Koch 2005:
153).
Frame – conceptual-onomasiological base; a gestalt
anchored into an actional core.
Metonymy and frames I
“Human knowledge appears to be frames all the way
down” (Barsalou and Hale 1993: 131)
A frame is a “system of concepts related in such a
way that to understand any one of them you have
to understand the whole structure; ....when one of
the things in such a structure is introduced all of
the others are automatically made available”
(Fillmore 2006: 373)
A frame is “the structured way in which the scene is
presented or remembered, […] [T]he frame
structures the word-meanings, and the word
„evokes‟ the frame” (Fillmore 2006: 378)
Metonymy and frames II
Frame semantics necessarily involves the study of the
unidirectional back/foregrounding relations between
concepts and the lexical items evoking and evoked by
them, as well as between a concept‟s frame and any
component thereof.
A lexical concept is “a unit of semantic structure, a bundle
of different types of highly schematic content” (Evans
2009: 11), a dynamic ad hoc piece of conceptual content
which operates by referencing richer conceptual frames,
which according to Koch (2005) are non-accidental
networks of contiguities. By manipulating these
contiguities on the principle of metonymy as FCO and
adjusting focal granularity we create compound verbs and
verbo-centric nominal compounds.
Metonymies in LG source-in-target but
highlighting?
Highlighting and domain reduction – reserved
for target-in-source metonymies (Ruiz de
Mendoza 2011) BUT the mechanism of
establishing a second focal element in the
profile of a verbocentric compound involves the
emancipation of a value-specified background
component, i.e. zone-activation is at play, but
instead of reduction expansion occurs.
Expansion and enrichment – the foregrounding
of a frame constituent is followed by its
integration in the resultant profile.
Metonymy in VCC revisited IVCC metonymy - a FCO involving cuing (the emancipation
of the running commentary ((Barsalou, Wenchi, Luka,
Olseth, Mix and Wu 1993)), selection (the choice of a
frame element for value specification), integration (the
onomatological explication of the specified element as a
secondary focal point in the profile of the lexical concept)
and possible abstraction (further cognitive operations).
VCC metonymy - source in target, operating through
expansion via frame element highlighting and
foregrounding.
VCC metonymy - an interrelation of entities that results in a
complex meaning, which can be captured in the notation
“X PLUS Y” instead of the standard “X FOR Y” (Radden and
Kövesces 1999: 18–19).
Metonymy as a frame-based analytical tool
Frame-based VCC
“a. A word sense‟s semantic frame (what
the word „means‟ or „evokes‟) = profile +
background frame;
b. A word sense‟s profile: what the word
designates, asserts;
c. A word sense‟s background frame: what
the word takes for granted, presupposes
(Goldberg 2010: 40).
Bulgarian compounds
Root compounds – exceptionally rare
(borrowing of patterns);
VCCs – i) onomatological realizations of
metonymic relations triggered, guided and
constrained by the qualia structure
(Pustejovsky 1991) of the verbal source
concept; ii) categorially right-headed (for
inflectional purposes), but display wide
variability in terms of semantic
endo/exocentrcity.
Bulgarian verbocentric compounds
(645 nouns + 77 verbs)[X+/-v Y +/-v ] Z - formal-operational
frame- based metonymy (cuing,
selection, integration via
explication and +/-abstraction)
[X V] N [-dyn; -rel] [X V] V[+dyn; +rel]
[V N]N [N V] -/+suff N
Onomasiological metaphtonymy nominal
verbocentric compounds I
въртиопашка
(vartiopashka, ‘twist/wag-
tail’, coquette)
frame-based THEME
/TWISTEE core component
metonymic explication
HUMANS ARE ANIMALS
INTENTIONS ARE
PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES
SALIENT PROPERTY FOR
CATEGORY
Onomasiological metaphtonymy nominal
verbocentric compounds II
загори тенджeрa [zagoritendzhera, ‘burn-pan’, a
person with no sense of time]
frame-based THEME / BURNEE core component
metonymic explication
cultural script WOMEN ARE HOUSEWIVES/
COOKS
ACTIVITY FOR TIME OF ACTIVITY
SALIENT PROPERTY FOR CATEGORY
Onomasiological metaphtonymy nominal
verbocentric compounds III
хвалипръцко [hvalipratsko, ‘brag farter’ windbag]
frame-based TOPIC/ REASON core component
metonymic explication
ironic evaluative markedness reversal – assigned
value to the TOPIC – farting
SALIENT PROPERTY FOR CATEGORY
[N V] N
a) semantically endocentric – pure
metonymy - cuing, selection, and integration
via explication – гроздобер [grozdober,
„grapes-pick‟, wine harvest]; кукловод[kuklovod, „doll-lead‟, puppeteer]);
b) semantically exocentric – metaphtonymy
– cuing, selection, integration via explication
and abstraction – пътепис [patepis, „road-
write‟, travelogue]; буквояд [bukvoyad,
„letter-eater‟, pedant/prig].
