CC BY
32
Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. 2006. Сер. 9, вып. 3
Dylan Glynn, University of Leuven
SIGNIFICANT SYNTAX. AN ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR
Introduction. Within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics (Lakoff, 1987; Langacker 1987; Talmy 2000), this study shows that Frame Semantics and Field Semantics can and should work together to better inform the study of Grammatical Constructions. By combining these approaches, not only is one able to more thoroughly describe the syntactic topology of the frame, one may also more accurately describe the lexical structure of the associated field. The combination results in two pictures, a network of constructions employed for expression of a concept and a network of metaphors employed in the field. The data examined are from the frame-field steal-borrow and are taken from the World Wide Web and Google Usenet archives.
Although both Fillmore (1985) and Lakoff (1987) evoke sets of "similar" words as a fundamental part of their research, neither proposes a methodology for capturing such lexical structure. Fillmore's Frame Semantics is the analytical model used in the description of Grammatical Constructions (Lakoff, 1987; Kay & Fillmore, 1999) and Idealised Cognitive Models is the framework used by Lakoff in the description of Conceptual Metaphors (Kovecses 1986, Lakoff 1987, 1993). Despite the clear parallels between Lakoffs work on cognitive domains (essentially based on sets of conceptually similar lexemes) and Fillmore's research on Semantic Frames (essentially based on sets of functionally similar lexemes), neither scholar examines the lexical structure per se. Our hypothesis is that both the identification of Conceptual Metaphors and Grammatical Constructions should "fall-out" from an onomasiological field study. The ensuing study demonstrates the feasibility of this proposal with a study of the lexical field of stealing.
1. Cognitive Semantics and Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites. Cognitive linguistics expounds a symbolic theory of language structure, there are no internal modules, nor a distinction between different types of semantics. In this framework, structure is a result of a combination of general cognitive capacities and repeated exposure to successful speech events. Some basic theories designed to explain lexico-syntactic phenomena include Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff, 1993), Frame Semantics Fillmore (1985), Grammatical Construction Theory (Fillmore & al, 1988), and Idealised Cognitive Models (Lakoff, 1987).
1.2 The Problem : Semantic Frame and Cognitive Model, Construction and Metaphor.
There are serious methodological challenges to integrating frames semantic, cognitive models and field semantics. Glynn (2004, 2006a) covers these issues, but we may summarise them here. Firstly, Frame Semantics and Construction Grammar are concerned with event structure and so are not designed to deal with cross lexical-class structures. The solution here seems to
© D. Glynn, 2006
be to simply extend the theory to account for all items that fall in the frame, regardless of their lexical class, and regardless of the semantic redundancy. This should also make the range of grammatical constructions proposed for a given frame more complete by accounting for all possible expressions of that frame, even those that some would argue to merely represent part of the "core grammar." This, however, brings the problems of Lexical Field studies into Frame semantics. Principally these problems are vagueness versus parasynonymy the place and effect of syntagmatic structures on lexical fields. In other words, how does one integrate various parts of speech and/ or morphological concerns in lexical field research? Some solutions to these problems are outlined in Glynn (this volume).
Secondly, Cognitive Models and Conceptual Metaphors are concerned with encyclopaedic structures in the culture. This is a very abstract level of discussion and does not translate well into the discreet lexical studies where one must impose limits on the object of study, if only for practical purposes. The simplest solution here would be to artificially delimit the field through a set of criteria based on the encyclopaedic structure of the given model. Through this, we may base metaphor identification on field studies (see Lehrer & Kittay, 1982), a method that may help resolve some of the problems outlined in Croft (1993), Grady (1997), and Glynn (2002). In general, this will force metaphor theory to be more rigorous in its identification and description of metaphors. However, it must not be forgotten that often the information that is part of a cognitive model is purely cultural and is not captured by a lexical field, in such situations the field analysis is clumsy and offers little to the study (e.g. Lakoff, 1996). This is equally true for image schemata. Such concepts are poor in onomasiological or lexical variation, though often rich in semasiological variation, as the work on polysemy of prepositions has shown.
