1887
Volume 33, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper focuses on non-literal uses of proper names in XYZ constructions, such as the use of the personal name in or ‘, and argues that such uses can be best accounted for by relevance theory. While in their primary use, proper names uniquely denote specific individuals and have no meaning on their own, in their secondary uses, they act as common nouns, capable of conveying non-literal meanings. In relevance theory, such non-literal uses can be explained in terms of lexical modulation or ad hoc concept formation. The analysis of selected examples shows that while some of the XYZ constructions can be seen as metaphors, others are better described as category extensions, and it substantiates the relevance-theoretic claim that there is no clear cut-off point between the two varieties of loose use.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21070.wal
2023-02-24
2024-05-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allerton, David J.
    1987 “The Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Status of Proper Names: What Are They, and Who Do They Belong To?” Journal of Pragmatics11 (1): 61–92. 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90153‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90153-6 [Google Scholar]
  2. Allott, Nicholas
    2010Key Terms in Pragmatics. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, John M.
    2007The Grammar of Names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297412.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297412.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Audi, Robert
    ed. 2015The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (3rd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057509
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057509 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bach, Kent
    2002 “Giorgione Was So-Called Because of His Name.” Philosophical Perspectives161: 73–103. 10.1111/1468‑0068.36.s16.4
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0068.36.s16.4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barcelona, Antonio
    2003 “Names: A Metonymic ‘Return Ticket’ in Five Languages.” Jezikoslovlje4 (1): 11–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blakemore, Diane
    1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boër, Steven E.
    1975 “Proper Names as Predicates.” Philosophical Studies271: 389–400. 10.1007/BF01236458
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01236458 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brdar-Szabó, Rita, and Mario Brdar
    2020 “The Bruce Willis of Sandwiches: The Y of X Is Y of Z Construction on Its Journey towards a Paragon Model, as One Way of Achieving Intersubjectivity.” Diadorim22 (2): 277–302. 10.35520/diadorim.2020.v22n2a39460
    https://doi.org/10.35520/diadorim.2020.v22n2a39460 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bunnin, Nicholas, and Jiyuan Yu
    2004The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Burge, Tyler
    1973 “Reference and Proper Names.” The Journal of Philosophy70 (14): 425–439. 10.2307/2025107
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2025107 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carston, Robyn
    1997 “Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed?” Linguistische Berichte81: 103–127. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑11116‑0_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_7 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2012 “Metaphor and the Literal/Non-Literal Distinction.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byKeith Allan, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 469–492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.025 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser
    2014Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green
    2006Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fara, Delia G.
    2015 “‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names.” InOn Reference, ed. byAndrea Bianchi, 251–279. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714088.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714088.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Frege, Gottlob
    1892/1980 “On Sense and Reference.” InTranslations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (3rd Edition), ed. byPeter Geach, and Max Black, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Geurtz, Bart
    1997 “Good News about the Description Theory of Names.” Journal of Semantics14 (4): 319–348. 10.1093/jos/14.4.319
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/14.4.319 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hanks, Patrick
    2006 “Proper Names: Linguistic Status.” InEncyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd Edition), ed. byKeith Brown, 134–137. Boston: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/05280‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/05280-9 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hidalgo-Downing, Laura
    2016 “Metaphor and Metonymy.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, ed. byRodney H. Jones, 107–128. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hofstadter, Douglas, and Fluid Analogies Research Group
    1995Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Huddleston, Rodney
    1988English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jeshion, Robin
    2015a “A Rejoinder to Fara’s “‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names”.” InOn Reference, ed. byAndrea Bianchi, 280–294. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714088.003.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714088.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2015b “Names Not Predicates.” InOn Reference, ed. byAndrea Bianchi, 225–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714088.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714088.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2015c “Referentialism and Predicativism about Proper Names.” Erkenntnis801: 363–404. 10.1007/s10670‑014‑9700‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9700-3 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jones, Rodney H.
    ed. 2016The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kay, Paul
    2002 “Patterns of Coining.” Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013 “The Limits of (Construction) Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. byThomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kripke, Saul
    1980Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. 1999 “Cognitive Models and Prototype Theory.” InConcepts: Core Readings, ed. byEric Margolis, and Stephen Laurence, 391–421. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lehrer, Adrienne
    2006 “Proper Names: Semantic Aspects.” InEncyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd Edition), ed. byKeith Brown, 141–145. Boston: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/01067‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01067-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lycan, William G.
