How Metonymy Affects Korean Ditransitive Constructions
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
It has been argued that the availability or unavailability of metonymy affects grammar and vice versa. Panther and Thornburg(2000), for example, argue that the metonymy EFFECT FOR CAUSE is available in English, allowing the stative predicates in imperative constructions, as in Stand in line and Have your documents ready, while the corresponding predicates in German are not allowed in imperatives. The contrast in the two languages can be explained by the (un)availability of the metonymy EFFECT FOR CAUSE. Following Panther and Thornburg’s lead, this paper will explain some peculiar properties of Korean ditransitive constructions with the availability of ACTION FOR ITS IMPLICATION metonymy. Whenever the sequence of a direct object plus a predicate implicates its result or its purpose which is conceptually ditransitive, the sequence is compatible with a ditransitive construction. The findings provides cross-linguistic evidence toward the claim that metonymy affects grammar and vice versa
Abstract
It has been argued that the availability or unavailability of metonymy affects grammar and vice versa. Panther and Thornburg(2000), for example, argue that the metonymy EFFECT FOR CAUSE is available in English, allowing the stative predicates in imperative constructions, as in Stand in line and Have your documents ready, while the corresponding predicates in German are not allowed in imperatives. The contrast in the two languages can be explained by the (un)availability of the metonymy EFFECT FOR CAUSE. Following Panther and Thornburg’s lead, this paper will explain some peculiar properties of Korean ditransitive constructions with the availability of ACTION FOR ITS IMPLICATION metonymy. Whenever the sequence of a direct object plus a predicate implicates its result or its purpose which is conceptually ditransitive, the sequence is compatible with a ditransitive construction. The findings provides cross-linguistic evidence toward the claim that metonymy affects grammar and vice versa
참고문헌 (14)
- Barcelona, A, "Selected Papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival", pp.3~41 (2009), Stockholm University Press
- Brdar, M, "Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar", pp.259~274 (2009), John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Brdar, M, "Metonymy and Word Formation: Their Interaction and Complementation" (2017), Cambridge Scholars Publishing
- Brdar, M., "Some Reflections on Metonymy and Word-formation", Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), pp.40~62 (2013)
- Brdar, M., "On Constructional Blocking of Metonymies: A Cross-linguistic View", Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), pp.183~223 (2017)
- Goldberg, A, "Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure" (1995), The University of Chicago Press
- Goldberg, A, "Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language" (2006), Oxford University Press
- Lakoff, G, "Metaphor and Thought", pp.202~251 (1993), Cambridge University Press
- Lakoff, G., "Metaphors We Live By" (1980), The University of Chicago Press
- Lakoff, G., "Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language", Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), pp.453~486 (1980)
- Panther, K. -U, "Taking Stock of Figurative Language and Grammar: Results and Prospects", Metaphorik.de, 21, pp.21~45 (2011)
- Panther, K. -U., "Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective", pp.215~231 (2000), Mouton de Gruyter
- Radden, G, "Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar", pp.199~228 (2009), John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., "Metonymy and the Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and Interaction", Language & Communication, 21, pp.321~357 (2001)