Onomasiological lexical research in Cognitive Linguistics has a rich tradition. We follow the work of Dirven & al. (1982), Lehrer (1982), Geeraerts (1989, 1999, 2000, & al., 1994), Rudzka-Ostyn (1995), Schmid (1993, 2000), and Fischer (2000) inter alia.
2. Case Study: The Field of the Frame-Model STEAL. Verschueren (1985) has developed methodology for Semantic Frame identification, something that is not directly treated in the work of Fillmore and others. Adapting his approach in such a way that it is more easily compatible with Lakoff's approach to Cognitive Models, we can establish a short list of functionally based criteria for "frame membership". In the event-structure orientation of Frame Semantics, this is not necessary but in lexical field studies, a more clearly defined limit of what constitutes a frame is needed to allow a decision as to set membership.
2.1 Frame - Model of STEAL.
The prototypical schema for steal may be described as:
A CI Sb, takes St.
C2 St belongs to Sbr
C3 Sb2 does not want Sb, to take St.
C4 Sb2 is hurt by Sb, taking St.
Another less prototypical schema of steal is:
B CI Sb, takes St.
C2. That St belongs to Sb2.
C3 Sb2 does not want Sb, to take that St.
Another important variation on the schema of steal is:
C CI Sb, takes St.
C2 St belongs to Sb2.
C3 Sb, intends to give back St to Sb2.
C4 Sb2 does not know that Sb, takes St.
Using these schemata as a definition, we can "select" the lexical items of the field.
2.2 Lexical Field of STEAL. The table offered below is not complete, but represents the main principle variation of the concept. The list was established by first searching electronic thesauri for the basic terms. Then all terms listed in the thesauri were again searched. This procedure was repeated until a list of some 2,000 terms was established. These terms were then checked for relevance against the semantic frame definitions offered above Using intuition and dictionaries of both British and American English, in this manner the list was reduced to approximately 500 items. These items were then searched using the World Wide Web and the Google Usenet Archive where 200 examples of each item was extracted to serve as a data set. The items listed below are selected from this list as representative of dialect and register diversity of the onomasiological field.
Table 1. Lexical Field of steal.
abduct /tion (vr, vt2, n) despoil (vt) help oneself to (vr, vr2) nab(b)/ ing (vr) scrump (vr)
abscond with do a runner with hijack (vt) nick (vr, vr2) shoplift/ er (vr, vt2, n)
bag (v/) do off with (vt, vt2) hold for ransom (vt) nick off with (vr, vr2) skim (vr)
blag (vt, n) elope with (vt, vt2) hold-up (vr) pilfer (vr, vt2) smash-n-grab (n)
bone (vr) embezzle /r (vt, n) job (n) pillage (vr) snaffle (vr, vr2)
bootleg / er (vt, n) ESCAPE with (vt, vh) kidnap/ er (vr, vt2, n) pinch (vr, vr2) steal (vr. vr2)
break-in («) f*ck off with (vt, vt2) knock off (vr, vt2) pirate (vr, n) stick up (vr, n)
burglarise (vt) filch (vt) larceny (n) piss off with (vr, vr2) strip (vr2)
burgle/ry/er (vt, n) fleece (vr) leg it with (vr, vt2) plagiarise (vr, vt2) swindle / er (vr, vt2, n)
carry off (vr) GO off with (vt, vt2) lift (vr, vr2) plunder/ er (vr, vr2) swipe (vr, v/2)
CARRY off (vt, vt2) go walkies (idiom) loot (vr) poach (vt, vt2) take (vr, vt2)
cheat / er (vt, vt2, n) half-inch (vt, vt2) make off with (vr, vr2) purloin (vr) take off with (vr, vt2)
copy / er (vt,vt2, n) have fingers in the till misappropriate (vt, vr2) ransack (vt) thieve (vr, vt2)
crib (vr, vr2) have hand in the till mug(g) / er/ ing (vr, n) rip off (vr, vt2, n) 75
The items belonging to the donor fields or source domains, escape, carry and go are not all indicated since their number is too large. The schema definitions above also help us understand the internal structuring of the field. The lexical field seems to mirror the basic distinction of steal with consequence and steal without consequence, represented by schema A and schema B. This semantic distinction is basic to the structure of the onomasiological field. Let us consider the sense clustering of the field.
