How  to  Do  Things  with  Metonymy.  Illocu6onary  scenarios    and    construc6onal  procedures  

     

Annalisa  Baicchi    

annalisa.baicchi@gmail.com    

25-­‐26  April,  2014                Aristotle  University  of  Thessaloniki    

1st  InternaDonal  Symposium  on    

Figura6ve  Thought  and  Language    

hGp://lexicom.es   www.fungramkb.com  

Steps  of  talk  

1.  The  role  of  Metonymy  in  Speech  Act  Theory;  

2.  The  role  of  the  whole  set  of  ICMs  in  illocutionary  meaning;  

3.  The  Cost-­‐Bene)it  Cognitive  Model:  speech  acts  as  high-­‐level  

situational  cognitive  models;  

4.  Illocutionary  scenario  and  constructional  procedures  of  the  

offering  high-­‐level  situational  cognitive  model.  

Codifica6on  Theory   Inferen6al  Theory  

Searle  1969,  Ross  1970,  Morgan  1978,  Sadock  &  Zwicky  1985,    Halliday  1994,  Givón  1990,  Dik  1997,  Halliday  &  MaGhiessen  2004,  inter  alios  

Grice  1975,  Bach  &  Harnish  1979,  Leech  1983,  Sperber  &  Wilson  1986,  inter  alios        

Illocu6onary  scenarios  and  metonymic  grounding  Panther  &  Thornburg,  1997,  1998,  1999  

…  

Cost-­‐Benefit  Cogni6ve  Model  Ruiz  de  Mendoza  &  Baicchi  2007  Baicchi  &  Ruiz  de  Mendoza  2010      

Baicchi  2012      

‘Illocu'onary  scenario’    :Panther  &  Thornburg  (1998)  

IllocuDonary   meaning   is   licensed   by   illocuDonary   scenarios,   frame-­‐like  structures  that  allow,  by  means  of  metonymic  reasoning,  for  the  retrieval  of  all  elements  contribuDng  to  the  derivaDon  of  illocuDonary  meaning.    

PANTHER  &  THORNBURG’s    REQUEST  SCENARIO    (1998:  759)  (i)  The  BEFORE:                                  (H)  can  do  the  acDon  (A);    (S)  wants  H  to  do  A    

(ii)          The  CORE:                                S  puts  H  under  a  (more  or  less  strong)  obligaDon  to  do  A                              the  RESULT:  H  is  under  an  obligaDon  to  do  A    

(iii)        The  AFTER:                                H  will  do  A  

BEFORE        (a)  Can  you  switch  on  the  light?    CORE                (b)  Bring  me  my  newspaper  AFTER              (c)  You  will  marry  me,  won’t  you?  

Illocutionary  scenario  (Thornburg  &  Panther  1997:  207)  

6

i. is shared by the members of a linguistic community; ii. is stored in our long-term memory;

iii. illocutionary meaning is directly tied to the notion of idealized cognitive models (ICMs); - illocutionary scenarios may be accessed metonymically by invoking relevant parts of them.

i. Can you open the door? ii. Will you close the window?

iii. I'd get the local garage to do it if it was me. Can't you drive it and use up most of the petrol first?” iv. Shall we go out for dinner?

ex. Tom is a liar

Figure 3. Scenario for the assertive speech act PANTHER & THORNBURG’s SCENARIO : (Thornburg & Panther 1997: 207)

PRAGMATIC

PRE-CONDITIONS

the BEFORE: pre-conditions which enable a physical action, legitimize a social action or motivate an action (including speech acts);

PRAGMATIC RESULT

the CORE and the RESULT: properties which define the action as such and the immediate outcome of a successful performance of the action;

PRAGMATIC CONSEQUENCES

the AFTER: intended or unintended consequences of the action, which are not its immediate result.

!

P

there are good reasons for believing P

H does not know P S believes P P is relevant to H

S asserts P

Tom is a liar

S is regarded as being committed to P

H believes P

!

