Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||This paper aims at demonstrating that the cognitive mechanisms underlying certain tropes (e.g. metaphor or metonymy) may assume variable degrees of conventionalisation, thereby giving rise to a range of phenomena along either side of the semantics/ pragmatics distinction. Examining specifically cases of metonymy, I propose a pragmatic account of creative, one-off metonymic expressions using the framework of relevance theory; my main argument is that metonymy is a variety of the interpretive use of language. I further look at degrees of conventionalisation that a given metonymy may go through until it becomes fully semanticised, thus bringing about semantic change. My discussion should have farreaching implications for lexical semantics and the relevance-theoretic distinction between descriptive and interpretive use.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Patrick Hawley (2002). What is Said. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (8):969-991.
Frederic Goubier & Nausicaa Pouscoulous (2011). Virtus Sermonis and the Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction. Vivarium 49 (1-3):214-239.
Robyn Carston (2008). Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Synthese 165 (3):321 - 345.
Charles Sayward (1974). The Received Distinction Between Pragmatics, Syntax and Semantics. Foundations of Language 11:97-104.
Kent Bach (1999). The Semantics Pragmatics Distinction: What It is and Why It Matters. In K. Turner (ed.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface From Different Points of View. Elsevier.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #49,847 of 731,339 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 731,339 )
How can I increase my downloads?