Metonymy & Causative-Resultative Constructions
▪️ 1-hour read ▪️ Metonymy & Metaphor ▪️ Excerpt 1
by Bloomfield Hua
Since the 80’s, the significance of metonymy surfaced with dim visibility and sparked linguists’ interest in coming into realization that metonymy had been eclipsed by metaphor which was deemed functionally riveted on a higher rhetoric hierarchy over it. Lakoff & Johnson (1980) commenced their exertion on fortifying the exposure of metonymy in order to help researchers shed light on its cognitive potential significance. Metonymy has flared into life because incremental value has been bestowed upon it given its wider implication on and far-reaching ramification in grammar, semantic, syntax. Correspondingly, the watershed to distinguish metonymy and metaphor was lifted up to a heat and till now some voice is a stickler for conventional wisdom that metonymy is inferior to metaphor but others’ turns a somersault.
Metonymy, albeit undeniably, bears all the hallmarks of metaphor in terms of the overlapping share of two conceptual domains, Source Domain and Target Domain, and their interplay in the construction of meaning is a trailblazing orientation in the field of cognitive linguistics, while as for their differentia specifica, this dissertation is not differentiation oriented. This dissertation pivots around capitalizing on grammatical metonymy (i.e. a sub-branch of cognitive metonymy), viz. Metonymical patterns in actions, events and processes (cf. Peirsman & Geerarts, 2006:300) in association with Langacker-Nakamura-Yuko’s (1995) neo-canonical event model, to compare causative and resultative constructions in English and Chinese and probe into how we can render the constructions from an angle of metonymy and draw to a conclusion that metonymy could be a catalyst for a good version of translation.
Energy Transmission and Metonymy
It is accepted by most researchers that stative verbs are not energy givers, the energy transmission can be seriously taken into consideration. But my opinion is energy transmission is concealed from the WHOLE, PART is kinetic, while WHOLE is stative. In some case, I reckon that some stative verbs (i.e. be, exist, live) should be weakly energetic.
In physics, work is a parameter of energy. An amount of increment in the kinetic energy of a rigid body is generated by an equivalent amount of work by the resultant force applied on the body. In an equation, W= KE=Fs, a constant force of magnitude F exerted on a point of a body in a linear velocity making it move a certain amount of displacement s in one direction. In order to illustrate the conversion of work to energy, I design a diagram as in Figure 12:
Motion is driven by energy. (Langacker, 1991)
Motion (sub-event): State a(Static)-Action(Dynamic)-State b(Static) continuum
The accretion of kinetic energy in M is
F, in a constant account, constantly propelling a rigid body (an sub-event) into move (development), barely diminishes into void. Without F vanishing into thin air, nor will energy transmission disappearing.
V1 is the embodiment of State a and V2 of State b thereupon the change in Energy can be written in
We can readily be aware of the key point that continuous energy is entailed to ensure the continuation of the preservation of a certain state. Regardless of where the energy comes from, we can conceive an idea to perceive the motion, that is, motion is resulted from the energy transmission from AGENT to PATIENT. Action is more salient and dynamic than the combination of State a & State b, whose strength is overwhelming, and we can metonymically use Action for Motion (sub-event).
According to Langacker-Nakamura-Yuko’s Cogitive Model, the spatial and time are the key external condition. Hereinafter as T (an abbreviation for time). To symbolize the force of spatial characters, I use
for my purpose. Assuming that a verb is an action, and an action is a sub-event, the cumulative effect of numerable sub-events is thus the completion of a complex event. Quantitatively, the action is expanding in a spatial direction;qualitatively, the state is changed. Illustrations in Figure 13 as follows:
W is for an action or a sub-event.
Event is for a state or a complex event.
