Whole-for-part metonymy, classification, and grounding
Tóm tắt
Since the early 1980s, metonymy has progressively gained central stage in linguistic investigations. The advent of cognitive linguistics marked a new turn in the study of this trope conceived, not as a deviation from semantic conventions (contra classical rhetorical theories), but as a phenomenon rooted in non-language-specific mechanisms of conceptualization of the world. Acknowledging that metonymy is ultimately cognitive in nature, this paper proposes to consider metonymy from its multiple levels of manifestation, integrating cognitive, pragmatic, semantic, but also ontological angles of approach. Taking whole-for-part (WP) metonymies as a case study, I aim to show how recent developments within these respective disciplines can enrich our understanding of such metonymic mechanisms, sometimes without even identifying them as such. This paper proposes to establish a dialog between these disciplines on the topic of WP-metonymy. So, after a presentation of the most standard cognitive and pragmatic approaches to WP-metonymy, I will argue for the relevance of recent semantic investigations on quantity gradability, and for the theoretical importance of keeping these two kinds of part-reference clearly apart. I will show that the literature on gradability provides strong semantic arguments for doing so. Finally, connecting the debate on WP-metonymy with the ontological debate on property inherence will open the way for a formal treatment of WP-metonymy within ground logic.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Barcelona, A. (2008). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In J. Nils-Lennart, D. Minuch, & C. Alm-Arvius (Eds.), Selected papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival (pp. 1–40). Stockholm: Stockholm UP.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 741–765.
Egg, M. (2003). Beginning novels and finishing hamburgers: Remarks on the semantics of to begin. Journal of Semantics, 20, 163–191.
Fine, K. (2012a). The pure logic of ground. Review of Symbolic Logic, 25(1), 161–187.
Fine, K. (2012b). Guide to ground. In F. Correia & B. Schnieder (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding. Understanding the structure of reality (pp. 37–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, N. (2011). Color adjectives and radical contextualism. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(3), 201–221.
Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–381.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2010). Color, context and compositionality. Synthese, 174, 79–98.
Kleiber, G. (1999). Problèmes de sémantique. La polysémie en question. Villeneuve: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1984). Active zones. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 172–188.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. In R. W. Langacker (Ed.), Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter, 116, 75–111.
McNally, L. (2011). The relative role of property type and scale structure in explaining the behavior of gradable adjectives. In R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, U. Sauerland, & H. Schmitz (Eds.), ViC 2009 (Papers from the ESSLLI 2009 workshop on vagueness in communication) (pp. 151–168). Berlin: Springer.
Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfer of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 109–132.
Nunberg, G. (2008). The pragmatics of deferred interpretation. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2004). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Metaphorik.de, 06/2004, 91–113.
Prandi, M. (2004). The Building Blocks of Meaning. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 259–288.
Schnieder, B. (2004). A note on particularized qualities and bearer-uniqueness. Ratio, 17, 218–228.
Seto, K. -I. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In: K. -U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonomy in language and thought (pp. 91-120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stallard, D. (1993). Two kinds of metonymy. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-93 (pp. 87–94), Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Sweep, J. (2009). Metonymy without a referential shift. In B. Botma & J. van Kamp (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2009 (pp. 103–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Toledo, A., & Sassoon, G. W. (2011). Absolute vs. relative adjectives—Variances within vs. between individuals. Proceedings of SALT, 21, 135–154.
Winston, M. E., Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part–whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444.
Yoon, Y. (1996). Total and partial predicates and the weak–strong interpretations. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 217–236.