Frame metonymy suffixless nominal compounds I
(endocentric)
i) кукловод [kuklovod, ‘doll-lead’,
puppeteer]
frame-based THEME/LEADEE core
component metonymic explication
ii) гроздобер [grozdober, ‘grapes-pick’,
wine harvest]
frame-based THEME/PICKEE core
component metonymic explication
Frame metonymy suffixless nominal
compounds II (exocentric)
буквояд [bukvoyad, ‘letter-eat’, pedant/prig] (on
analogy with дървояд [darvoyad, ‘wood-eat’,
woodworm]
frame-based THEME/EDIBLE core component
metonymic explication
PRINTED LETTERS ARE EDIBLES
PEOPLE WHOSE HUNGER CAN BE
SATIATED BY LETTERS ARE PRIGS.
[N V] suff N
a) semantically endocentric – pure metonymy –cuing, selection, and integration via explication
– болногледач [bolnogledach, „ill-watcher‟,
hospital attendant]; тънкописец [tankopisets,
„thin-writer‟, fine-tipped/fountain pen];
b) semantically exocentric – metaphtonymy –cuing, selection, integration via explication and
abstraction – блюдолизец [blyudolizets, „plate-
licker‟, lickspittle]; броненосец [bronenosets,
„armour-bearer‟, battleship/armadillo].
Frame metonymy suffixal nominal
compounds I (endocentric)
Suffix - the categorial head. Assigns the
onomasiological type of the whole via
inferential metonymy.
мореплавател [moreplavatel, ‘sea-sail-
er’, seafarer/sailor]
frame-based PATH core component
metonymic explication
suffix-triggered inferential metonymy
Frame metonymy suffixed compounds II
(exocentric)
рогоносец [rogonostes, ‘horn-wearer’,
cuckold]
*nosets - not a legitimate lexical item
frame-based THEME/THING WORN
core component metonymic
explication
HUMANS ARE ANIMALS
suffix-associated inferential metonymy
чревоугодник [chrevougodnik, ‘intestine-
fawner/toady, glutton] – a person who
indulges in eating and drinking high quality
foods and drinks, lit. a person who panders
their intestines
frame-based BENEFICIARY/FAWNEE
core component explication
HUMAN ORGANS ARE HUMANS
suffix – triggered inferential metonymy
Frame metonymy suffixed compounds II
(exocentric)
[X V]V
a) semantically endocentric - pure metonymy -
cuing, selection, integration via explication –кръводарявам [kravodaryavam, ‘blood-
donate‟, donate blood]; водоснабдявам[vodosnabdyavam, „water-supply,‟ supply with water];
b) semantically exocentric - metaphtonymy -
cuing, selection, integration via explication and
abstraction – лицемеря [litsemerya, ‘face-
measure‟, act hypocritically]; ръкополагам[rakopolagam, „hand-place‟, ordain]; creation of a
new unperspectivized frame.
Frame metonymy compound
verbs I (endocentric)
i) водоснабдявам [vodosnabdyavam,
‘water-supply’, supply with water]
frame-based THEME/SUPPLY core
component explication
ii) бракосъчетавам [brakosachetavam, ‘marriage-
unite’, marry/wed]
frame-based WHOLE core component
explication
Frame metonymy compound
verbs II (exocentric i)
ръкополагам [rakopolgam, ‘hand-place’, ordain]
frame-based THEME/PLACEE core component
explication
PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES ARE SYMBOLIC ACTS
Novel unperspectivized frame is created – ORDAIN,
with core frame elements: Member, Object ,
Instrument, Guardian, Leader, Desired State and New
Status
Frame metonymy compound
verbs II (exocentric ii)
главоблъскам се [glavoblaskam se, ‘head-
jostle self’, strain one’s brain/worry]
frame-based THEME/JOSTLEE core
component explication
EMOTIONS ARE PHYSICAL SENSATIONS
/ACTIVITIES
Novel frame is created – WORRY, with core
frame elements: Experiencer, Topic,
Manner, Degree, Means, Result
Summary I Irrespective of the fact whether and to what extent
metaphor is involved in the meaning of verbocentric
compounds in Bulgarian, frame element foregrounding
based on conceptual contiguity is always involved as a
formal cognitive operation.
