Metaphor and Non-metaphor: The Semantics of Adjective-noun Combinations 348410340X, 9783484103405

Table of contents :
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Orientation of the present study
1.1.1 Semantic vs. syntactic information
1.1.2 Deviance vs. non-deviance
1.2 Modes of interpretation, possible readings and likely readings
1.3 Features, concepts, senses and reference
1.4 Metaphorical and non-metaphorical interpretations
1.5 Technical terms
2. SEMANTIC FEATURES OF NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES
2.1 Classifying features: primary features
2.1.1 Higher-level primary features
2.1.2 Lower-level primary features
2.1.2.1 Lower-level primary features of nouns
2.1.2.2 Lower-level primary features of adjectives
2.1.3 Primary features of nouns as contextual features
2.1.4 Residue of meaning
2.2 Meaning-extending features
2.2.1 Generative features and transfer features
2.2.2 Secondary features and evaluative features
2.3 Predicational relators
2.4 Summary and conclusions
2.4.1 Nature and function of primary features
2.4.2 Extensions of primary features: factual beliefs and the notion "typically asso
2.4.3 The function of contextual features
2.4.4 Secondary features
2.4.5 Polysemy
2.4.6 Metaphorical readings and the notion "semantic background"
3. INTERPRETIVE RULES AND PROCESSING
3.1 Non-metaphorical readings
3.1.1 General processing
3.1.2 Survey of non-metaphorical readings
3.1.2.1 Readings involving basic senses
3.1.2.2 Readings involving extended senses
3.1.2.3 Transfer readings
3.1.2.4 Case-assignment
3.1.2.5 I-transfer and Ev-assignment
3.2 Metaphorical readings
3.2.1 General processing
3.2.2 Survey of metaphorical readings
3.2.2.1 Extended non-metaphorical readings vs. metaphorical readings
3.2.2.2 Degrees of explicitness and levels of metaphorization
3.2.2.3 Metaphorical readings with I-transfer and Ev-assignment
3.3 Summary and conclusions: the wider context
3.3.1 Interpretive strategies
3.3.2 A new look at extended readings
APPENDIX 1: PR's, typical CONT features, typical PR's
APPENDIX 2: Survey of features
APPENDIX 3: Survey of readings
APPENDIX 4: Abbreviations and symbols
REFERENCES CITED
INDEX

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

74

Herausgegeben von Herbert E. Brekle, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Christian Rohrer, Heinz Vater und Otmar Werner

Jan M. G. Aarts /Joseph P. Galbert

Metaphor and Non-Metaphor The Semantics of Adjective-Noun Combinations

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1979

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Aarts, Jan M. G.: Metaphor and non-metaphor : the semantics of adjective-noun combinations / Jan M. G. Aarts ; Joseph P. Calbert. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 1979. (Linguistische Arbeiten ; 74) ISBN 3-484-10340-X NE: Calbert, Joseph P.:

ISBN 3^84-10340-X / ISSN 0344-6727 © Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1979 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf photomechanischem Wege zu vervielfältigen. Printed in Germany

To Riet and Marie-Therese

CONTENTS PREFACE 1.

INTRODUCTION

l

1.1

O r i e n t a t i o n of the present study

1

1.1.1

Semantic vs.

syntactic information

2

1.1.2

Deviance vs.

non-deviance

5

1.2

Modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , possible readings and l i k e l y readings

1.3

Features, concepts, senses and reference

1.4

Metaphorical and non-metaphorical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s 12

1.5

Technical terms

13

SEMANTIC FEATURES OF NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES

16

2.

primary f e a t u r e s

8 10

2.1

Classifying features:

