1. shopping
2. toys
3. action figures

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 !