Transcript Methodenkurs Logik

Bi-directional Functionality and
Metonymy in Semantic Change and
Word Formation
Nico Kimm, Daniel Schulzek & Anselm Terhalle
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Research group on „Functional Concepts and Frames“
1
0 Outline
1. 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.
b.
c.
The locality stands for the institution
Washington passes a new law.
The part stands for the whole.
I noticed several faces tonight.
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‹
presuppose domain ›academic activity‹
 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
2 FRAMES
7
2.1 Cognitive representation
in frames



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
4-cylinder
directed connected graphs (cf. Petersen 2007)
• Central node: concept that is represented by the frame (double border)
• Attributes represented as arcs
car
• Values represented as nodes
automatic
 Angular nodes: arguments
concerning the syntax-semantics interface
 Round nodes: other values
8
2.2 Frame attributes

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.
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.
RESPONSIBILITY
university
(institution)
teaching
PURPOSE
11
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:
Bi-directional functionality guarantees that the referent of the linguistic expression
whose meaning is shifted can be uniquely identified (cf. Hawkins 1978, Löbner 1998)
12
3.2 Bi-directional functionality
UNIVERSITY
student
body
university
(institution)
STUDENT BODY
student
student
student
a. The university demonstrates against tuition fees.
b. #The university gave a bad term paper to me.
13
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:
cooks
1740
meal
1170
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
to cook
1155
PURPOSE
kitchen
(interior)
kitchen
(room)
1170
20th c.
15
4.1 Semantic change
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)
1585
to compose a
piece of music
ORIGIN
1680
STRUCTURE
structure
structure
piece of music
RESULT
DEFINES
1) ›to compose a piece of music‹ has as RESULT the ›piece of music‹
2) ›piece of music‹ originates from the composition process
3) ›piece of music‹ is an object which has a STRUCTURE
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
16
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
to drive
drive
to
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
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 – Instrument
soup
›eat‹
spoon
Example
soup spoon
to eat
soup
1)
2)
3)

soup
to eat
to eat
spoon
spoon
frames of ›soup‹ and ›spoon‹ are linked to the event frame ›to eat‹
the event frame integrates its arguments
unification of the frame structures
Bi-directional functionality: precondition for unification
18
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
=> Necessary restriction for a metonymical shift: 1-to-1 correspondence between
concepts A and B
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
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
Langacker
Condition:
bi-directional
functionality
?
Actual cases where
metonymy is possible
20
Thank you for listening!!!
Special thanks to the German Research Foundation for funding
the research unit „Functional Concepts and Frames“ (www.philfak.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.uniduesseldorf.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
Thank you
for listening!!!
Thanks for Your Attention!
Special thanks to the German Research Foundation for
funding the research unit “Functional Concepts and Frames“
(www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/fff/)