2.1.1

Higher-level primary f e a t u r e s

17

16

2.1.2

Lower-level primary features

25

2.1.2.1

Lower-level primary features of nouns

25

2.1.2.2

Lower-level primary f e a t u r e s of adjectives

32

2.1.3

Primary f e a t u r e s of nouns as c o n t e x t u a l features

40

2.1.4

R e s i d u e of meaning

44

2.2

Meaning-extending features

48

2.2.1

Generative features and t r a n s f e r

2.2.2

Secondary f e a t u r e s and evaluative f e a t u r e s

2.3

Predicational relators

2.4

Summary and c o n c l u s i o n s

1O8

2.4.1

N a t u r e and f u n c t i o n of primary f e a t u r e s

108

2.4.2

E x t e n s i o n s of primary features: f a c t u a l b e l i e f s and the notion " t y p i c a l l y associated w i t h "

114

2.4.3

The f u n c t i o n of contextual features

118

2.4.4

Secondary f e a t u r e s

119

2.4.5

Polysemy

121

2.4.6

Metaphorical readings and the n o t i o n "semantic background"

124

features

50 6O 79

VIII 3.

INTERPRETIVE

RULES AND PROCESSING

129

3.1

Non-metaphorical readings

134

3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.2.1 3.1.2.2 3.1.2.3 3.1.2.4 3.1.2.5 3.2

General processing Survey of non-metaphorical readings Readings involving basic senses R e a d i n g s involving extended senses T r a n s f e r readings Case-assignment I-transfer and Ev-assignment Metaphorical readings

134 142 142 147 155 171 174 182

3.2.1 3.2.2

General processing Survey of metaphorical readings

183 191

3.2.2.1

Extended non-metaphorical readings vs. metaphorical readings

192

3.2.2.2

3.3

Degrees of explicitness and levels of metaphorization Metaphorical readings with I-transfer and Ev-assignment Summary and conclusions: the wider context

209 213

3.3.1 3.3.2

Interpretive strategies A new look at extended readings

214 216

3.2.2.3

200

APPENDIX 1: P R ' s , typical CONT features, typical P R ' s

227

APPENDIX 2: Survey of features

228

APPENDIX 3: Survey of readings

229

APPENDIX 4: Abbreviations

230

and symbols

REFERENCES CITED

231

INDEX

238

LIST OF FIGURES 2.1

Higher-level primary features

·

2.2

Binary vs. non-binary features

19

2.3

Hierarchy of primary features

2O

2.4

Relation between LPRIM and HPRIM features

26

2.5

Relation between LPRIM and HPRIM features

27

2.6

Feature hierarchy in l i n k i n g constructions

29

2.7

Semantic path

42

2.8

Redundancy of HPRIM f e a t u r e s

43

2.9

C o n t i g u i t y of senses

73

2.10

Lexical r e a l i z a t i o n of PR

92

2.11

Semantic representation of J o h n ' s e d i t i o n of D r y d e n ' s works

18

95

2.12

Semantic c o n f i g u r a t i o n of nouns and adjectives

1O9

3.1

Matchings

136

3.2

Predicates and arguments

135

3.3

Components of meaning

166

3.4

Semantic c o n f i g u r a t i o n of nouns

166

3.5

Semantic configuration of nouns

167

3.6

Semantic c o n f i g u r a t i o n of nouns

167

3.7

Possible readings of eloquent stars

226

PREFACE The research reported In t h i s book had its our p a r t i c i p a t i o n

starting-point

during

in the 197O L i n g u i s t i c I n s t i t u t e at O h i o S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y , C o l u m b u s . It

o r i g i n a t e d as an a s s i g n m e n t for a course

i n c o m p u t a t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c s , a n d carried t h e h i g h l y a m b i t i o u s title Ά

C o m p u t a t i o n a l Model f o r t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

The chief m e r i t of t h i s piece of work was t h a t it

of Poetry1.