BEFORE

CORE:

ill. act

RESULT

AFTER

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can  you  switch  on  the  light?  

7

(i) The BEFORE: The hearer (H) can do the action (A) The speaker (S) wants H to do A

(ii) The CORE: S puts H under a (more or less strong) obligation to do A The RESULT: H is under an obligation to do A (H must/should/ought to do A)

(iii) The AFTER: H will do A

(a) Can you switch on the light? (b) Will you help me? (c) You will return the book in pristine condition, won’t you?

Target

REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(Request scenario)

Source

ABILITY TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(BEFORE component)

Figure 4. Ability for request to perform an action

Target

REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(Request scenario)

Source

WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM THE ACTION

(BEFORE component)

Figure 5: Willingness for request to perform an action

Target

REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(Request scenario)

Source

FUTURE ACTION

(AFTER component)

Figure 6: A future action for the request to perform the action

Will  you  help  me?  

7

(i) The BEFORE: The hearer (H) can do the action (A) The speaker (S) wants H to do A

(ii) The CORE: S puts H under a (more or less strong) obligation to do A The RESULT: H is under an obligation to do A (H must/should/ought to do A)

(iii) The AFTER: H will do A

(a) Can you switch on the light? (b) Will you help me? (c) You will return the book in pristine condition, won’t you?

Target

REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(Request scenario)

Source

ABILITY TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(BEFORE component)

Figure 4. Ability for request to perform an action

Target

REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(Request scenario)

Source

WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM THE ACTION

(BEFORE component)

Figure 5: Willingness for request to perform an action

Target

REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(Request scenario)

Source

FUTURE ACTION

(AFTER component)

Figure 6: A future action for the request to perform the action

You  will  return  the  book  in  pristine  condition,  won’t  you?  

7

(i) The BEFORE: The hearer (H) can do the action (A) The speaker (S) wants H to do A

(ii) The CORE: S puts H under a (more or less strong) obligation to do A The RESULT: H is under an obligation to do A (H must/should/ought to do A)

(iii) The AFTER: H will do A

(a) Can you switch on the light? (b) Will you help me? (c) You will return the book in pristine condition, won’t you?

Target

REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(Request scenario)

Source

ABILITY TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(BEFORE component)

Figure 4. Ability for request to perform an action

Target

REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(Request scenario)

Source

WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM THE ACTION

(BEFORE component)

Figure 5: Willingness for request to perform an action

Target

REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION

(Request scenario)

Source

FUTURE ACTION

(AFTER component)

Figure 6: A future action for the request to perform the action

10

6. SOME REFINEMENTS OF THE NOTION OF ILLOCUTIONARY SCENARIO

1. the dynamic versus non-dynamic nature of ICMs (Ruiz de Mendoza 1996, 1999). We propose to distinguish between:

a. operational ICMs ! metaphor and metonymy are operational in that they are the result of a productive cognitive operation that exploits non-operational ICMs;

b. non-operational ICMs ! propositional and image-schematic ICMs are non-operational since they are static in nature and consist of stored information.

DYNAMICITY Non-operational ICMs Operational ICMs

Propositional Metonymy Image-schemas Metaphor

2. the ontological nature of cognitive structures on the propositional level of representation. Here we

make a distinction between: a. situational ICMs ! frames à la Fillmore like taking a taxi, ordering a meal, or going to the

dentist b. non-situational ICMs ! they refer in a more general fashion to the objects (‘mother’),

events (‘earthquake’) and relations (‘kissing’).

3. ICMs can be further described at two levels of conceptual representation: a. non-generic (or low-level) ! (e.g. ‘mother’, ‘taking a taxi’): the low-level of conceptual

representation is created by making well-entrenched, coherent links between elements of our encyclopedic knowledge store;

b. generic (high-level) ! (e.g. ‘cause-effect’, ‘action’, ‘process’): the high level is created by deriving structure common to multiple low-level models.

