1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The rhetorical trope , here called (AT), has been exploited artistically and creatively since antiquity in poetic and narrative discourse, but it is also used in ordinary language. This study focuses on modifier-noun constructions in which the prenominal modifier (attribute) is “shifted” from one position to another – a “transfer” that triggers metonymic interpretations. AT constitutes a violation of the iconically motivated proximity principle (Givón 2001) according to which the conceptual and functional closeness of linguistic units is mirrored in their morphosyntactic structure. The principle of proximity competes with metonymic motivation – the latter prevailing at the expense of the former. An interesting structural parallelism exists between AT and the shift of the negator from its “logical” position to another syntactic slot (‘neg-transportation’), which again exhibits a violation of the proximity principle. The article concludes with some suggestions for further research, especially cross-linguistic and typological investigations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00104.pan
2022-05-24
2024-04-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (2003) The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. InK.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113) (pp.81–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.07bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.07bar [Google Scholar]
  2. (2011) The conceptual motivation of bahuvrihi compounds in English and Spanish. InM. Brdrar, S. Th. Gries & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and expansion (Human Cognitive Processing 32) (pp.151–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.32.11bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.11bar [Google Scholar]
  3. (2015) Metonymy. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.143–167). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnden, J. A.
    (2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. 10.1515/cogl.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benczes, R.
    (2006) Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations (Human Cognitive Processing 19). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.19
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.19 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bierwiaczonek, B.
    (2013) Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Branka-Rosoff, S., & Zinsmaier, T.
    (1998) Hypallage. InG. Ueding (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Vol.4. (pp.107–109). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brdar, M.
    (2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins, C., & Postal, P. M.
    (2014) Classical NEG raising: An essay in the syntax of negation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dingemanse, M., Perlman, M., & Perniss, P.
    (2020) Construals of iconicity: Experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition, 12, 1–14. 10.1017/langcog.2019.48
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.48 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dupriez, B.
    (1991) A dictionary of literary devices (A. Halsall, Trans.). New York: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442670303
    https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442670303 [Google Scholar]
  15. Eliot, T. S.
    (2005) The Waste Land and other poems. New York: Barnes & Noble.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Feist, J.
    (2012) Premodifiers in English: Their structure and significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Genette, G.
    (1972) Figures III. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Givón, T.
    (2001) Syntax: An introduction. Vol.2. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.syn2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn2 [Google Scholar]
  19. Haiman, J.
    (1980) The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56, 515–540. 10.2307/414448
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414448 [Google Scholar]
  20. (Ed.) (1985) Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2008) In defense of iconicity. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 35–48. 10.1515/COG.2008.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Horn, L. R.
    (2006) Implicature. InL. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp.3–28). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756959.ch1
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch1 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2020) Neg-raising. InV. Déprez & M. T. Espinal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of negation (pp.199–215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lausberg, H.
    (1990) Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. München: Hueber.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2017) Metonymy. InB. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.407–422). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.026
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.026 [Google Scholar]
  27. MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A., & Moravcsik, E.
    (Eds.) (2014) Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. McNally, L.
    (2016) Modification. InM. Aloni & P. Dekker (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics (pp.442–464). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139236157.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236157.016 [Google Scholar]
  29. Newmeyer, F. J.
    (2013) Goals and methods of generative syntax. InM. den Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax (pp.61–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511804571.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Panther, K.-U.
    (2022). Introduction to cognitive pragmatics (Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 4). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.4 [Google Scholar]
  31. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2007) Metonymy. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (Human Cognitive Processing 60) (pp.121–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.05pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.05pan [Google Scholar]
  34. Posner, R.
    (1986) Iconicity in syntax: The natural order of attributes. InP. Bouissac, M. Herzfeld, & R. Posner (Eds.), Iconicity: Essays on the nature of culture. Festschrift for Thomas A. Sebeok on his 65th birthday (pp.305–337). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Prince, E.
    (1976) The syntax and semantics of neg-raising, with evidence from French. Language52(2), 404–426. 10.2307/412568
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412568 [Google Scholar]
  36. Proust, M.
    (2005) In search of lost time. Vol. II: Within a budding grove. (C. K. S. Moncrieff, T. Kilmartin, & D. J. Enright. Trans.). London: Vintage Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (1920) À l’ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs. Paris: Éditions de la Nouvelle Revue Française.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Radden, G.
    (2021) Iconicity. InX. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.268–296). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑19
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-19 [Google Scholar]
  39. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (2007) Towards a theory of metonymy. InV. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp.335–359). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Rijkhoff, J.
    (2008) Descriptive and discourse-referential modifiers in a layered model of the noun phrase. Linguistics46(4), 789–829. 10.1515/LING.2008.026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.026 [Google Scholar]
  41. Romoli, J.
    (2013) A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36, 291–353. 10.1007/s10988‑013‑9136‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9136-2 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2020) Figurative language: Relations and constraints. InJ. Barnden & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (Figurative Language and Thought 10) (pp.469–510). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.10.17rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.17rui [Google Scholar]
  43. (2021) Conceptual metonymy theory revisited: Some definitional and taxonomic issues. InX. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.204–227). New York & London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Thornburg, L. L., & Panther, K.-U.
    (1997) Speech act metonymies. InW.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp.205–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  45. Ullmann, S.
    (1957) Style in the French novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Virgil
    Virgil (1995) The Aeneid (E. McCrorie, Trans.). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wulff, S.
    (2003) A multifactorial corpus analysis of adjective order in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(2), 245–282. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.04wul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.04wul [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00104.pan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00104.pan
Loading

Data & Media 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