made us decide

to c o n t i n u e our c o l l a b o r a t i o n on the basis of w h a t we had done. Since t h e n , the c h a r a c t e r and the scope of our research have c h a n g e d c o n s i d e r a b l y , but two t y p i c a l t r a i t s of our o r i g i n a l work have r e m a i n e d : f i r s t , and,

s e c o n d l y , its

its

preoccupation w i t h poetical

language

character as a f u n c t i o n a l model capable of

y i e l d i n g an a l g o r i t h m on the basis of w h i c h a computer programme (1) c o u l d be w r i t t e n . The f i r s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c is m a n i f e s t e d by the special a t t e n t i o n paid to m e t a p h o r i c a l a d j e c t i v e - n o u n c o m b i n a t i o n s ; a r e s u l t of the second is

t h a t the approach o u t l i n e d in t h i s book

is not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to any p a r t i c u l a r l i n g u i s t i c theory;

or semantic

though d r a w i n g f r e e l y on most of the c u r r e n t t h e o r i e s in

s e m a n t i c s , we have t r i e d , as much as possible, to steer clear of the m a j o r t h e o r e t i c a l issues in s e m a n t i c s . If - as one c a n n o t h e l p h o p i n g - t h i s study c o n t r i b u t e s to a better u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e o r e t i c a l problems, t h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n is a by-product, not an intended result. Several aspects of our research have been reported on e a r l i e r in v a r i o u s f o r m s ( e . g . , the d i s t i n c t i o n between metaphor and non-metaphor, w h i c h was discussed in A a r t s - C a l b e r t , 1976). A m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the study of m e t a p h o r , u n f o r t u n a t e l y p u b l i s h e d too late to be c o n s i d e r e d h e r e , gives a d d i t i o n a l support to some of the c l a i m s we make: Samuel L e v i n , The Semantics of M e t a p h o r , John H o p k i n s Un. P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e and L o n d o n , 1977.

(1) The o u t l i n e of a computer programme w a s , in f a c t , w r i t t e n by Mrs. L i n d a Z i m m e r m a n n of the D e p a r t m e n t of Computer Science of the U n i v e r s i t y of Western O n t a r i o . The o u t l i n e , however, was never elaborated i n t o a f u l l programme.

XII

Since t h i s book has been long in p r e p a r a t i o n , many people have given, in one form or a n o t h e r , their a t t e n t i o n to it. We especially want to t h a n k , for a variety of reasons: Florent Aarts, Wim Bronzwaer, P h i l Hyams, Remmert Kraak and Frits Storms ( a l l

of

U. of N i j m e g e n ) , G e o f f r e y Leech (U. of L a n c a s t e r ) , H e i n z Vater (U. of C o l o g n e ) , W i n f r i e d Boeder and Ilse K a r i u s (U. of O l d e n b u r g ) , Karl M a g n u s o n , F r a n k Banta a n d W i l l i a m Shetter ( I n d i a n a U . ) , Frank Ryder (U. of V i r g i n i a ) , Raymond Immerwahr and Gordon Tracy (U. of Western O n t a r i o ) . We hope that the book has benefited f r o m their comments and advice; if

it

has n o t ,

only we are to blame.

G r a t e f u l acknowledgement is made to the editors of the series L i n g u i s t i s c h e A r b e i t e n , H e i n z Vater and Herbert B r e k l e ,

for

recommending the m a n u s c r i p t , and to the publisher R. HarschN i e m e y e r . F i n a l l y , we t h a n k E n n o L i n d e m a n n , whose typing of m a n u s c r i p t was so e x c e l l e n t t h a t proof-reading was almost superfluous. N i j m e g e n , Jan M. G. A a r t s O l d e n b u r g , Joseph P. Calbert

the

CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION

This study attempts to account for the semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of simple a d j e c t i v e - n o u n c o m b i n a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g ( s e m i - ) m e t a p h o r i c a l ones, and for the d i f f e r e n t ways in which a t t r i b u t i v e a d j e c t i v e s can be predicated of their noun heads. There are two central chapters: one in w h i c h the s e m a n t i c components of n o u n s and a d j e c t i v e s are discussed ( c h a p t e r 2), and one which o u t l i n e s the n a t u r e and the a p p l i c a t i o n of the r u l e s t h a t combine the i n d i v i d u a l meanings of a noun and an a d j e c t i v e to yield the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the a d j e c t i v e - n o u n group ( c h a p t e r 3). Both chapters end w i t h a section in which the content of the chapter is summarized and the proposals put forward are viewed in a wider perspective. In the present introductory chapter we f i r s t give a rough i n d i c a t i o n of the position of t h i s study in r e l a t i o n to a few semantic issues which are r e l e v a n t to it. 1.1