GENERICITY SITUATIONALITY

Non-situational ICMs Situational ICMs

Low-level events, objects, relations taking a bus, ordering a meal High-level action, cause-effect, perception requesting, suggesting, offering

• ICMs in illocutions PROPOSITIONAL ICMs

A: Does your wisdom tooth still ache? (replies can be the B1, B2, B3, B4 and others)

B1: I’ll see my dentist tomorrow morning. B2: I have phoned the dentist B3: I have just been to the dentist’s office B4: I have paid the dentist a hefty fee.

IMAGE SCHEMATIC ICMs

• Give me that torch

F1

Figure 8. COMPULSION

Mm    

10

6. SOME REFINEMENTS OF THE NOTION OF ILLOCUTIONARY SCENARIO

1. the dynamic versus non-dynamic nature of ICMs (Ruiz de Mendoza 1996, 1999). We propose to distinguish between:

a. operational ICMs ! metaphor and metonymy are operational in that they are the result of a productive cognitive operation that exploits non-operational ICMs;

b. non-operational ICMs ! propositional and image-schematic ICMs are non-operational since they are static in nature and consist of stored information.

DYNAMICITY Non-operational ICMs Operational ICMs

Propositional Metonymy Image-schemas Metaphor

2. the ontological nature of cognitive structures on the propositional level of representation. Here we

make a distinction between: a. situational ICMs ! frames à la Fillmore like taking a taxi, ordering a meal, or going to the

dentist b. non-situational ICMs ! they refer in a more general fashion to the objects (‘mother’),

events (‘earthquake’) and relations (‘kissing’).

3. ICMs can be further described at two levels of conceptual representation: a. non-generic (or low-level) ! (e.g. ‘mother’, ‘taking a taxi’): the low-level of conceptual

representation is created by making well-entrenched, coherent links between elements of our encyclopedic knowledge store;

b. generic (high-level) ! (e.g. ‘cause-effect’, ‘action’, ‘process’): the high level is created by deriving structure common to multiple low-level models.

GENERICITY SITUATIONALITY

Non-situational ICMs Situational ICMs

Low-level events, objects, relations taking a bus, ordering a meal High-level action, cause-effect, perception requesting, suggesting, offering

• ICMs in illocutions PROPOSITIONAL ICMs

A: Does your wisdom tooth still ache? (replies can be the B1, B2, B3, B4 and others)

B1: I’ll see my dentist tomorrow morning. B2: I have phoned the dentist B3: I have just been to the dentist’s office B4: I have paid the dentist a hefty fee.

IMAGE SCHEMATIC ICMs

• Give me that torch

F1

Figure 8. COMPULSION

10

6. SOME REFINEMENTS OF THE NOTION OF ILLOCUTIONARY SCENARIO

1. the dynamic versus non-dynamic nature of ICMs (Ruiz de Mendoza 1996, 1999). We propose to distinguish between:

a. operational ICMs ! metaphor and metonymy are operational in that they are the result of a productive cognitive operation that exploits non-operational ICMs;

b. non-operational ICMs ! propositional and image-schematic ICMs are non-operational since they are static in nature and consist of stored information.

DYNAMICITY Non-operational ICMs Operational ICMs

Propositional Metonymy Image-schemas Metaphor

2. the ontological nature of cognitive structures on the propositional level of representation. Here we

make a distinction between: a. situational ICMs ! frames à la Fillmore like taking a taxi, ordering a meal, or going to the

dentist b. non-situational ICMs ! they refer in a more general fashion to the objects (‘mother’),

events (‘earthquake’) and relations (‘kissing’).

3. ICMs can be further described at two levels of conceptual representation: a. non-generic (or low-level) ! (e.g. ‘mother’, ‘taking a taxi’): the low-level of conceptual

representation is created by making well-entrenched, coherent links between elements of our encyclopedic knowledge store;

b. generic (high-level) ! (e.g. ‘cause-effect’, ‘action’, ‘process’): the high level is created by deriving structure common to multiple low-level models.