Sense Clusters for the field:
consequential steal (schema A) profile: hurt the "robee"
(hold-up, mug, rob, etc.)
inconsequential steal (schema B) profile: not hurt the "robee"
(shoplift, pinch, pilfer, etc.)
Other important sense clustering includes: intellectual steal, where patient is intellectual property. Some examples include crib, plagiarise, copy, and cheat. trickery steal In addition, theft by trickery or ruse is a common theme amongst the lexical items. This is not violent and probably tends to consequential, although not necessarily so. Examples might include do x over, dupe x of y, swindle, do one over on x, rip off, cheat, or embezzle. An important sub-sense is violent steal Here violent force is explicitly profiled. Assumedly this is a central group to consequential steal and there exist numerous lexemes in this sub-sense.
CONSEQUENTIAL STEAL
rob, steal, blag, etc.
HUMAN STEAL
kidnap, hijack.
rustle, hold for
abduct ransom,
etc.
despoil, ransack
mug, blag, rob, etc.
ABANDON STEAL
plunder pillage
hold up, stick up,
VIOLENT STEAL
INTELLECTUAL STEAL
plagiarise, pirate
bootleg, copy, crib, etc.
BAG is-for STEAL
bag, sack
ESCAPE WITH is-for STEAL
leg it with, escape with, make nwax with. etc.
LEAVE WITH is-for STEAL
run off with, do off with, make off with. etc.
MONEY STEAL
swindle, snort-cnange, sKim, etc.
INCONSEQUENTIAL STEAL
nick, pilfer, etc.
MEANS - MANNER STEAL
shoplift, five-finger, etc.
HOLD is-for STEAL
pinch, swipe, grab, knock off. lift. etc.
TRICKERY STEAL
do one over on. rin off. etc.
Figure 1. Lexical Field of STEAL
A fourth sub-sense is abandon steal. This sense designates an event where the person being stolen from is aware of the theft but can do nothing about it. There is a limited but clear set of items for this sense ransack, pillage, plunder, and despoil. An equally clear set is money steal where the patient necessarily money or some kind of "spendable" asset, examples include swindle, short-change, and skim. Finally, an interesting sense is that of human steal. This small group is clearly distinguished because the patient of these expressions must be animate. As is typical for animacy criteria, the prototype is human but is more or less extendable to the animal kingdom, the closer the animal being to human 'civilisation' the easier it is to use as a animate argument. One of the items, mstle, is exclusively reserved to "livestock". The lexemes include abduct, kidnap, hold for ransom, hijack, shanghai, mstle (animals), and nab.
2.3 Metaphor Network of STEAL. A survey of the etymology of the field reveals two basic metaphors - metonyms each of which possesses a more highly specified "sub" metaphor. The distinction between the metaphor and metonym is a matter of context (see Goossens 1990, Croft 1993). We will touch again on this issue when we examine the construction network. Firstly there is possess is/ for steal, which divides into hold is steal and bag is steal, where the bag source concept highlights the means / manner of the event. Secondly, we find take is /for steal, which again divides; leave with is steal and escape with is steal, and the escape source concept highlights the means and manner of the event. Table 2 shows the metaphoric possibilities for the concept, with some limited examples.
Table 2. The Metaphor Network of steal
Schematic Met. POSSESS is / for STEAL TAKE is / for STEAL
Specific Met. HOLD BAG LEAVE ESCAPE
Examples pinch, snatch, swipe, bag, sack run, scamper scarper, escape. abscond
lift, shoplift, nab do, piss, f*ck off with with
2.4 Construction Network of STEAL. By looking at the lexical field and the possible collocations, a clear picture of a collection of interrelated constructions becomes apparent. These six constructions account for the vast majority of verbal expressions of steal in the corpus
Constructional distribution of STEAL
[take]
steal (x) (from y) [ROB]
ROB x (of z/ from y)
[escape with] escape with x (from y) [carry off] carry off X (from y)
[verb off with] go off (from y) with x [verb away with] go away with x
The Construction [STEAL (TAKE)]
The item steal has the same argument structure as lake, of which it is more highly specified instance. Below are the three main realisations of this form:
c Sb, steal St from Sb2
Cls Sb, steal St (Subpart link of C)
C2„ Sb, steal St, from St2 (Metonymic extension link of CI)
This construction is productive and combines with a wide range of lexemes. Below is an example of its combination with a nominal:
1) Not only did I smoke, but I f* eking five fingered discounted the damn things. <www.lunanina.com/mt/mt-view.cgi/l/entry/003629/print_entry>
The Construction [ROB]
C Sb, rob Sb2
CI Sb, rob Some-place
C2| Sb, rob Sb/'s St / St of Sb2"s/ of their St (Single and Double Genitives)
•C3, Sb, rob St, (from St2/ Sb2) (Point of overlap with [take])
This construction is important at a frame semantic level and it possesses some interesting syntactic variants, but its lexical variation is quite limited.