    2019Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Matushansky, Ora
    2008 “On the Linguistic Complexity of Proper Names.” Linguistics and Philosophy311: 573–627. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9050‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9050-1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mill, John Stuart
    1974A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (Volume VII). InThe Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. byJohn M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2022 “Is Free Enrichment Always Free? Revisiting Ad Hoc-Concept Construction.” Journal of Pragmatics1871: 130–143. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pang, Kam-yiu S.
    2010 “Eponymy and Life-Narratives: The Effect of Foregrounding on Proper Names.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (5): 1321–1349. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.023 [Google Scholar]
  40. Payne, John, and Rodney Huddleston
    2002 “Nouns and Noun Phrases.” InThe Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. byRodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Powell, George
    2010Language, Thought and Reference. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230274914
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274914 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pullum, George
    2003 “Phrases for Lazy Writers in Kit Form.” Language Log, October27. itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000061.html (15 May 2021)
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Reimer, Marga
    2006 “Proper Names: Philosophical Aspects.” InEncyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd Edition), ed. byKeith Brown, 137–141. Boston: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/01137‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01137-8 [Google Scholar]
  44. Russell, Bertrand
    1905 “On Denoting.” InLogic and Knowledge. Essays 1901–1950, ed. byRobert C. Marsh 1956, 41–56. London: George Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 1918 “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.” InLogic and Knowledge. Essays 1901–1950, ed. byRobert C. Marsh 1956, 177–281. London: George Allen and Unwin. 10.5840/monist19182843
    https://doi.org/10.5840/monist19182843 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schwartz, Stephen P.
    2014 “Mill on Names.” InMill’s “A System of Logic”: Critical Appraisals, ed. byAntis Loizides, 44–62. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203766545‑2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203766545-2 [Google Scholar]
  47. Searle, John R.
    1958 “Proper Names.” Mind67 (266): 166–173. 10.1093/mind/LXVII.266.166
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXVII.266.166 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. byRaymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sternberg, Robert J.
    1999Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Taschek, William
    2010 “On Sense and Reference: A Critical Reception.” InThe Cambridge Companion to Frege, ed. byMichael Potter, and Tom Ricketts, 293–341. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CCOL9780521624282.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521624282.008 [Google Scholar]
  52. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    2014 “Toward a Constructional Framework for Research on Language Change.” InGrammaticalization – Theory and Data, ed. bySylvie Hancil, and Ekkehard König, 87–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.162.06tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.162.06tra [Google Scholar]
  53. Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Turner, Mark
    1991Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9780691227788
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691227788 [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana
    2004 “When Novel Sentences Spoken or Heard for the First Time in the History of the Universe Are Not Enough: Toward a Dual-Process Model of Language.” International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders39 (1): 1–44. 10.1080/13682820310001601080
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820310001601080 [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana, Krista Cameron, Kelly Bridges, and John J. Sidtis
    2015 “The Formulaic Schema in the Minds of Two Generations of Native Speakers.” Ampersand21: 39–48. 10.1016/j.amper.2015.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2015.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Langendonck, Willy
    2007Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197853
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197853 [Google Scholar]
  58. Veale, Tony
    2014 “The ABCs of XYZs: Creativity and Conservativity in Humorous Epithets.” InCognition, Experience, and Creativity, ed. byJaison A. Manjaly, and Bipin Indurkhya, 135–154. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Vega Moreno, Rosa E.
    2007Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.156
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.156 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wałaszewska, Ewa
    2015Relevance-Theoretic Lexical Pragmatics: Theory and Applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2020 “Category Extension as a Variety of Loose Use.” InRelevance Theory, Figuration and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. byAgnieszka Piskorska, 25–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.8.01wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.01wal [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilson, Deirdre
    2003 “Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics.” Rivista di Linguistica12 (2): 273–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 2014 “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics261: 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2017 “Relevance Theory.” InOxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byYan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
    2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” InPragmatics, ed. byNoel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2019 “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics1451: 31–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    2012 “Introduction: Pragmatics.” InMeaning and Relevance, 1–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  68. Zabeeh, Farhang
    1968What Is in a Name? An Inquiry into the Semantics and Pragmatics of Proper Names. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Zimmer, Ben
    2009 “The Cadillac of Snowclones.” Language Log, November9. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1877 (15 May 2021)
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21070.wal
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error