GENERICITY SITUATIONALITY

Non-situational ICMs Situational ICMs

Low-level events, objects, relations taking a bus, ordering a meal High-level action, cause-effect, perception requesting, suggesting, offering

• ICMs in illocutions PROPOSITIONAL ICMs

A: Does your wisdom tooth still ache? (replies can be the B1, B2, B3, B4 and others)

B1: I’ll see my dentist tomorrow morning. B2: I have phoned the dentist B3: I have just been to the dentist’s office B4: I have paid the dentist a hefty fee.

IMAGE SCHEMATIC ICMs

• Give me that torch

F1

Figure 8. COMPULSION

   

Ruiz de Mendoza 2007

IMAGE  SCHEMAS  

10

6. SOME REFINEMENTS OF THE NOTION OF ILLOCUTIONARY SCENARIO

1. the dynamic versus non-dynamic nature of ICMs (Ruiz de Mendoza 1996, 1999). We propose to distinguish between:

a. operational ICMs ! metaphor and metonymy are operational in that they are the result of a productive cognitive operation that exploits non-operational ICMs;

b. non-operational ICMs ! propositional and image-schematic ICMs are non-operational since they are static in nature and consist of stored information.

DYNAMICITY Non-operational ICMs Operational ICMs

Propositional Metonymy Image-schemas Metaphor

2. the ontological nature of cognitive structures on the propositional level of representation. Here we

make a distinction between: a. situational ICMs ! frames à la Fillmore like taking a taxi, ordering a meal, or going to the

dentist b. non-situational ICMs ! they refer in a more general fashion to the objects (‘mother’),

events (‘earthquake’) and relations (‘kissing’).

3. ICMs can be further described at two levels of conceptual representation: a. non-generic (or low-level) ! (e.g. ‘mother’, ‘taking a taxi’): the low-level of conceptual

representation is created by making well-entrenched, coherent links between elements of our encyclopedic knowledge store;

b. generic (high-level) ! (e.g. ‘cause-effect’, ‘action’, ‘process’): the high level is created by deriving structure common to multiple low-level models.

GENERICITY SITUATIONALITY

Non-situational ICMs Situational ICMs

Low-level events, objects, relations taking a bus, ordering a meal High-level action, cause-effect, perception requesting, suggesting, offering

• ICMs in illocutions PROPOSITIONAL ICMs

A: Does your wisdom tooth still ache? (replies can be the B1, B2, B3, B4 and others)

B1: I’ll see my dentist tomorrow morning. B2: I have phoned the dentist B3: I have just been to the dentist’s office B4: I have paid the dentist a hefty fee.

IMAGE SCHEMATIC ICMs

• Give me that torch

F1

Figure 8. COMPULSION

11

B1: No, I’m sorry, my car is being serviced. • A: Can you give me a lift to the train station?

B2: Yes, of course!

F1

Figure 9. removal of restraint

• Hands up or I’ll shoot. F1

Figure 10. blockage

METAPHOR

Figure 11. Ruiz de Mendoza and Pérez 2002

11

B1: No, I’m sorry, my car is being serviced. • A: Can you give me a lift to the train station?

B2: Yes, of course!

F1

Figure 9. removal of restraint

• Hands up or I’ll shoot. F1

Figure 10. blockage

METAPHOR

Figure 11. Ruiz de Mendoza and Pérez 2002

A:  Can  you  give  me  a  lift  to  the  station?  B1:  No,  I’m  sorry  B2:  Yes,  of  course    

Give  me  that  torch  

Hands  up  or  I’ll  shoot  

METAPHOR    

11

B1: No, I’m sorry, my car is being serviced. • A: Can you give me a lift to the train station?

B2: Yes, of course!

