25-‐26 April, 2014 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 1st InternaDonal Symposium on Figura6ve Thought and Language How to Do Things with Metonymy. Illocu6onary scenarios and construc6onal procedures Annalisa Baicchi [email protected] hGp://lexicom.es www.fungramkb.com Steps of talk 1. The role of Metonymy in Speech Act Theory; 2. The role of the whole set of ICMs in illocutionary meaning; 3. The Cost-‐Bene)it Cognitive Model: speech acts as high-‐level situational cognitive models; 4. Illocutionary scenario and constructional procedures of the offering high-‐level situational cognitive model. Codiﬁca6on Theory Inferen6al Theory Searle 1969, Ross 1970, Morgan 1978, Sadock & Zwicky 1985, Halliday 1994, Givón 1990, Dik 1997, Halliday & MaGhiessen 2004, inter alios Grice 1975, Bach & Harnish 1979, Leech 1983, Sperber & Wilson 1986, inter alios Illocu6onary scenarios and metonymic grounding Panther & Thornburg, 1997, 1998, 1999 … Cost-‐Beneﬁt Cogni6ve Model Ruiz de Mendoza & Baicchi 2007 Baicchi & Ruiz de Mendoza 2010 Baicchi 2012 ‘Illocu'onary scenario’ :Panther & Thornburg (1998) IllocuDonary meaning is licensed by illocuDonary scenarios, frame-‐like structures that allow, by means of metonymic reasoning, for the retrieval of all elements contribuDng to the derivaDon of illocuDonary meaning. PANTHER & THORNBURG’s REQUEST SCENARIO (1998: 759) (i) The BEFORE: (H) can do the acDon (A); (S) wants H to do A (ii) The CORE: S puts H under a (more or less strong) obligaDon to do A the RESULT: H is under an obligaDon to do A (iii) The AFTER: H will do A BEFORE (a) Can you switch on the light? CORE (b) Bring me my newspaper AFTER (c) You will marry me, won’t you? ! ! Illocutionary scenario (Thornburg & Panther 1997: 207) & THORNBURG ! ’s SCENARIO : (Thornburg & Panther 1997: 207) ! ! ! PRAGMATIC the BEFORE: pre-conditions which enable a physical ! PRE-CONDITIONS action, legitimize a social action or motivate an ! action (including speech acts); ! ! ! PRAGMATIC RESULT the CORE and the RESULT: properties which define ! the action as such and the immediate outcome of a ! successful performance of the action; ! ! ! ! PRAGMATIC the AFTER: intended or unintended consequences of ! CONSEQUENCES the action, which are not its immediate result. ! ! ! (a) Can you switch on the light? (b) Will you help me? (c) You will returnCan theybook in pristine condition, ou switch on the light? won’t you? Target REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION (Request scenario) Source ABILITY TO PERFORM AN ACTION (BEFORE component) Figure 4. Ability for request to perform an action (BEFORE component) Will you help me? Figure 4. Ability for request to perform an action Target REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION (Request scenario) Source WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM THE ACTION (BEFORE component) Figure 5: Willingness for request to perform an action (BEFORE component) You will return the book in pristine condition, won’t you? Figure 5: Willingness for request to perform an action Target REQUEST TO PERFORM AN ACTION (Request scenario) Source FUTURE ACTION (AFTER component) Figure 6: A future action for the request to perform the action b.representation non-operational ICMsby!making propositional and image-schematic ICMs are non-op is created well-entrenched, coherent links between elemen Ruiz de Mendoza 2007 since they are static in nature encyclopedic knowledge store; and consist of stored information. DYNAMICITY b. generic (high-level) ! (e.g. ‘cause-effect’, ‘action’, ‘process’): the high level is c Non-operational ICMsto multiple low-level models. Operational ICMs deriving structure common Propositional Metonymy Image-schemas Metaphor Non-situational Low-level High-level GENERICITY events, objects, relat action, cause-effect, SITUATIONALITY Mm 2. the ontological nature of cognitive structures on the propositional level of representation. Non-situational ICMs Situational ICMs make a distinction between: a. situational ICMsobjects, ! frames à la Fillmore liketaking takinga bus, a taxi, ordering a meal, or go Low-level events, relations ordering a meal dentist action, cause-effect, perception High-level requesting, suggesting, offering b. non-situational ICMs ! they refer in a more general fashion to the objects (‘ events (‘earthquake’) and relations (‘kissing’). • ICMs in illocutions ICMs incan illocutions 3. ICMs be further described at two levels of conceptual representation: a. non-generic (or low-level) ! (e.g. ‘mother’, ‘taking a taxi’): the low-level of co OSITIONAL ICMs representation is created by making well-entrenched, coherent links between elemec (replies A: Does your wisdom tooth still ache? encyclopedic store; oes your wisdom tooth stillknowledge ache? (replies can be the B1, B2, B3, B4 and others) b. generic (high-level) ! (e.g. ‘cause-effect’, ‘action’, ‘process’): the high level is c ’ll see my dentist