Lexical facets and metonymy
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2004 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Ilha do Desterro |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7348 |
Resumo: | This article compares two accounts of the type of meaning alternation exhibited by book (“physical object”, as in a dusty book, and “abstract text”, as in a well-written book). The first account is Nunberg’s “dense metonymy” approach (Nunberg, 1995); the second is Cruse’s “facet” approach (Croft & Cruse, 2004). A major difference between the two approaches is that on the metonymy account, one of the distinct readings must be derived from the other; the special character of dense metonymy then lies in the fact that the derivation can be in either direction, but the readings remain distinct. On the facet account, on the other hand, the starting point is a single rich gestalt encompassing both concrete and abstract aspects, and the specialised readings are contextual construals of this; there is no derivational relation between the specialised readings. It is argued that the “facet” approach has greater explanatory power: The absence of a unified “global” concept in the metonymy account means that significant aspects of the behaviour of book remain unaccounted for. |
id |
UFSC-9_8bbf1e242c12547a7bfb2ddbdaf158e1 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/7348 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSC-9 |
network_name_str |
Ilha do Desterro |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Lexical facets and metonymyLexical facets and metonymyThis article compares two accounts of the type of meaning alternation exhibited by book (“physical object”, as in a dusty book, and “abstract text”, as in a well-written book). The first account is Nunberg’s “dense metonymy” approach (Nunberg, 1995); the second is Cruse’s “facet” approach (Croft & Cruse, 2004). A major difference between the two approaches is that on the metonymy account, one of the distinct readings must be derived from the other; the special character of dense metonymy then lies in the fact that the derivation can be in either direction, but the readings remain distinct. On the facet account, on the other hand, the starting point is a single rich gestalt encompassing both concrete and abstract aspects, and the specialised readings are contextual construals of this; there is no derivational relation between the specialised readings. It is argued that the “facet” approach has greater explanatory power: The absence of a unified “global” concept in the metonymy account means that significant aspects of the behaviour of book remain unaccounted for.This article compares two accounts of the type of meaning alternation exhibited by book (“physical object”, as in a dusty book, and “abstract text”, as in a well-written book). The first account is Nunberg’s “dense metonymy” approach (Nunberg, 1995); the second is Cruse’s “facet” approach (Croft & Cruse, 2004). A major difference between the two approaches is that on the metonymy account, one of the distinct readings must be derived from the other; the special character of dense metonymy then lies in the fact that the derivation can be in either direction, but the readings remain distinct. On the facet account, on the other hand, the starting point is a single rich gestalt encompassing both concrete and abstract aspects, and the specialised readings are contextual construals of this; there is no derivational relation between the specialised readings. It is argued that the “facet” approach has greater explanatory power: The absence of a unified “global” concept in the metonymy account means that significant aspects of the behaviour of book remain unaccounted for.UFSC2004-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7348Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies; No. 47 (2004); 073- 096Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies; n. 47 (2004); 073- 0962175-80260101-4846reponame:Ilha do Desterroinstname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7348/6770Copyright (c) 2004 D. Alan Crusehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCruse, D. Alan2022-12-07T12:02:39Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/7348Revistahttp://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterroPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/oaiilha@cce.ufsc.br||corseuil@cce.ufsc.br||ilhadodesterro@gmail.com2175-80260101-4846opendoar:2022-12-07T12:02:39Ilha do Desterro - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Lexical facets and metonymy Lexical facets and metonymy |
title |
Lexical facets and metonymy |
spellingShingle |
Lexical facets and metonymy Cruse, D. Alan |
title_short |
Lexical facets and metonymy |
title_full |
Lexical facets and metonymy |
title_fullStr |
Lexical facets and metonymy |
title_full_unstemmed |
Lexical facets and metonymy |
title_sort |
Lexical facets and metonymy |
author |
Cruse, D. Alan |
author_facet |
Cruse, D. Alan |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Cruse, D. Alan |
description |
This article compares two accounts of the type of meaning alternation exhibited by book (“physical object”, as in a dusty book, and “abstract text”, as in a well-written book). The first account is Nunberg’s “dense metonymy” approach (Nunberg, 1995); the second is Cruse’s “facet” approach (Croft & Cruse, 2004). A major difference between the two approaches is that on the metonymy account, one of the distinct readings must be derived from the other; the special character of dense metonymy then lies in the fact that the derivation can be in either direction, but the readings remain distinct. On the facet account, on the other hand, the starting point is a single rich gestalt encompassing both concrete and abstract aspects, and the specialised readings are contextual construals of this; there is no derivational relation between the specialised readings. It is argued that the “facet” approach has greater explanatory power: The absence of a unified “global” concept in the metonymy account means that significant aspects of the behaviour of book remain unaccounted for. |
publishDate |
2004 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2004-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7348 |
url |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7348 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7348/6770 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2004 D. Alan Cruse http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2004 D. Alan Cruse http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
UFSC |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
UFSC |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies; No. 47 (2004); 073- 096 Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies; n. 47 (2004); 073- 096 2175-8026 0101-4846 reponame:Ilha do Desterro instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) instacron:UFSC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
instacron_str |
UFSC |
institution |
UFSC |
reponame_str |
Ilha do Desterro |
collection |
Ilha do Desterro |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Ilha do Desterro - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
ilha@cce.ufsc.br||corseuil@cce.ufsc.br||ilhadodesterro@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1799875274733518848 |