F1

Figure 9. removal of restraint

• Hands up or I’ll shoot. F1

Figure 10. blockage

METAPHOR

Figure 11. Ruiz de Mendoza and Pérez 2002

Cost-Benefit Cognitive Model

(Ruiz de Mendoza & Pérez 2002, Ruiz de Mendoza & Baicchi 2007; Baicchi & Ruiz de Mendoza 2010; Baicchi 2012 )

It explains how speakers make use of situational cognitive models to motivate the conventionalized illocutionary value of utterances, since it includes the social variables that regulate the production of an utterance (PROTOTYPICALITY, QUANTITY, OPTIONALITY, POLITENESS, FORCEFULNESS, SOCIAL POWER, COST-BENEFIT). The Model is built on the notion of manifestness (Sperber & Wilson 1995) whereby a state of affairs is manifest to a person if the person can make a mental representation of it.

 

   

Lexical Constructional Model  

Illocutionary constructions  

•  We postulate the existence of illocutionary constructions on a par with any other type of constructions,

•  and accommodate them on a cline of conventionalization,

according to which the more conventional types are the product of entrenchment of metonymic schemas (e.g., Can you pass me the salt?), while the less conventional types require greater inferential activity (e.g. This soup is rather tasteless).

•  Conventional forms consist of fixed and variable elements with

different degrees of idiomaticity, and are acknowledged to have constructional status since form pairs with illocutionary meaning.

17

The Offering ICM

ICM of Offering:

(i) the BEFORE

• the hearer is in need of something; • the speaker knows he can satisfy the need;

(ii) the CORE • the speaker makes the hearer aware of his possibility/willingness to

commit to bringing about a beneficial action for the hearer; the RESULT • the hearer can freely decide whether to accept the speaker’s offer;

(iii) the AFTER • the hearer is expected to accept the speaker’s offer;

(iv) COST-BENEFIT: prototypically high benefit for the hearer; (v) OPTIONALITY: prototypically very high; (vi) POLITENESS: prototypically high; (vii) SOCIAL POWER: offers can be uttered whatever the power relationship

that holds between the speaker and the hearer; (viii) FORCEFULNESS: prototypically low.

Table 4. The Offering ICM

Constructional

procedures some corpus data

interrogative cnx Would you like some more tea? [http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2094842/1/] Will you let me buy you a drink? [npop.com/spots/keith-harkin/articles/31518/] Would you like a drink? [BNC CR6 3047] Would You Like Me to find you a box? [www.hark.com/clips/clfjgyqqhv] Would you like me to turn your life into hell? [http://weknowmemes.com/2012/03/] Would you like me to die of a panic attack? [http://it.twitter.com/Eva__Lang?protected_redirect=true] Will you have more coffee, my guest? [www.gutenberg.org/files/16589/16589-h/16589-h.htm] Won’t you drink more tea and eat another cracknel before you go? [www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/9831/1] Do you want some marmalade on it?[BNC KBW 4274] Do you want me to do it for you?[http://thehopenet.org/blog/?p=35]

performative verb I offer you some cake if you like.[BNC HUA 1836] Now I’m offering you my help. Do you want it?[www.fanfiction.net/s/3685949/3/Harry-Potter]

modality May I help you to do it? [http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?p=486695] May I pour you some bourbon in the meantime? [www.trollkingdom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1067] Can I buy you a coffee?[www.theferrett.com/ferrettworks/2012/08/]

Imperative cnx Drink some more wine. [www.tvfanatic.com/quotes/characters/] Eat some more cake, please! [http://lastyearsgirl.pixlet.net/?p=3945]

Conditional cnx If you like, I will do it for you. [http://forums.aaca.org/f119/1932-dodge-hubcap-rings-328244.html] If you prefer, I will assemble one complete set for you. [http://clowninroundbooks.com/pages/] If you want me to, I will prepare an upload for you. [http://osdir.com/ml/debian]

18

more PROTOTYPICAL sentence type constructional procedures

INTERROGATIVE routinized formulae polar questions modals

IMPERATIVE Verb + XP construction

DECLARATIVE modals conditional performative verb/noun

less PROTOTYPICAL TABLE 5. PROTOTYPICALITY of sentence types for offering

OPTIONALITY, more less FORCEFULNESS POLITENESS

constructional procedures

routinized formulae

polar questions

modals (interrogative forms):

can, could, may

modals (declarative forms):

can, could

conditional

performative verb/noun

imperative

OPTIONALITY, less more FORCEFULNESS POLITENESS

Table 6. Scales for the offering ICM

The offering ICM is regulated by two high-order stipulations, (c) and (d):

(c) If it manifest to A that a potential state of affairs is beneficial to B, then A is expected to bring it about. (d) If it manifest to A that it is not manifest to B that a potential state of affairs is (regarded as) beneficial to A, then A is expected to make this manifest to B.

