<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>Some quick responses to the two comments I have received so far
...</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/09/2019 15:05, Greville Corbett
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C717ACFF-C7A2-42E8-981A-0B07B0416B30@surrey.ac.uk">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class=""><font class="" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:
14px;" class="">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
<i class="">Agreement (</i>2006: section 2.2.6). So your
hypothesis has wider implications. I don’t know about
metaphors; but no doubt other LingTypers do</span></font>
</div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:
14px;" class="">Very best</span></font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:
14px;" class="">Grev</span></font></div>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Arial">Grev,</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Thanks for the useful reminder. And indeed, I
would also be interested in genitival metaphors exhibiting the
opposite, dependent-marking, agreement pattern.<br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/09/2019 16:15, Bohnemeyer,
Juergen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EAE7B39C-F32D-43FB-BD69-4318891C780A@buffalo.edu">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Arial">Juergen,</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Your message send me scurrying to Wikipedia,
where I found the following:<br>
</font></p>
<p><i>The Philosophy of Rhetoric</i> (1937) by <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorician"
class="mw-redirect" title="Rhetorician">rhetorician</a> <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._A._Richards" title="I. A.
Richards">I. A. Richards</a> 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.</p>
<p>Other writers<sup class="noprint Inline-Template"
style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words"
class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words"><span
title="The material near this tag possibly uses too vague
attribution or weasel words. (June 2019)">which?</span></a></i>]</sup>
employ the general terms "ground" and "figure" to denote the tenor
and the vehicle. <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguistics"
title="Cognitive linguistics">Cognitive linguistics</a> uses the
terms "target" and "source", respectively.</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>David</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="gmail-m_6961603706664009703gmail-m_-311244854426137225gmail-m_-5382352135770116830gmail-m_8338353865323404799gmail-m_3548055452572941797moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a class="gmail-m_6961603706664009703gmail-m_-311244854426137225gmail-m_-5382352135770116830gmail-m_8338353865323404799gmail-m_3548055452572941797moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C717ACFF-C7A2-42E8-981A-0B07B0416B30@surrey.ac.uk">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>