THE GENITIVE CONSTRUCTION (’S) AS A SIGNAL OF POTENTIAL CROSS-DOMAIN MAPPING

Наслеђе 59 (2024) [97-109]

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S): Tamara N. Janevska

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/NasKg2459.097J

САЖЕТАК /ABSTRACT:

The very potential of metaphor flags to aid analysts in the process of identifying and interpreting metaphor has led to the development   of metaphor signaling as a new area of study within metaphor analysis (Skorczynska, Ahrens 2015; Herrmann 2013). This paper investigates metaphor signaling by focusing on a specific type of metaphor flag (MFlag) that has not been analyzed in a more targeted fashion, and that has been excluded from consideration in the MIPVU (Steen et al. 2010). Namely, it examines the signaling use of the genitive construction by means of ’s. This is done by observing (i) the frequency of occurrence of the’s-genitive with reference to its distribution across registers and

(ii) the meaning and function of the ’s-genitive as a marker of meta- phor. A corpus analysis is conducted by extracting examples from The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). The occurrences are checked for classification as MFlags following the information about direct word use and signals of cross-domain mapping provided in the procedure (MIPVU). Our data set showed that there is a marked underuse of the ’s-genitive as an MFlag. The signaling potential of the genitive seemed less dependent on the meaning and function of the construction itself and more dependent on the role of the genitive noun as a necessary constituent element of the mapping. Future research should focus on other collocates and the cross-linguistic comparison   of the signaling use of the’s-genitive in order to draw a more tenable conclusion regarding this construction.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS: 

the English ’s-genitive, metaphor flag, direct metaphor, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, MIPVU

ЛИТЕРАТУРА/ REFERENCES:

  • Cameron, Deignan 2003: L. Cameron, A. Deignan, Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse, Metaphor & Symbol, 18 (3), 149–160.
  • De Vaere et al. 2020: H. De Vaere, J. Kolkmann, T. Belligh, Allostructions revisited, Journal of Pragmatics 170, Elsevier, 96‒111.
  • Dorst et al. 2011:  A. Dorst, G. Mulder, G. Steen, Recognition of personification       in fiction by non-expert readers, Metaphor and the Social World, 1:2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 174‒201.
  • Galiano, Semeraro 2023: L. Galiano, A. Semeraro, Part-of-Speech and Pragmatic Tagging of a Corpus of Film Dialogue: A Pilot Study, Corpus Pragmatics, Springer International Publishing.
  • Goatly 1997: A. Goatly, The Language of Metaphors, London and New York: Routledge. Goddard, Wierzbicka 2019: C. Goddard, A. Wierzbicka, Cognitive Semantics, Linguistic Typology and Grammatical Polysemy: “Possession” and the
  • English Genitive, Cognitive Semantisc, 5, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 224‒247.
  • Herrmann 2013: J. B. Herrmann, Metaphor in academic discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representa- tions, The Netherlands: LOT.
  • Kaal 2012: A. Kaal, Metaphor in conversation, Oisterwijk: Uitgeverij BOX Press. Krennmayr 2011: T. Krennmayr, Metaphor in newspapers, The Netherlands: LOT. Lakoff, Johnson 2003 [1980]: J. Lakoff, M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Low 2010: G. Low, Wot no similes? The curious absence of simile in university lectures, in G. Low, Z. Todd, A. Deignan, L. Cameron (eds,), Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 291‒308.
  • Pasma 2011: T. Pasma, Metaphor and register variation: The personalization of Dutch news discourse, Oisterwijk: Uitgeverij BOX Press.
  • Rosenbach 2002: A. Rosenbach, Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Quirk et al. 1985: R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, Jan Svartvik, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, New York: Longman.
  • Skorczynska, Ahrens 2015: H. Skorczynska, K. Ahrens, A corpus-based study of metaphor signaling variations in three genres, Text & Talk, 35 (3), Walter de Gruyter, 359‒381.
  • Steen et al. 2010: G. Steen, A. Dorst, J. Herrmann, A. Kaal, T. Krennmayr, T. Pasma, A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Stefanowitsch 1998: A. Stefanowitsch, Possession and Partition: The Two Genitives of English, Hamburg: Cognitive Linguistics: Explorations, Applications, Research, 23, 1‒30.
  • Szymańska 2018: M. Szymańska, The coral of your lips, the stars of your eyes‒ the func- tion of the genitive case in a particular kind of genitive metaphor compared to other semantic functions of this case (based on examples in the Polish language), Cognitive Studies/Étudescognitives18, Warsaw: Instytut Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1‒6.
  • Wallington et al. 2003: A. Wallington, J. Barnden, M. Barnden, F. Ferguson, S. Glasbey, Metaphoricity Signals: A Corpus-Based Investigation, Cognitive Science Research Papers, Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
SOURCES