Some METONYMIES for the Offering high-level situational cognitive model

• Drink more tea

Figure 12. AN ORDER TO PERFORM AN ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Order to perform

18

more PROTOTYPICAL sentence type constructional procedures

INTERROGATIVE routinized formulae polar questions modals

IMPERATIVE Verb + XP construction

DECLARATIVE modals conditional performative verb/noun

less PROTOTYPICAL TABLE 5. PROTOTYPICALITY of sentence types for offering

OPTIONALITY, more less FORCEFULNESS POLITENESS

constructional procedures

routinized formulae

polar questions

modals (interrogative forms):

can, could, may

modals (declarative forms):

can, could

conditional

performative verb/noun

imperative

OPTIONALITY, less more FORCEFULNESS POLITENESS

Table 6. Scales for the offering ICM

The offering ICM is regulated by two high-order stipulations, (c) and (d):

(c) If it manifest to A that a potential state of affairs is beneficial to B, then A is expected to bring it about. (d) If it manifest to A that it is not manifest to B that a potential state of affairs is (regarded as) beneficial to A, then A is expected to make this manifest to B.

Some METONYMIES for the Offering high-level situational cognitive model

• Drink more tea

Figure 12. AN ORDER TO PERFORM AN ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Order to perform

18

more PROTOTYPICAL sentence type constructional procedures

INTERROGATIVE routinized formulae polar questions modals

IMPERATIVE Verb + XP construction

DECLARATIVE modals conditional performative verb/noun

less PROTOTYPICAL TABLE 5. PROTOTYPICALITY of sentence types for offering

OPTIONALITY, more less FORCEFULNESS POLITENESS

constructional procedures

routinized formulae

polar questions

modals (interrogative forms):

can, could, may

modals (declarative forms):

can, could

conditional

performative verb/noun

imperative

OPTIONALITY, less more FORCEFULNESS POLITENESS

Table 6. Scales for the offering ICM

The offering ICM is regulated by two high-order stipulations, (c) and (d):

(c) If it manifest to A that a potential state of affairs is beneficial to B, then A is expected to bring it about. (d) If it manifest to A that it is not manifest to B that a potential state of affairs is (regarded as) beneficial to A, then A is expected to make this manifest to B.

Some METONYMIES for the Offering high-level situational cognitive model

• Drink more tea

Figure 12. AN ORDER TO PERFORM AN ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Order to perform

19

• Would you like me to carry your luggage? [www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php?topic=8337.0;wap2]

Figure 13. ASKING FOR PREFERENCE IS OFFERING metonymy

• May I offer you a biscuit? [www.fictionpress.com/s/2632564/9/]

• Can I pour you a pony of whiskey? [www.midnightshots.com/2011/07/14/]

• Will you let me pay for it? [http://www.asianfanfics.com/story/view/58678/22/]

Figure 14. ASKING FOR PERMISSION IS OFFERING metonymy

• You will have more pudding, won’t you ? [www.dsl.ac.uk/snda4frames.php?]

Figure 15. A QUESTION ABOUT A FUTURE ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Asking for preference

Target

Offering scenario

Source

A question about a future action

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Asking for permission

19

• Would you like me to carry your luggage? [www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php?topic=8337.0;wap2]

Figure 13. ASKING FOR PREFERENCE IS OFFERING metonymy

• May I offer you a biscuit? [www.fictionpress.com/s/2632564/9/]

• Can I pour you a pony of whiskey? [www.midnightshots.com/2011/07/14/]

• Will you let me pay for it? [http://www.asianfanfics.com/story/view/58678/22/]

Figure 14. ASKING FOR PERMISSION IS OFFERING metonymy

• You will have more pudding, won’t you ? [www.dsl.ac.uk/snda4frames.php?]