tomorrow morning. I’llcommon see my dentist tomorrow deriving B1: structure to multiple low-level models. morning. PROPOSITIONAL ICMs have phoned the dentist have just been to the dentist’s office have paid the dentist a hefty fee. B2: I have phoned the dentist to the dentist’s office GENERICITY B3: I have just been SITUATIONALITY B4: I have paidICMs the dentist a hefty fee.ICMs Non-situational Situational B4: I have paid the dentist a hefty fee. IMAGE SICMs CHEMAS IMAGE SCHEMATIC B1: No, I’m •• Give me that A: Can youtorch give me a lift to the train station? B2: Yes, of c Give me that torch F1 • B1: No, I’m sor A: Can you give me a lift to the train station? F1 A: Can you give me a lift to the station? B1: No, I’m sorry F1 B2: Yes, of course B2: Yes, of cour Figure 8. COMPULSION 10 Figure 9. removal of restraint • Hands up or I’ll shoot. Figure 9. removal of restraint • Hands up or I’ll shoot. Hands up or I’ll shoot F1 F1 Figure 10. blockage METAPHOR Figure 11. Ruiz de Mendoza and Pérez 2002 Cost-Benefit Cognitive Model (Ruiz de Mendoza & Pérez 2002, Ruiz de Mendoza & Baicchi 2007; Baicchi & Ruiz de Mendoza 2010; Baicchi 2012 ) It explains how speakers make use of situational cognitive models to motivate the conventionalized illocutionary value of utterances, since it includes the social variables that regulate the production of an utterance (PROTOTYPICALITY, QUANTITY, OPTIONALITY, POLITENESS, FORCEFULNESS, SOCIAL POWER, COST-BENEFIT). The Model is built on the notion of manifestness (Sperber & Wilson 1995) whereby a state of affairs is manifest to a person if the person can make a mental representation of it. Lexical Constructional Model Illocutionary constructions • We postulate the existence of illocutionary constructions on a par with any other type of constructions, • and accommodate them on a cline of conventionalization, according to which the more conventional types are the product of entrenchment of metonymic schemas (e.g., Can you pass me the salt?), while the less conventional types require greater inferential activity (e.g. This soup is rather tasteless). • Conventional forms consist of fixed and variable elements with different degrees of idiomaticity, and are acknowledged to have constructional status since form pairs with illocutionary meaning. ICM of Offering: (i) the BEFORE • the hearer is in need of something; • the speaker knows he can satisfy the need; (ii) the CORE • the speaker makes the hearer aware of his possibility/willingness to commit to bringing about a beneficial action for the hearer; the RESULT • the hearer can freely decide whether to accept the speaker’s offer; (iii) the AFTER • the hearer is expected to accept the speaker’s offer; (iv) COST-BENEFIT: prototypically high benefit for the hearer; (v) OPTIONALITY: prototypically very high; (vi) POLITENESS: prototypically high; (vii) SOCIAL POWER: offers can be uttered whatever the power relationship that holds between the speaker and the hearer; (viii) FORCEFULNESS: prototypically low. more more PROTOTYPICAL sentence type INTERROGATIVE constructional procedures routinized formulae polar questions modals IMPERATIVE Verb + XP construction DECLARATIVE modals conditional performative verb/noun TABLE 5. PROTOTYPICALITY of sentence types for offering less less PROTOTYPICAL FORCEFULNESS OPTIONALITY, POLITENESS more less FORCEFULNESS more FORCEFULNESS constructional procedures routinized formulae polar questions modals (interrogative forms): can, could, may modals (declarative forms): can, could conditional performative verb/noun imperative OPTIONALITY, POLITENESS less Table 6. Scales for the offering ICM Some METONYMIES for the Offering high-level situational cognitive mode • Drink more tea Target Offering scenario Source Order to perform Figure 12. AN ORDER TO PERFORM AN ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy 18 • Would you like me to carry your luggage? [www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php?top Target Offering scenario Source Asking for preference Figure 13. ASKING FOR PREFERENCE IS OFFERING metonymy • May I offer you a biscuit? [www.fictionpress.com/s/2632564/9/] • Can I pour you a pony of whiskey? [www.midnightshots.com/2011/07/14/] • Will you let me pay for it? [http://www.asianfanfics.com/story/view/58678/22/ Target Offering scenario Source Asking for permission Figure 14. ASKING FOR PERMISSION IS OFFERING metonymy • You will have more pudding, won’t you ? [www.dsl.ac.uk/snda4frames.php?] Target Offering scenario Source A question about a future action Figure 15. A QUESTION ABOUT A FUTURE ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy Don’t fret. I can do this for you Target Offering scenario Source Ability to perform Figure 16. ABILITY TO PERFORM AN ACTION IS AN OFFER metonymy 25-‐26 April, 2014 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 1st InternaDonal Symposium on Figura6ve Thought and Language THANK YOU !
© Copyright 2018