Lexical facets and metonymy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Cruse, D. Alan
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