{"title":"代词、转喻和身份","authors":"Eve Sweetser","doi":"10.1515/cogsem-2022-2009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although formal linguists have focused on the deictic and (co)referential functions of pronouns, social categorization and identity are deeply involved in pronominal usage. I argue here that even the understanding of pronoun reference requires us to go beyond extensional (co)-reference. The extensive literature on linguistic categorization has focused on nouns more than on verbs, as has work on metonymy – but not on pronouns. Here I present two case studies, one of third-person pronouns and one of first-plural pronouns. In one I argue that cognitive science findings on categorization make it impossible for a masculine noun/pronoun usage to be truly “generic” in gender reference. The other examines the ways in which identity and group structure shape the possibilities for plural pronoun reference, in particular with respect to first-person plural (we) uses. To understand the principles of reference for these pronouns, we need to apply theoretical frameworks developed for lexical meaning: frames, category structure, prototypes, categorial metonymy and frame metonymy.","PeriodicalId":52385,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Semiotics","volume":"29 1","pages":"29 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pronouns, metonymy, and identity\",\"authors\":\"Eve Sweetser\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cogsem-2022-2009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Although formal linguists have focused on the deictic and (co)referential functions of pronouns, social categorization and identity are deeply involved in pronominal usage. I argue here that even the understanding of pronoun reference requires us to go beyond extensional (co)-reference. The extensive literature on linguistic categorization has focused on nouns more than on verbs, as has work on metonymy – but not on pronouns. Here I present two case studies, one of third-person pronouns and one of first-plural pronouns. In one I argue that cognitive science findings on categorization make it impossible for a masculine noun/pronoun usage to be truly “generic” in gender reference. The other examines the ways in which identity and group structure shape the possibilities for plural pronoun reference, in particular with respect to first-person plural (we) uses. To understand the principles of reference for these pronouns, we need to apply theoretical frameworks developed for lexical meaning: frames, category structure, prototypes, categorial metonymy and frame metonymy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Semiotics\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"29 - 46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Semiotics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2022-2009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Semiotics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2022-2009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Although formal linguists have focused on the deictic and (co)referential functions of pronouns, social categorization and identity are deeply involved in pronominal usage. I argue here that even the understanding of pronoun reference requires us to go beyond extensional (co)-reference. The extensive literature on linguistic categorization has focused on nouns more than on verbs, as has work on metonymy – but not on pronouns. Here I present two case studies, one of third-person pronouns and one of first-plural pronouns. In one I argue that cognitive science findings on categorization make it impossible for a masculine noun/pronoun usage to be truly “generic” in gender reference. The other examines the ways in which identity and group structure shape the possibilities for plural pronoun reference, in particular with respect to first-person plural (we) uses. To understand the principles of reference for these pronouns, we need to apply theoretical frameworks developed for lexical meaning: frames, category structure, prototypes, categorial metonymy and frame metonymy.