The Constructions of [CARRY OFF] and [ESCAPE WITH]
C Sb, escape with St
CI Sb, escape from Splace with St
c Sb, carry off St
CI Sb, carry off St from Splace
One distinction between these two constructions is the word order. In [escape with], the Splace is normally, but not necessarily, found in between the predicate and St argument. For [carry off], this is not possible and the Splace argument must follow both the predicate and the object. The following example demonstrates the lexical variation of this construction, but also the problems in distinguishing metaphor from metonymy. There were no examples of this construction being used in a clearly metaphoric way, but metonymic usage was common. Example 2 is typical of the metonymic usage.
2) I'm sure the Romans had the Hittites all fired up about the Hebrews while they toted off the riches of both nations.<3B5151EF.2105@gernsback.net>
The Constructions of [VERB OFF WITH] and [VERB AWAY WITH]
Although no statistical work has yet been done, it seems likely that these constructions, with the basic [steal]-[rob] and [borrow]-[lend] constructions will be very important
in frequency and surely the most important in lexical variation. Moreover, these constructions are almost the exclusive forms available to the metaphor ESCAPE WITH is STEAL, so much so one that may ask if it is the lexical semantics or the grammatical semantics that represents the source domain. Note especially the non-motion verbs that are productive in this construction, listed in table 4. This seems an excellent example of why the study of conceptual metaphor should necessarily also consider grammatical semantics and formal structures (cf. Glynn, 2002 for a discussion).
[VERB OFF WITH] [VERB AWAY WITH]
C Sb, GO off with St C Sb, GO off away St
CI Sb, GO off with St from Splace
C2 Sb, GO off from Splace with St.
The construction [VERB OFF WITH] C2 may be construed through context to mean STEAL metonymically but normally only signifies TAKE. The second form, VERB away with, is highly specified and does not readily produce any syntactic variation. The lexical variation for these last constructions is worth noting as an example of the interaction between the field and its metaphors and the frame and its constructions.
Firstly, with enough context, almost any motion verb is felicitous in the construction [VERB + off + with}. There is, however, a small and closed set of lexical items that are not motions verbs, and whose metaphoric structure is unclear:
Table 3. Lexical Variation of Motion Verbs + [Verb off with]
amble off mosey off ride off scuttle off strut off trundle off
bound off leap off run off stagger off walk off trudge off
dawdle off lope off scamper off stride off totter off waddle off
go off plod off scarper off stroll off traipse off wade off
Table 4. Lexical Variation of Non-motion Verbs + [Verb off with]
do off with make off/away with piss off / with take off / with
f-ck off with nick off with rack off ('rack off with) knock off ( with)
An example of a non-motion verb that demonstrates the metaphoric natures of the construction follows:
3) [T]he 12th Duke has seized and made away with the land <3c5750dd.850495@news.freeuk.net>
take give leave go
T__Y____I__
STEAL-BORROW
Figure 2. Construction Network of STEAL
Just as the construction ESCAPE with was unproductive metaphorically, the form VERB away with seems to be restricted to metonymic readings of STEAL. The combination of lexical, metaphoric, metonymic, and constructional structures is a complex set of variables. We have seen how some constructions are only used metonymically where others both metonymically and metaphorically, but also how some lexemes licence certain constructions and not others. This type of structural interplay is basic to the onomasiological field as well as its metaphoric and constructional networks. Although further research is needed to properly explain and capture all the possible constraints, some of these constraints have been identified. Table 5 lists some of them.