O r i e n t a t i o n of the present study

In her recent book on the d e l i m i t a t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c s e m a n t i c s , Kempson (1975) says t h a t , in spite of the great variety of contemporary approaches to semantics, it is possible to mention "four conditions which l i n g u i s t s working w i t h i n the framework of a formal model of language would agree must be satisfied by a semantic theory" ( p . l ) . B r i e f l y , these four conditions are the following: 1. a semantic model must be able to predict the meaning of any sentence on the basis of the meaning of the lexical items composing it and the syntactic relations between those items; 2. the model must be made up of a f i n i t e set of rules; 3. the model must be able to separate the i n f i n i t e set of semantically non-deviant sentences; 4. it must be able to predict meaning relations such as synonymy, antonymy, contradiction, etc.

In the present study we subscribe w h o l e h e a r t e d l y to c o n d i t i o n s 2 and 4. We also agree in p r i n c i p l e w i t h c o n d i t i o n 1, but we t h i n k t h a t the r e s u l t s of our study call for a re-assessment of the importance of the respective roles played by lexical i n f o r m a t i o n on the one h a n d and s y n t a c t i c i n f o r m a t i o n on the other. C o n d i t i o n 3, we t h i n k , would have to be reconsidered in the l i g h t of our f i n d i n g s , because, as it

s t a n d s , it

presupposes a p l a i n

dichotomy between w h a t is normal an what is d e v i a n t - a dichotomy t h a t cannot be u p h e l d , as we shall see,

as soon as we s t a r t

d e a l i n g to any large e x t e n t w i t h actual language m a t e r i a l . Since we have some r e s e r v a t i o n s w i t h respect to two of the c o n d i t i o n s on which " l i n g u i s t s are agreed", we s h a l l discuss the p o i n t s c o n t a i n e d in these c o n d i t i o n s in some greater d e t a i l . 1.1.1

S e m a n t i c vs. syntactic i n f o r m a t i o n

Like most semantic studies t h a t have come in the wake of KatzFodor ( 1 9 6 3 ) , the present one is based on the assumption t h a t

it

is possible to a n a l y s e the meaning of most lexical items i n t o smaller components. These components do not only serve to d e l i m i t the m e a n i n g of one lexical item w i t h respect to t h a t of others, but also to e x p l i c a t e the m e a n i n g r e l a t i o n s between lexical items, such as synonymy, i n c l u s i o n , etc.

Perhaps to a greater e x t e n t t h a n

most semantic s t u d i e s based on componential a n a l y s i s , the present model employs r e d u n d a n c y r u l e s h o l d i n g between semantic components, in order to achieve greater economy in the statement of the m e a n i n g s of lexical items; in the m a j o r i t y of cases our r e d u n d a n c y r u l e s make it

possible to state one sense

of a lexical item

by e n t e r i n g j u s t one component in the lexicon, the other components m a k i n g up the sense being implied through r e d u n d a n c y r u l e s . We d i s t i n g u i s h various types of semantic components, i n c l u d i n g some t h a t have not been postulated b e f o r e , such as g e n e r a t i v e features

(see 2 . 2 . 1 ) , secondary f e a t u r e s (see 2 . 2 . 2 ) a n d

p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e l a t o r s (see 2 . 3 ) . If

the e n t r i e s for lexical items

are c o n s t r u c t e d as we suggest in chapter two

, it

is possible to

(1) D e f i n i t i o n s of ' t e c h n i c a l ' terms are given at the end of t h i s chapter. (2) For the s e m a n t i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n of an average lexical entry for a noun and for an a d j e c t i v e , see f i g . 2.12, p. 109. ·