In a range from T1 to T2, T2 to T3,…,Tn-1 to Tn
W 1= an action=a sub-event=
C is a trajectory from T1 to T2, and therefore conceptualised as a path, which is a conduit for energy transmission. According to Action & State model in Metonymical patterns (cf. Peirsman & Geeraerts, 2006:300)
We can get
Event = Sub-event1+Sub-event2+Sub-event3+…+Sub-eventn
= Action1+Action2+Action3+…+Actionn
=W1+W2+W3+…+Wn
Part-Whole proximity (A state/complex event can randomise its mappings onto a certain sub-event/action at speakers’ discretion. In terms of metonymy, we can think about that Event is the substitution for
[12]*a.Jesus lived to be a legend. (cf. Carrier & Randall, 1989: 98)
Carrier & Randall (1989) argue that the resultative construction, as in [12], is not acceptable, because a construal of stative verbs is not a conduit for energy transmission. Conversely, I hold an opinion in opposition to theirs. I regard it as a causative-and-resultative construction. I would like to utilise Metonymical patterns (Peirsman & Geeraerts, 2006) in alliance with Langacker-Nakamura-Yuko’s model to testify to my opinion, as shown in following Figures :
….
{being legendary}={being alive}(presupposition) +{a landmark and profound event}
Or otherwise, we break down the sentence into two clauses (cf. Goldberg, 1995), let us take a look:
{Jesus lived to be a legend.}={Jesus was alive.}+{Jesus was a living legend.}
={?Jesus lived himself a legend.}
(cf. Levin & Hovav, 1995)
Firstly, ‘lived’ is mapped onto ‘was alive’;secondly, ‘was alive’(a state/a complex event) is mapped onto numerable dynamic sub-events. If we use metonymic chains to make ourselves understood, then we reach to the conclusion that
As we can see, ‘lived’ (was alive) entails an input of continuous energy to preserve the state. The AGENT is obliged to transfer energy to the PATIENT to keep a certain state to go on. As the figure shows below:
‘When motion results in forceful physical contact, energy is transmitted from the mover to the impacted object, which may thereby be set in motion to participate in further interactions.’ (Langacker, 1991) He conceptualize fundamental aspects of cognitive organizations into an archetypal folk model, the billiard-ball model, with elemental components pertaining to it: space, time, material substance, and energy. I recognize that his model is analogous to a conceptualized Newton’s cradle, within which spheres/balls are perceived as conduits for energy transmission. In his billiard-ball model, the notion of an action chain gives a canonical manifestation that an action arises as an object (Head) forcefully contacts with another, releasing energy and transferring it to its adjacent entities; the second object is thereby activated and driven into contact with a third; and indefinitely until the energy reaches to the last object (Tail). It is re-diagrammed in the figure below:
It transpires that the whole process is a (Cause-Effect)n continuum. If we suppose that Head and Tail are cupped without visibility and thereof any circles in the linear order can be discrete result of the energy transmission. It is fanciful to understand the process without the involvement of Time. Let us maximize the effect of Time and materialize a time shaft from left to right:
Clearly, the canonical cognitive model can be demonstrated in the figure below:
Figure 15 (cf. Yuko, 1995: 155)
Figure 18
Conventionally, the salient characterization of canonical cognitive model is of Contact in the proximity. This figure gives an understandable demonstration of Containment.
Likewise, the sentence ‘I lived to be one hundred years old.’(我活到了100岁。) is not suitable to be considered as Containment cognitive model. It should be a Contact model:
We can conclude that metonymy blurs our vision into its constructions and the strength of energy transmission is reduced. Some static verbs (i.e. be, exist, live) are accumulation of numerable dynamic sub-events. According to the view of Domain expansion (Ruiz de Mendoza & Otal, 2002), the sentence is a type of Source-in-Target metonymy. From a point of view of metonymy, the sentence {Jesus lived to be a legend} can be considered as causative-resultative constructions.
Let us render it into Chinese. It will be like:
基督活成了(overt energy transmission)传奇。
(causative-resultative constructions)
To be Continued…
▪️ Excerpt 2 is scheduled to be published next week.
References
Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Bauer, L. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Blank, A. Co-presence and succession: a cognitive typology of metonymy. In Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 1999.
Brdar, M. Metonymy in Grammar: Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions. Osijek: Josip Juraj Strossmayer University, 2007.
Brdar, M. Metonymy in Grammar: Metonymy in the Complementation Systems. Osijek: Josip Juraj Strossmayer University, 2007.
