[Lingtyp] query: Metaphoricity and Agreement in Genitive Constructions

[David Gil]

Dear all,

Some quick responses to the two comments I have received so far ...


On 16/09/2019 15:05, Greville Corbett wrote:
> Just to say that the data are richer than you suggest 
> "Cross-linguistically, in languages where there is agreement in 
> genitive constructions, it is the possessor (or G) that controls the 
> agreement and the possessum (or N) that is its target (the so-called 
> "head-marking" pattern).” In fact both patterns of agreement are 
> found, possessor-possessum and possessum-possessor (there are some 
> examples in /Agreement (/2006: section 2.2.6). So your hypothesis has 
> wider implications. I don’t know about metaphors; but no doubt other 
> LingTypers do
> Very best
> Grev

Grev,

Thanks for the useful reminder.  And indeed, I would also be interested 
in genitival metaphors exhibiting the opposite, dependent-marking, 
agreement pattern.


On 16/09/2019 16:15, Bohnemeyer, Juergen wrote:
> Dear David — I’m having a little trouble understanding your query. In (1) and (2), neither expression can be said to be the metaphorical source or target of the other. Rather, _verte_ is ambiguous between a literal and a metaphorical reading, and _idée_ removes the ambiguity since it is only compatible with the metaphorical sense. In lexical semantics, we describe this phenomenon via selectional restrictions. We would say that _idée_ serves as a ‘selector’ for _verte_ in your examples.
>
> Now, since I don’t follow your application of ’source’ and ’target’ (of a metaphor), I’m unable to tell what X and Y are supposed to be in your examples. But I can say that selectors can be both semantic predicates and semantic arguments. In (1) and (2), the selector, _idée_, is the semantic argument of the ambiguous expression (_verte_). In contrast, in examples such as _hungry seal_, it’s the semantic argument (_seal_) that's ambiguous and the semantic predicate that acts as the selector.

Juergen,

Your message send me scurrying to Wikipedia, where I found the following:

/The Philosophy of Rhetoric/ (1937) by rhetorician 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorician> I. A. Richards 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._A._Richards> describes a metaphor as 
having two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor is the subject to 
which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the object whose 
attributes are borrowed.

Other writers^[/which? 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words>/] employ 
the general terms "ground" and "figure" to denote the tenor and the 
vehicle. Cognitive linguistics 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguistics> uses the terms 
"target" and "source", respectively.

End of quote.  There is obviously quite a bit of terminological 
variability, but this should not be reason for confusion.  I was using 
the terms "target" and "source" as is customary in cognitive 
linguistics:  in the examples that I cited, the idea is the target and 
green its source, and then lower down the heart is the target and stone 
its source.

David


-- 
David Gil

Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany

Email:gil at shh.mpg.de  <mailto:gil at shh.mpg.de>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190916/1277e383/attachment.htm>