account for the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of an a d j e c t i v e - n o u n c o m b i n a t i o n p u r e l y on the basis of the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d in the lexical e n t r i e s f o r t h e a d j e c t i v e a n d t h e n o u n . T h e only ' s y n t a c t i c ' i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t I G in f a c t needed in order to c o n s t r u c t a • r e a d i n g ' ( i . e . t h e conceptual s t r u c t u r e u n d e r l y i n g t h e a d j e c t i v e noun combination) is the s e q u e n t i a l order of the a d j e c t i v e and ( 1) the noun . We t h u s take into account overt s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e (word-order) o n l y , and do not have to rely on proposals that postulate a deeper s y n t a c t i c level for a d j e c t i v a l m o d i f i c a t i o n . In p a r t i c u l a r ,

there is no need to rely on t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l

analyses of a d j e c t i v e — n o u n c o m b i n a t i o n s , according to which the a d j e c t i v e in p r e m o d i f i c a t i o n is derived f r o m an u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e clause; these analyses have met w i t h a lot of c r i t i c i s m and are, in their g e n e r a l i t y , u n t e n a b l e

(2)

. The way in which the

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of adjective-noun c o m b i n a t i o n s is accounted for in the next two chapters, t h e n , provides us w i t h an i n t e r p r e t i v e model that need h a r d l y rely on s y n t a c t i c i n p u t to recover the conceptual s t r u c t u r e s u n d e r l y i n g i n s t a n c e s of a d j e c t i v a l m o d i f i c a t i o n ; i n s t e a d , these structures o r i g i n a t e f r o m the i n f o r m a t i o n contained in lexical e n t r i e s and the semantic rules t h a t operate on them. A p a r t f r o m the obvious practical reason t h a t it

is necessary

to restrict one's scope if one w a n t s to deal w i t h an aspect of language at all

e x t e n s i v e l y , there is a n o t h e r reason why we have

chosen the f i e l d of a d j e c t i v a l m o d i f i c a t i o n of n o u n s . The semantics (1) It m i g h t be objected that the s y n t a c t i c i n f o r m a t i o n we need in the present study comprises not only the l i n e a r i t y of a d j e c t i v e - n o u n sequences, but also categorial i n f o r m a t i o n as to which of the two items belongs to the class of a d j e c t i v e s and which of them to that of n o u n s . However, as we s h a l l see in the next c h a p t e r , the word-class d i s t i n c t i o n between a d j e c t i v e s and nouns is reflected in s e m a n t i c terms in t h a t the lexical e n t r i e s for a d j e c t i v e s c o n t a i n special s e m a n t i c elements ( p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e l a t o r s ) t h a t do not f o r m part of the lexical c o n f i g u r a t i o n of n o u n s . ( 2 ) C f . , f o r example, Bolinger ( 1 9 6 7 ) , Marchand (1966) a n d S a n d m a n n (1975). More sophisticated u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e s have been proposed by L j u n g (197O); some of our f i n d i n g s in the n e x t chapter bear some resemblance to h i s . L j u n g , however, c o n c e n t r a t e s almost e x c l u s i v e l y on a d j e c t i v e s and pays l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o their semantic i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h n o u n s ; moreover, he does not use s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y .

