Upload
adele-banks
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 [email protected]
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/)