<span class="gmail_quote"></span>Subject: 17.1856, Diss: Cognitive Science/Syntax: Sullivan: 'Grammar in Metaphor'<br><br>Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <<a href="mailto:aristar@linguistlist.org">aristar@linguistlist.org
</a>><br> Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <<a href="mailto:hdry@linguistlist.org">hdry@linguistlist.org</a>><br><br>Reviews (<a href="mailto:reviews@linguistlist.org">reviews@linguistlist.org</a>
)<br> Laura Buszard-Welcher, U of California, Berkeley<br> Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona<br> Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona<br><br>Homepage: <a href="http://linguistlist.org/">http://linguistlist.org/</a>
<br><br>The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne<br>State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.<br><br>Editor for this issue: Meredith Valant <<a href="mailto:meredith@linguistlist.org">
meredith@linguistlist.org</a>><br>================================================================<br><br>To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at<br><a href="http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html">
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html</a>.<br><br><br>===========================Directory==============================<br><br>1)<br>Date: 19-Jun-2006<br>From: Karen Sullivan < <a href="mailto:ksull@berkeley.edu">
ksull@berkeley.edu</a> ><br>Subject: Grammar in Metaphor<br><br><br>-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------<br>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:55:13<br>From: Karen Sullivan < <a href="mailto:ksull@berkeley.edu">
ksull@berkeley.edu</a> ><br>Subject: Grammar in Metaphor<br><br><br><br>Institution: University of California, Berkeley<br>Program: Department of Linguistics<br>Dissertation Status: Completed<br>Degree Date: 2007<br><br>
Author: Karen Sullivan<br><br>Dissertation Title: Grammar in Metaphor<br><br>Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science<br> Syntax<br><br>Subject Language(s): English (eng)<br> Finnish (fin)
<br> German, Standard (deu)<br><br><br>Dissertation Director(s):<br>Gary B Holland<br>George P. Lakoff<br>John Lindow<br>Richard A. Rhodes<br>Eve E. Sweetser<br><br>Dissertation Abstract:<br><br>The conceptual metaphor revolution inspired by Lakoff and Johnson (1980)
<br>continues to give us a clearer picture of the conceptual structure of<br>metaphor with every passing year. But even as we uncover the intricacies of<br>conceptual metaphor, metaphoric language becomes more and more of a
<br>mystery. How can a speaker, using language, communicate the conceptual<br>complexities of a metaphor to a hearer?<br><br>In this paper I use the tools of Construction Grammar to argue that lexical<br>items and grammatical constructions each have distinct and well-defined
<br>roles in communicating metaphoric meaning. Constructions have constraints<br>that determine which words in the construction can come from the source<br>domain of a given metaphor, and which from the metaphoric target domain.
<br>These constraints are regular, ubiquitous, and combine compositionally.<br><br>Most constructions used in metaphor can be categorized into a few classes:<br>domain constructions (in which the head evokes the metaphoric source domain
<br>and the modifier evokes the target domain, as in 'spiritual wealth'),<br>predicating modifier-head constructions (in which the head evokes the<br>target domain and the predicating modifier evokes the source domain, as in
<br>'brilliant idea' or 'reason brilliantly'), head-argument constructions<br>(where the head evokes the source domain and one or more arguments evoke<br>the target, as in 'stocks soared'); and XP-PP constructions (in which the
<br>head evokes the source, and an NP within the PP evokes the target, as in<br>'barriers between religions').<br><br>In addition to these basic types, this paper discusses resultative and<br>idiomatic constructions; anaphoric, imperative, 'tough', control, and
<br>raising constructions; and techniques of metaphor evocation that are<br>usually limited to literary genres, such as parallelism and 'negation of<br>the literal'. The paper aims to present a complete survey of<br>constructional types used in metaphoric language in English, German and
<br>Finnish.<br><br>The constructional systematicity of metaphoric language has implications<br>for several fields: cognitive linguistics, which relies on metaphoric<br>language as its primary source of data on conceptual metaphor; natural
<br>language technologies (such as AI, search engines, and translation<br>software) which can improve computer recognition and comprehension of<br>metaphoric language; Construction Grammar, which can refine its<br>understanding of constructional meaning; and cognitive stylistics, in which
<br>the intent and comprehension of literary metaphor can be more precisely<br>interpreted.<br><br><br><br><br>-----------------------------------------------------------<br>LINGUIST List: Vol-17-1856<br><br><br><br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>EÖ<br><br>'The Road Goes Ever On'<br><br>The Road goes ever on and on<br> Down from the door where it began.<br>Now far ahead the Road has gone,<br> And I must follow, if I can,<br>Pursuing it with eager feet,
<br> Until it joins some larger way<br>Where many paths and errands meet.<br> And whither then? I cannot say.<br><br> -- J R R Tolkien