of a d j e c t i v a l constructions have received comparatively l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n so far , and there is a tendency to underestimate the complexity of the conceptual r e l a t i o n s that may hold between an a d j e c t i v e and the noun it m o d i f i e s . Symptomatic in t h i s respect is what Lyons (1968) has to say about the semantics of modification: The example t h a t j u s t has been given Ci.e. p r e g n a n t mare vs. pregnant stallion] , which involved the 'modification 1 of a noun by an ' a d j e c t i v e ' , is one which has never been regarded as p a r t i c u l a r l y troublesome by semanticists. Its f o r m a l i z a t i o n w i t h i n the framework of current syntactic theory is t r i v i a l in comparison with the problem of f o r m a l i z i n g the vast m a j o r i t y of the r e l a t i o n s of semantic ' c o m p a t i b i l i t y ' which hold in the sentences of any language ( p p . 4 7 5 - 7 6 ) . It is, we t h i n k , precisely because discussion of a d j e c t i v a l modification has taken place at the level of ' p r e g n a n t s t a l l i o n s ' and ' c o l o u r f u l b a l l s ' t h a t there is a tendency to underestimate the complexities of adjective-noun structures ; and it is only when one proceeds beyond the i l l u s t r a t i v e and anecdotal and starts investigating a great v a r i e t y of adjective-noun combinations, i n c l u d i n g metaphorical ones, t h a t these complexities become visible. (1) Exceptions are Bolinger ( 1 9 6 7 ) , L j u n g (1970), Levi ( 1 9 7 6 ) , and Dixon ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Other studies d e a l i n g with adjectives are either pre-eminently syntactic in character (e.g. König (1971), Marchand (1966)) or deal w i t h one particular class of adjectives (e.g. Bierwisch (1967), Coates (1971), Givon (1970), Kastovsky ( 1 9 7 4 ) ) ; what most of them have in common is that they pay h a r d l y any a t t e n t i o n to the semantic r e l a t i o n s between adjectives and the nouns they m o d i f y . A number of studies concentrate on comparative structures and have a clear syntactic bias: Doherty and Schwartz (1968), Huddleston (1967), Lees (1961), Pilch (1965) and Stanley (1969). (2) A quotation like the f o l l o w i n g from Katz ( 1 9 7 2 : 4 7 ) would seem to suggest that the semantic problem of dealing with adjectival modification h a s , in f a c t , already been solved: "There is a d i f f e r e n t projection r u l e for each d i s t i n c t g r a m m a t i c a l relation - one for the a t t r i b u t i o n r e l a t i o n , one for the subject-verb r e l a t i o n , one for the verb-direct object r e l a t i o n , one for the verb-indirect object r e l a t i o n , and so on ... If, for example, the relation is t h a t of m o d i f i e r to head, then the projection r u l e applies whose conditions of application are defined by the m o d i f i c a t i o n relation". The ' p r o j e c t i o n r u l e ' apparently involves mere concatenation of features ( c f . Katz-Fodor (1963)), and Katz neglects to tell us what should be understood by " t h e modification r e l a t i o n ' . He seems to imply that this relation is an invariable one and is the same in every adjective-noun

It

is because the conceptual s t r u c t u r e s u n d e r l y i n g adjective-

noun c o m b i n a t i o n s are more complicated than they are u s u a l l y assumed to be, and because, in a d d i t i o n , t h e i r overt s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e is rather crude and proposals for deeper s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e have f a i l e d , t h a t we have in the f i e l d of a d j e c t i v a l m o d i f i c a t i o n of n o u n s an ideal testing-ground

for the w o r k a b i l i t y

of an i n t e r p r e t i v e model t h a t has to rely a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y on semantic components of lexical items and a l i m i t e d number of semantic rules. The present model, t h e n , seeks to reduce the importance of the role played by purely s y n t a c t i c i n f o r m a t i o n in semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , by merely t a k i n g overt surface s t r u c t u r e as i n p u t . We t h i n k it

may be possible to extend t h i s procedure

beyond the l i m i t s of a d j e c t i v e — n o u n combinations to larger c o n s t i t u e n t s ; some t e n t a t i v e proposals to t h a t e f f e c t f o r m u l a t e d in 1.1.2

are

2.3.