Carrier, J. & Randall, J. From Conceptual Structure to Syntax:Projecting from Resultatives. Harvard University and Northeastern University, 1989.
Carrier, J. & Randall, J. The Argument Structure and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 1992:173–234.
Croft, William. Possible Verbs and the Structure of Events. In S. L. Tsohatzidis. (eds.). Meaning and prototypes:48–73. Routledge, London, 1990.
Croft, William. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Dirven, R. Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. Sandra. P Cerval (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics:Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005.
Gibbs, R. W. What makes some indirect speech acts conventional. Journal of memory and Language 25, 1986: 181–196.
Gibbs, R. W. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Gibbs, R. W. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdan: John Benjamins, 1999.
Goldberg, Adele E. It Can’t Go Down the Chimney Up: Paths and the English Resultative, BLS 17, 1991a: 368–378.
Goldberg, A. Construction: Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Goossens, L. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive linguistics 1 (3), 1990: 323–340.
Hoekstra, Teun. Small Clause Result. Lingua 74, 1988: 101–139.
Horita, Y. A COGNITIVE STUDY OF RESULTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN ENGLISH. English Linguistics Society of Japan 12, Osaka University, 1995: 147–172.
Jackendoff, R. Semantic Structures, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1990.
Jakobson, R. The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles. In Dirven, R. and P. Ralf (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 1956: 41–48.
Kuczok, M. The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Noun-to-Verb Conversion. Katowice: Silesia University Press, 2011.
Langacker, R. Grammer and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive Application, Stanford: Stanford University press, 1991.
Langacker, R. Metonymic grammar. In K-U Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. Metaphor We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Levin, Beth & Tova R. Rapoport. Lexical Subordination. CLS 24, 1998: 275–289.
Levin, B. & Hovav. M. Rappaport. Unaccusativity:At the Syntax — Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 1995.
Live, A. The take-have phrasal in English, Linguistics 95, 1973: 31–50.
Martsa, S. Construction of meaning during conversion. Paper presented as the 8th Conference of the Hungarian Society for the Study of English, University of Szeged, 2007: 24–26.
Nakamura, Yoshihisa. Koobun no Ninchi-koozoo Nettowaaku (A Network of Cognitive Structures for Grammatical Constructions). In Fukuoka Gengogaku Kenkyukai (eds.). Gengogaku karano Chooboo. Fukuoka:Kyushu Daigaku Shuppankai, 1993: 247–268.
O’Grady, W. & Videa P. de Guzman. Morphology: the analysis of word structure. In William O’Grady, Michael Dobrovolsky & Francis Katamba (eds.). Contemporary linguistics. An introduction, 132–180. London & New York: Longman, 1997.
Panther, K. -U. & Thornburg, L. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 1998: 755–769.
Panther, K. -U. & Thornburg, L. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Gűnter Radden (eds.). Language Arts and Disciplines Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Panther, K. -U. & Thornburg, L. The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Panther, K. -U., Thornburg, L. & Barcelona, A. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, L. On figuration in grammar. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & L. Thornburg (eds.). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 2009.
Peirsman, Y. & Geeraerts, D. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3), 2006: 269–316.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Campo, J. L. Otal. Metonymy, Grammar and Communication. Granada: Editorial Comares, 2002.
Talmy, L. Forword In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mitteberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (eds.). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007.
T. S. Eliot. Letter to Stephen Spencer, 1935.
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Radden. G. (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Radden, G. How metonymic are metaphors. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Campo, J. L. Otal. Metonymy, Grammar and Communication. Granada: Editorial Comares, 2002.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Hernandez, P. Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication 21, 2001: 321–357.
Ruiz de Mendoza. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Sandra, M. P. Grammatical metonymy within the action frame in English and Spanish. In Maria De Los Angeles Gomez Gonzalez. et al. Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins, 2008: 251–280.
Violi, P. Embodiment at the crossroads between cognition and semiosis. Recherches on Communication 19, 2004: 199–234.
Warren, B. Aspects of referential metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Ziegeler, D & S. Lee. A metonymic analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English causative constructions. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (eds). Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2009:291–322.
