Download Influences of metonymy on the choice of the direct object

Poster presentation: Influences of metonymy on the choice of the direct object
Josefien Sweep (E-mail: [email protected], website: http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/j.sweep/)
Supervisors of the Phd-project: prof. dr. A.M.F.J. Moerdijk & dr. W.J.J. Honselaar
I. ABSTRACT:
Linguistic research has shown that metonymy is a conceptual phenomenon,
which can be involved in various aspects of grammar (Kövecses/Radden
1998:60, Waltereit 1999). In formal semantic approaches the grammatical
metonymy OBJECT FOR ACTION IN WHICH THE OBJECT IS INVOLVED (Ruiz de
Mendoza/Pérez 2001) has been intensively discussed under the name of
‘logical metonymy’ (Pustejovsky 1995). An illustrative example for this is I begin
the book.
In this formal approach, however, certain aspects tend to be underexposed.
To begin with, hardly any research has been done concerning languages other
than English. This is quite remarkable, if only because of the syntactic
differences between the complements of these verbs in (closely related)
languages such as English, Dutch and German. Furthermore, the relation with
other metonymic phenomena is almost entirely missing. Presumably, this is a
consequence of the great importance attached to the logical shift between a
concrete object (the book) and an event (the reading-event).
If one adopts a more cognitive perspective, this importance may be
questioned. Besides, there are other grammatical metonymies in which a
‘logical shift’ appears. A clear example is the metonymic object change/shift in
interrupting him versus interrupting his talk. Dutch and German dictionaries
qualify this kind of metonymy as ‘objectsverwisseling’ and
‘Objektsvertauschung’, respectively.
My aim is to investigate the parallelism between these two forms of
grammatical metonymy (i.e. Objektsvertauschung and logical metonymy),
which influence the choice of the direct object in the same way. Given the fact
that I will compare Dutch and German (based on dictionaries and corpus data)
crosslinguistic differences will be addressed. I will present some data and first
findings that demonstrate the parallelism. In my further research, this will have
to be elaborated.
Kövecses, Zoltán & Günther Radden (1998): “Metonymy: developing a cognitive
linguistic view.” In: Cognitive Linguistic, 37-77.
Pustejovsky, James (1995): The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge/Massachusetts/London:
the MIT press
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. & L. Pérez Hernández (2001): “Metonymy and grammar:
motivation, constraints and interaction.” In: Language & Communication, 321-357.
Waltereit, Richard (1999): Grammatical constraints on metonymy: the role of the direct
object.” In: Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.): Metonymy in Language and
Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 233-255.
II.PROBLEMS AND EXAMPLES:
A. (So-called) Logical Metonymy:
Formal account in terms of coercion and qualia structure (Pustejovsky 1995)
prototypical verbs in examples: to begin, to finish, to enjoy.
The structures of these verbs differ in English, Dutch and German (e.g. to enjoy: genieten
PP(van) vs. genießen + acc). In addition to this, different translations with different structures
are possible (to finish in Dutch: beeindigen/eindigen met/afmaken/voltooien, etc.).
some sentences (English/Dutch/German) with cross-linguistic differences:
1. I enjoy my grandchildren/ik geniet van mijn kleinkinderen/*ich geniesse meine Enkelkinder
2. The bricklayer finished (building) the house/De metselaar maakte (?de bouw van) het huis
af/no real equivalent, something like: der Maurer baute das Haus fertig (= ‘build ready’)
Problems: In 1, it is unclear which activity/event is meant exactly (which role of qualia structure)
In 2, it is problematic in Dutch to make the event explicit in the sentence
These problems arise because of the focus on the logical shift.
B. Metonymic Object Change (objectsverwisseling / Objektsvertauschung):
1. verbs of movement:
spullen/koffer pakken; Sachen/Koffer packen (to pack stuff/suitcase),
formulier/naam invullen; Form/Name ausfüllen (to fill in/out form/name)
2. verbs of creation:
druiven/wijn persen; Trauben/Wein keltern (to press grapes/wine),
hout/vuur aansteken; Holz/Feuer anzünden (to light wood/fire)
3. verbs that shift between concrete object and event:
iets/iemand onderbreken; etwas/ jemanden unterbrechen (to interrupt
something/someone), coureurs/race afvlaggen; Rennfahrer/Rennen
abwinken (to flag down racers/race)
III. PARALLEL METONYMIC OBJECT CHANGE & LOGICAL METONYMY
If one considers metonymy as “a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the
vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the
domain” (Kövecses/Radden 1998:39), then:
- both influence the choice of the direct object by metonymy
- both are non-reductional / non-referential metonymies
(both direct objects/expressions are relevant in the context of the matrix verb / the frame)
- in both cases the unmarked form can be the one with the shifted object
(e.g. een huis afmaken (cf. above); een been afkluiven / einen Knochen abnagen (= to gnaw
off a bone, meaning to gnaw on a bone) or goud zeven / gold sieben / to sift gold)
- both add elements to the interpretation because of metonymic associations (within frames)
- both can involve a shift between an event and an object
(depending on the fact if there exist metonymic relations between two (interrelated) frames)
IV. SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION: METONYMIC RELATIONS WITHIN FRAMES (to fill in (/out), to interrupt, to begin):
Metonymic object shift:
← Frame of to fill in (/out),
invullen, ausfüllen
Frame of to interrupt,
onderbreken, unterbrechen →
Explanation of the schematic
forms in the frame pictures ↓
Logical metonymy: Frame of to begin + reading/the book →
V. MY FURTHER RESEARCH
These changes in the direct object work in essence the same.
Between both possible direct objects exist metonymic relations. If a
frame is strongly related to another frame (e.g. because it needs
an event as its object) the metonymic relations can also exist
within the related or nested frame. Conventions that determine the
verb structure (the subcategorization frame) fix the possible
outcomes.
This uniform account of metonymic object change and so-called
logical metonymy doesn’t erroneously focus on the logical shift, is
applicable to languages other than English and set aside the
problems of formal accounts with coercion and qualia structure.
In my further research I will elaborate this analysis, try to shed a
light on possible metonymic connections and on restrictional
conventions and analyse differences between German and Dutch
on the base of dictionaries and corpus research.