Deviance vs. non-deviance

W i t h respect to the condition

t h a t a semantic model should be

able to d i s t i n g u i s h between what is deviant and w h a t is n o t , we can say t h a t in the present study we do not equate ' d e v i a n c e ' w i t h n o n - i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y . This means t h a t a n y a d j e c t i v e - n o u n c o m b i n a t i o n , however ' o d d ' , w i l l receive a semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The preoccupation

w i t h the d i s t i n c t i o n between deviance and

non-deviance is probably due to the f a c t t h a t contemporary semantics has developed m a i n l y w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k of generative models of language, which impose the condition should generate all

t h a t the grammar

and o n l y the ' g r a m m a t i c a l ' sentences of a

language. For the semantic component of such a grammar t h i s means that the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ' u n g r a m m a t i c a l ' s e n t e n c e s m u s t be blocked, at least w i t h i n the boundaries of a competence model of the grammar. T h i s a t t i t u d e towards semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was probably re—inforced by the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a d e c o d i n g model

is

simply an encoding model read backwards. We regard t h i s assumption as n e i t h e r proved nor disproved, and do not w a n t to commit

combination; as we s h a l l see in chapter two, however, there appears to be a great variety of m o d i f i c a t i o n r e l a t i o n s .

ourselves to either view. The present model has been constructed as a purely decoding model, w i t h o u t considering the question whether it can be looked upon as some sort of mirror image of an encoding model. We t h i n k that a l i n g u i s t i c decoding model should not reject any language material t h a t has ever been produced or conceivably might be produced, as not being interpretable. This opinion has also been put forward by Bendix (1966) and Weinreich (1972): [A hearer] w i l l o f t e n accept and make sense even out of sentences t h a t i n i t i a l l y appear odd or contradictory when they are presented to him on semantic tests or in actual discourse, or he may r e j e c t the sentences and then proceed to interpret them anyway ( B e n d i x , p.17). A semantic theory is of m a r g i n a l interest if it is incapable of d e a l i n g with poetic uses of l a n g u a g e , and more g e n e r a l l y , with interpretable deviance ( W e i n r e i c h , p.117). This conception of what an interpretive model should do e n t a i l s that it should also account for what is u s u a l l y relegated to the shadowy realm of ' p e r f o r m a n c e models' and the like: c o n t i g u i t y of senses based on real-world experience, c o n t e x t u a l l y determined extensions of m e a n i n g , connotative elements of meaning. By trying to open the door of semantics to such and similar elements, one r u n s , of course, the risk of l e t t i n g in a deluge of f a c t u a l b e l i e f s , stereotyped opinions and encyclopedic knowledge about referents as well as emotional a t t i t u d e s towards them. Not to make the a t t e m p t , however, is to condemn an i n t e r p r e t i v e model to semantic s t e r i l i t y - a model t h a t would rigorously exclude all such elements can h a r d l y c l a i m to be a model for ' n a t u r a l ' language. But the door should be opened w i t h circumspection in order to prevent the model f r o m f o u n d e r i n g in a sea of real-world knowledge and t r i v i a l d e t a i l . It is h a r d l y possible to specify in advance where the l i n e should be drawn between what is to be included in the model and what is not. At this point we can only say that in order to keep the model s e m a n t i c a l l y manageable and to r e t a i n its general v a l i d i t y we have used the f o l l o w i n g r u l e of thumb in f o r m u l a t i n g our proposals: if for the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a given u t t e r a n c e it is necessary to make an appeal to the context in which it occurs, to our f a c t u a l b e l i e f s about r e f e r e n t s or to our

emotional a t t i t u d e towards t h e m , the model should signal t h a t such an appeal is made and try to specify the n a t u r e of the a p p e a l , but it should not a t t e m p t to precisely specify the r e s u l t or to describe it

