隐喻迫使论证过度

IF 1.3 2区 文学 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Linguistics Pub Date : 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1515/ling-2021-0072
Uta Reinöhl, T. M. Ellison
{"title":"隐喻迫使论证过度","authors":"Uta Reinöhl, T. M. Ellison","doi":"10.1515/ling-2021-0072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper uncovers how metaphor forces argument overtness – across languages and parts of speech. It addresses the relationship between semantically unsaturated terms, functors, and the argument terms that complete them. When the component terms’ default senses clash semantically, a metaphor arises. In such cases, the argument must be overt, in contrast to literal uses. It is possible to say Everyone was waiting at the hotel. Finally, Kim arrived. By contrast, people do not use arrived metaphorically without a goal argument: Everything had been pointing to that conclusion all along. *Finally, Kim arrived. What they say is Finally, Kim arrived at it. We illustrate the phenomenon with powerful and diverse evidence: three corpus studies (Indo-Aryan languages, British English, Vera’a) and a sentence-completion experiment with around 250 native speakers of English. Both the corpus studies and the experiment show no or almost no exceptions to metaphor-driven argument overtness. The strength of the effect contrasts with a complete lack of speaker awareness. We propose that metaphor-driven argument overtness – as well as the lack of speaker consciousness – is a universal phenomenon that can be accounted for in terms of human language processing.","PeriodicalId":47548,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metaphor forces argument overtness\",\"authors\":\"Uta Reinöhl, T. M. Ellison\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ling-2021-0072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper uncovers how metaphor forces argument overtness – across languages and parts of speech. It addresses the relationship between semantically unsaturated terms, functors, and the argument terms that complete them. When the component terms’ default senses clash semantically, a metaphor arises. In such cases, the argument must be overt, in contrast to literal uses. It is possible to say Everyone was waiting at the hotel. Finally, Kim arrived. By contrast, people do not use arrived metaphorically without a goal argument: Everything had been pointing to that conclusion all along. *Finally, Kim arrived. What they say is Finally, Kim arrived at it. We illustrate the phenomenon with powerful and diverse evidence: three corpus studies (Indo-Aryan languages, British English, Vera’a) and a sentence-completion experiment with around 250 native speakers of English. Both the corpus studies and the experiment show no or almost no exceptions to metaphor-driven argument overtness. The strength of the effect contrasts with a complete lack of speaker awareness. We propose that metaphor-driven argument overtness – as well as the lack of speaker consciousness – is a universal phenomenon that can be accounted for in terms of human language processing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0072\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0072","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文揭示了隐喻是如何跨语言、跨语篇地迫使论证过度的。它探讨了语义上不饱和的术语、函数和完成它们的参数术语之间的关系。当组成术语的默认意义在语义上发生冲突时,就会产生隐喻。在这种情况下,论据必须是公开的,这与字面用法不同。可以说 Everyone was waiting at the hotel.最后,Kim 到了。相比之下,如果没有目标论证,人们就不会使用 arrived 作隐喻:一直以来,一切都指向这个结论。*最后,金到了。他们说的是终于,金到达了。我们用强大而多样的证据来说明这一现象:三项语料库研究(印度-雅利安语、英国英语、维拉阿语)和一项以英语为母语的约 250 人参加的句子完成实验。语料库研究和实验都表明,隐喻驱动的论证过度性没有或几乎没有例外。这种效应的强度与说话者完全没有意识形成了鲜明对比。我们认为,隐喻驱动的论证过度--以及说话者意识的缺乏--是一种普遍现象,可以用人类语言处理来解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Metaphor forces argument overtness
This paper uncovers how metaphor forces argument overtness – across languages and parts of speech. It addresses the relationship between semantically unsaturated terms, functors, and the argument terms that complete them. When the component terms’ default senses clash semantically, a metaphor arises. In such cases, the argument must be overt, in contrast to literal uses. It is possible to say Everyone was waiting at the hotel. Finally, Kim arrived. By contrast, people do not use arrived metaphorically without a goal argument: Everything had been pointing to that conclusion all along. *Finally, Kim arrived. What they say is Finally, Kim arrived at it. We illustrate the phenomenon with powerful and diverse evidence: three corpus studies (Indo-Aryan languages, British English, Vera’a) and a sentence-completion experiment with around 250 native speakers of English. Both the corpus studies and the experiment show no or almost no exceptions to metaphor-driven argument overtness. The strength of the effect contrasts with a complete lack of speaker awareness. We propose that metaphor-driven argument overtness – as well as the lack of speaker consciousness – is a universal phenomenon that can be accounted for in terms of human language processing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Linguistics
Linguistics Multiple-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Linguistics publishes articles in the traditional subdisciplines of linguistics as well as in neighboring disciplines insofar as these are deemed to be of interest to linguists and other students of natural language. This includes grammar, both functional and formal, with a focus on morphology, syntax, and semantics, pragmatics and discourse, phonetics and phonology, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics. The focus may be on one or several languages, but studies with a wide crosslinguistic (typological) coverage are also welcome. The perspective may be synchronic or diachronic. Linguistics also publishes up to two special issues a year in these areas, for which it welcomes proposals.
期刊最新文献
On analysing fragments: the case of No? On analysing fragments: the case of No? Areal and phylogenetic dimensions of word order variation in Indo-European languages A register approach to negative concord versus negative polarity items in English Competing constructions in Kaqchikel focus contexts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1