Figure 15. A QUESTION ABOUT A FUTURE ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Asking for preference

Target

Offering scenario

Source

A question about a future action

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Asking for permission

19

• Would you like me to carry your luggage? [www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php?topic=8337.0;wap2]

Figure 13. ASKING FOR PREFERENCE IS OFFERING metonymy

• May I offer you a biscuit? [www.fictionpress.com/s/2632564/9/]

• Can I pour you a pony of whiskey? [www.midnightshots.com/2011/07/14/]

• Will you let me pay for it? [http://www.asianfanfics.com/story/view/58678/22/]

Figure 14. ASKING FOR PERMISSION IS OFFERING metonymy

• You will have more pudding, won’t you ? [www.dsl.ac.uk/snda4frames.php?]

Figure 15. A QUESTION ABOUT A FUTURE ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Asking for preference

Target

Offering scenario

Source

A question about a future action

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Asking for permission

20

• Don’t fret. I can do this for you

Figure 16. ABILITY TO PERFORM AN ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy REFERENCES Bach, Kent & Robert M. Harnish 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.:The

MIT Press. Baicchi, A. 2009. “Speech Act Theory”. In Siobhan Chapman & Christopher Routledge (eds), Key Ideas in

Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, pp.: 212-219. Baicchi A., 2009, “The AUX-NP Requestive Construction and its Metonymic Grounding within the Lexical

Constructional Model”, Paper in preparation, talk delivered at the International CRAL Conference, University of La Rioja, 29-31 October 2009.

Baicchi, A. 2009, “Idealized Cognitive Models at the interface between lexis and grammar”. In Ignasi Navarro I Ferrando & Antonio José Silvestre Lopez (eds.). Language Systems and Cognitive Perspective. Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch, pp. 187-208.

Baicchi A. 2011. “Metaphoric motivation in grammatical structure”. In K.U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 149-170.

Baicchi A. 2012. On Acting and Thinking. Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa: ETS. Baicchi, A. et al. (eds) (2005). Modelling Thought and Constructing Meaning. Cognitive Models in

Interaction. Milano: Franco Angeli Baicchi A. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez F.J., 2010, “The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions

within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model”, Textus XXIV (1), special issue on Cognition and the Brain in Language and Linguistics: 543-563.

Barcelona, A. 2002. „Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: an update”. In: René Dirven & Ralph Pörings (eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 207-277.

Butler, C.S. 2009. “The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, Strengths and Challenges”, in C.S. Butler & J.M. Arista (eds), Deconstructing Constructions. John Benjamins, Amsterdam: 117-152.

Butler, C.S. 2012. “An ontological approach to the representational lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar”. Language Science 34: 619-634.

Butler, Christopher S. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (2004). “Situating FDG in functional-cognitive space: an initial study”. In M.Á. Gómez González & L. Mackenzie (eds.), Functional Discourse Grammar and Incremental Discourse Grammar. Peter Lang: Bern. 109-158.

Dirven, René 2005. „Major Strands in Cognitive Linguistics”. In: A.Baicchi et al., (eds). Modelling Thought and Constructing Meaning. Cognitive Models in Interaction. Milano: Franco Angeli, pp. 11-40.

Dirven, Renè and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza 2009. „Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics”. In E.Tabakowska (ed). Cognitive Linguistics in Action: from Theory to Application and back. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Faber, Pamela and Mairal Usón, Ricardo. 1999. Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fillmore, Charles (1985). “Frames and the semantics of understanding”. Quaderni di Semantica 6.2: pp. 222-254.

Target

Offering scenario

Source

Ability to perform

       

THANK  YOU  !  

25-­‐26  April,  2014                Aristotle  University  of  Thessaloniki    

1st  InternaDonal  Symposium  on    

Figura6ve  Thought  and  Language