Table 5. Constructional Metaphor-Metonym Licensing of steal
Construction Literal Metonymic Metaphoric
[TAKE] lit. TAKE metonym, hold is steal *metaphorTAKE is steal
*metaphor TAKE for STEAL/ *BAG is STEAL
[ESCAPE with] lit. TAKE metonym TAKE for STEAL *metaphor TAKE is STEAL)
[CARRY off] lit. TAKE metonym TAKE for STEAL *metaphor TAKE is STEAL)
[GO off with] lit. TAKE metonym TAKE for STEAL metaphor TAKE is STEAL
[v away with] lit. TAKE metonym TAKE for STEAL *metaphor TAKE is STEAL)
[ROB] limited to direct obj transitive verbs literal reading of CONSEQUENT STEAL largely VIOLENT STEAL
References
Croft W. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies // Cognitive Linguistics, 1993. Vol.4. P. 335-370.
Dirnen Ii, Goossens /,., Putseys Y., Vorlat E. The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say, and tell Amsterdam, 1982.
Fillmore C. Frames and the semantics of understanding // Quaderni di Semantica, 1985. Vol. 6. P. 222-254.
Filmare С., Atkins В. Toward a frame-based lexicon // Lehrer A. & Kittay E. (eds.). Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organisation. Hillsdale; Erlbaum, 1992.
Kay C.P. & O'Connor M. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of let alone // Language, 1988. Vol. 64. P. 501-538.
Fischer K. From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics. The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin; Mouton, 2000.
Geeruerts D. 1) Prospects and problems of Prototype Theory // Linguistics, 1989. Vol. 27. P. 587-612; 2) Representational formats in cognitive semantics // Folia Linguistica, 1994. Vol. 39. P. 21-41; 3) Beer and semantics // Stadler L. de & Eyrich C. (eds.). Issues in cognitive linguistics. Berlin; Mouton, 1999.
Geeraeits D. e.a. The Structure of lexical variation. Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton, 1994.
Glynn D. 1) Love and anger. The grammatical structure of conceptual metaphors // Cognitive Approaches to Metaphor. Style, 2002. Vol. 36. P. 541-559; 2) Constructions at the crossroads // Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2004 a. Vol. 2. P. 197-233; 3) Cognitive constructs. Perceptual processing and conceptual categories between mind, language, and culture // Silva A. de & al. (eds.). Language, Culture, and Cognition. Coimhra: Almcdina, 2004b; 4) Perception, lexical class, and lexical variation. Limitations for cognitive grammar in the study of lexis // Anglophonia, 2004. Vol. 16. P. 135-150; 5) Cognitive lexicology. Questions for an onomasiological approach to lexis // Amengual M. & al. (eds.). Lenguaje en la sociedad de la información y la comunicación. Zaragoza, 2006.
Goossens L. Metonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action // Cognitive Linguistics, 1990. Vol. 1. P. 323-340.
Grady J. Theories are huildings revisited // Cognitive Linguistics. 1997. Vol. 4. P. 267-290.
Kay P. & Fillmore C. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction // Language, 1999. Vol. 75. P. 1-33.
Kittay E. & Lehrer A. Semantic fields and the structure of metaphor //Studies in Language, 1981. Vol. 5. P. 31-
63.
KövecsesZ. Metaphors of anger, pride, and love//A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts. Amsterdam; Benjamins. 1986.
Lakoff G. 1) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. London, 1987; 2) The contemporary theory of metaphor / О Попу A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought, 2ml ed. Cambridge, 1993; 3) Moral politics. What conservatives know that liberal don't. London, 1996.
Lehrer A. Wine and conversation. Bloomington, 1982.
Rudzka-Ostyn B. Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering // Goossens L. & al. (eds.). By word of mouth. Metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action from a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam; Benjamins, 1995.
Schmid H.-J. 1) Cottage, idea, start: Die Katcgorisicrung als Grundprinzip einer differenzierten Bedcutungsbcschrcibung. Tübingen; Niemeyer, 1993; 2) English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin; Mouton, 2000.
Talmy L Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1. Concept structuring systems. London, 2000.
Verschueren J. What people say they do with words: Prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood; Ablex, 1985.
Статья поступила в редакцию 10 апреля 2006 г.
