{"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\":\"0\",\"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":"0","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。
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.
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.