<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Dear all,<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">I am interested
in testing a hypothesis regarding a correlation between the
respective directionalities
of metaphoricity and agreement.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Let X Y be
a construction in which Y is the source of a metaphor (the
metaphorical
description) and X its metaphorical target (the thing being
described by the
source).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Hypothesis:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">IF a
relationship of morphological agreement obtains between X and Y,
THEN X is the
controller of agreement and Y is its target (but not vice
versa).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">(Terminological
note: it is inconvenient that both theories of metaphor and
theories of
agreement use the same term "target".<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>It should be kept in mind that there is no connection
between the two
usages of the term - in fact, the hypothesis suggests that the
two usages fall
on opposite sides of the correlation.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Commonplace
examples upholding the correlation are cases of an NP in
construction with an
adjectival or verbal predicate, as in (1), and a N in
construction with an
adjectival or verbal attribute, as in (2).<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>(The examples are in French so as to illustrate the
agreement.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">(1) Ton idée
est verte</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">(2) Une idée
verte</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">However,
attributive genitive metaphors, as in (3), pose a potential
challenge to the
hypothesis. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">(3) Heart
of stone</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">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).<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Accordingly, in such
languages, in the
equivalent of, say, (3), the metaphorical target 'heart' would
also be the
agreement target', in violation of the proposed hypothesis.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">My query
therefore is:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>are there
languages with
agreement in genitive constructions in which metaphorical
interpretations are
available in such constructions (in violation of the
hypothesis)?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Hebrew
provides prima facie reason to suspect that there may not be any
such counterexamples.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Hebrew
has two genitive constructions, the first,
as in (4/5a), without agreement, the second, as in (4/5b), with
agreement:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">(4)<span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(a)<span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Halev šel moše</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><span
style="mso-tab-count:2"> </span>DEF:heart
of Moses</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(b)<span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Libo šel moše</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><span
style="mso-tab-count:2"> </span>heart.CONSTR:3SGM
of Moses</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">(5)<span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(a)<span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lev šel even</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><span
style="mso-tab-count:2"> </span>heart
of stone</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(b)<span
style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Libo šel even</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><span
style="mso-tab-count:2"> </span>heart.CONSTR:3SGM
of stone</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">While (4a/b) are
interpreted literally, (5a)
has a metaphorical interpretation.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Crucially,
though, in (5b), the metaphorical interpretation is no longer
available — the
construction doesn't make sense.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>What
seems to be happening here is that the agreement in (5b) is
preventing the
metaphorical interpretation from occurring, and thereby
providing seemingly
strong support for the hypothesis.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">But Hebrew is just
one language.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>So I'd be
interested in knowing whether similar
facts hold cross-linguistically.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>A
counterexample to my hypothesis would be a language that allows
an agreeing
genitive construction such as in (5b) to bear a metaphorical
interpretation:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Is
anybody familiar with
such cases?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Of course, I
would also greatly
appreciate examples of languages with agreeing genitives that do
not allow them
to bear metaphorical interpretations, as these would provide
additional support
for the hypothesis.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">Thanks,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:27.0pt .75in"><span
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">David</span></p>
<p>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073697537 9 0 511 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Yu Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-alt:游明朝;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-2147482905 717749503 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Yu Mincho";
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-2147482905 717749503 18 0 131231 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Yu Mincho";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Yu Mincho";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style></p>
</body>
</html>