“Coming now to the conceptual level, we can claim that
every concept designated by a given lexical item appears
as a figure in relation to (at least) another contiguous
concept that - for the time being - remains the ground
within the same frame. […] certain pragmatic, conceptual
or emotional factors may highlight the ground concept so
that figure and ground become” (Koch 2005: 152)
integrated in the profile of the new lexical concept and
start to designate the specific event/referent.
Summary II
Bulgarian verbocentric compounds:
A) pure frame-metonymies (cuing,
selection and integration via explication) –
semantically endocentric;
B) frame metonymy + abstraction
(content metaphors, metonymies, irony,
etc.) – semantically exocentric.
Selected References I Barcelona, A. (2003). Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a few modest
proposals. In Cuyckens, H., Berg, Th., Dirven, R. & Panther, K. (Eds.), Motivation in
Language. Studies in Honour of Günter Radden (223-255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing House.
Barsalou, L. & Hale, Ch. (1993) Components of conceptual representation: From
feature lists to recursive frames. In Van Mechelen, I. , Hampton, J., Michalski, R. &
Theuns, P. (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis
(97–144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Barsalou, L., Wenchi, Y., Luka, B., Olseth, Mix, K., & Wu, L. (1993) Concepts and
Meaning. In K. Beals, K., Cooke, G., Kathman, D., McCullough, K., Kita, S. & D. Testen,
D. (Eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society 29: Papers from the parasession on conceptual
representations (pp. 23-61). University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Barsalou, L., Yeh, W., Luka, B., & Olseth, K. (1993). Concepts and Meaning. Retrieved
from
http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/barsalou/papers/Barsalou_et_al._chap_1993_
concepts_meaning.pdf.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Benczes, R. (2004) Analysing exocentric compounds in English: a case for
creativity. In The Even Yearbook 6 ELTE SEAS Working Papers in Linguistics.
Selected References II Benczes, R. (2006) Creative Compounding in English. John Benjamin Publishing
Company.
Costello, F. (2002). Investigating creative language: People‟s choice of words in the
production of novel noun-noun compounds. Proceedings of the 24th Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 232–237. Available at
http://www.csi.ucd.ie/staff/fcostello/ papers/Costello2002a.pdf.
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning-Construction.
Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (4), 491–534.
Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning
Construction. Oxford University Press.
Farrell, P. (2001). Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language and
Linguistics, 5, 109–130.
Fillmore, Ch. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di
Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.
Fillmore, Ch. (2006). Frame semantics. In Geeraerts, D. (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics. Basic
readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Selected References III FrameNet Available at https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/. Copyright 2000–
2011, International Computer Science Institute.
Goldberg, A. (2010). Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. In M. Rappaport
Hovav, & Sichel, I. (Eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure, (pp. 39–58).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goossens, L. (2003). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in
expressions for linguistic action. In Dirven, R. & Pörings, R. (Eds.), Metaphor and
Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 349–377). Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Janda, L. (2011) Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2): 359-392.
Koch, P. (2005) Frame and Contiguity: On the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and
Certain Types of Word-formation. In Panther, K. & Radden, G. (Eds.) Metonymy in
Language and Thought (pp. 139–167). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing House.
Kövesces, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view.
Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 37–77.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1981). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Selected References IV
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its
Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, Image, Symbol. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford/New York:
Oxford University Press.
Onysko, A. (2010). Casting the conceptual spotlight: Hybrid compounding in German
as an example of head-frame internal specifier selection. In Onysko, A. & Michel, S.
(Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Word-formation (pp. 243–300). Berlin and New York:
De Gruyter Mouton.
Onysko, A. & Michel, S. (2010). Introduction: Unravelling the cognitive in word
formation. In Onysko, A. & Michel, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Word-formation
(pp. 1–25). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Peirsman, Y. & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive
Linguistics 17 (3), 269–316.
Selected References V Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamin Publishing House.
Radden, G. & Kövesces, (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In In Panther, K. &
Radden, G. (Eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought (17–59).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing House.
Schmid, H. (2007). Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In Geeraerts, D. &
Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (117–138). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Steen, G. (2011). Metaphor in language and thought: How do we map the field? In
Brdar, M., Gries, St. & Fuchs, M. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion
(67–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing House.
Štekauer, P. (2005) Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and
Lieber, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation (207-232). Berlin: Springer.
Taylor, John, R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language. A Usage Based Theory of Language
Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.