[Lingtyp] query: Metaphoricity and Agreement in Genitive Constructions

[Bohnemeyer, Juergen]

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. 

Does this help at all? I hope I’m not increasing the confusion! — Best — Juergen

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 8:28 AM, David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> I am interested in testing a hypothesis regarding a correlation between the respective directionalities of metaphoricity and agreement.
>  
> 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).  
>  
> Hypothesis:
> 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).
>  
> (Terminological note: it is inconvenient that both theories of metaphor and theories of agreement use the same term "target".  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.)
>  
> 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).  (The examples are in French so as to illustrate the agreement.)
>  
> (1) Ton idée est verte
> (2) Une idée verte
>  
> However, attributive genitive metaphors, as in (3), pose a potential challenge to the hypothesis. 
>  
> (3) Heart of stone
>  
> 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).  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.
>  
> My query therefore is:  are there languages with agreement in genitive constructions in which metaphorical interpretations are available in such constructions (in violation of the hypothesis)?
>  
> Hebrew provides prima facie reason to suspect that there may not be any such counterexamples.  Hebrew has two genitive constructions, the first, as in (4/5a), without agreement, the second, as in (4/5b), with agreement:
>  
> (4)    (a)    Halev šel moše
>                   DEF:heart of Moses
>          (b)    Libo šel moše
>                   heart.CONSTR:3SGM of Moses
>  
> (5)    (a)    Lev šel even
>                   heart of stone
>          (b)    Libo šel even
>                   heart.CONSTR:3SGM of stone
>  
> While (4a/b) are interpreted literally, (5a) has a metaphorical interpretation.  Crucially, though, in (5b), the metaphorical interpretation is no longer available — the construction doesn't make sense.  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.
>  
> But Hebrew is just one language.  So I'd be interested in knowing whether similar facts hold cross-linguistically.  A counterexample to my hypothesis would be a language that allows an agreeing genitive construction such as in (5b) to bear a metaphorical interpretation:  Is anybody familiar with such cases?  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.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

Juergen Bohnemeyer, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies 
Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science 
University at Buffalo 

Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus * Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 
Phone: (716) 645 0127 
Fax: (716) 645 3825 * Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu * Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/ 

Office hours M 12:30 – 1:30pm / W 1:00 – 1:50 / F 12:30 – 1:50pm


There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In (Leonard Cohen)