in d e t a i l . If,

for example, we have to account

for the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h a t man is a terrier, the model should tell us that an appeal is made to some f a c t u a l belief about terriers in order to a t t r i b u t e some q u a l i t y to the r e f e r e n t .of that m a n ; moreover, the formal r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the phrase should indicate that t h i s q u a l i t y is not a t t r i b u t e d to the r e f e r e n t d i r e c t l y , by u s i n g the lexical item naming the q u a l i t y , but that it is 'borrowed 1 f r o m the set of q u a l i t i e s t h a t we associate w i t h the class of r e f e r e n t s denoted by the word terrier; what the model should not try to do is to i d e n t i f y the particular q u a l i t y ( f o r example, 'aggressiveness' or ' p e r t i n a c i t y ' ) which is thus attributed to the man The approach to semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o u t l i n e d here necessitates, of course, the introduction of a number of new semantic n o t i o n s and some new applications of n o t i o n s that have already been suggested in the l i t e r a t u r e , such as: generative f e a t u r e s , t r a n s f e r f e a t u r e s , mergers of senses, predicational relators and the notion "typically associated with". These are all discussed in d e t a i l in the next chapter. Here we may draw a t t e n t i o n to three points on which the present study d i f f e r s from most other approaches: 1. c o n t e x t u a l r e s t r i c t i o n s do not have the blocking f u n c t i o n that they have in other models, but serve as a means to invoke particular i n t e r p r e t i v e rules and may d i r e c t l y c o n t r i b u t e to semantic interpretation; 2. c o n n o t a t i v e elements of m e a n i n g are incorporated in lexical e n t r i e s and m a y , under the proper c o n d i t i o n s , be turned into d e n o t a t i v e elements; 3. there is no d i f f e r e n c e in k i n d , but rather a d i f f e r e n c e in degree between metaphorical ( ' d e v i a n t ' ) and non-metaphorical expressions, and they can be handled by the same i n t e r p r e t i v e mechanism.

(1) It is possible to i d e n t i f y the p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i t y in the case of 'dead' metaphors. See 2 . 2 . 2 on secondary f e a t u r e s .

1.2

Modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , possible readings and l i k e l y readings

Some of the " r e a d i n g s ' (i.e. the formal n o t a t i o n of the semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a given expression) that w i l l be proposed in the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s , may at f i r s t sight seem ' u n l i k e l y ' or " f a r - f e t c h e d 1 . T h i s is p a r t l y due to the f a c t t h a t we deal w i t h a d j e c t i v e — n o u n combinations in isolation, not embedded, that is, (1) in a n a t u r a l context . Our readiness to accept an interpretation as a " l i k e l y " one is in direct proportion to our i m a g i n a t i v e a b i l i t y to t h i n k of an appropriate c o n t e x t , and an i n c l i n a t i o n to r e j e c t an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as " u n l i k e l y " w i l l mirror our f a i l u r e to do so. The degree of " l i k e l i n e s s 1 that we w i l l i n t u i t i v e l y assign to a given i n t e r p r e t a t i o n does n o t , however, o n l y depend on the extent of our i m a g i n a t i v e c a p a c i t y , but also on our w i l l i n g n e s s to employ it. This w i l l i n g n e s s , we t h i n k , varies according to the language variety w i t h which we are c o n f r o n t e d . The term ' r e g i s t e r ' is in current use in l i n g u i s t i c s to refer to d i f f e r e n t roles of l i n g u i s t i c a c t i v i t y , these roles being determined by the occasion and the purpose of the l i n g u i s t i c a c t i v i t y a n d , presumably, characterized by special f e a t u r e s of grammar and vocabulary. The term is related to language production processes; we would suggest t h a t , parallel to the d i f f e r e n t encoding varieties called " r e g i s t e r s ' , there are d i f f e r e n t decoding ( 2) v a r i e t i e s , which m i g h t be called "modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " These modes of interpretation are characterized by the degree of w i l l i n g n e s s on the part of the decoder to accept certain i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s as appropriate to the type of discourse with which he is c o n f r o n t e d . It is not suggested that d i f f e r e n t modes of interpretation e n t a i l the application of d i f f e r e n t interpretive rules, but that they determine the extent of the decoder's readiness to employ his interpretive resources. We s h a l l not (1) Some aspects of the role played by the wider context are discussed in 3.3. (2) We are merely c a l l i n g attention to the parallelism between encoding and decoding varieties and do not want to c l a i m that there is a one-to-one correspondence between registers and modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

a t t e m p t here to i d e n t i f y and c h a r a c t e r i z e a variety of modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ;

to try to do t h i s is probably j u s t as endless

an occupation as to try to i d e n t i f y and d e l i m i t varieties of registers. But j u s t as w i t h the notion of r e g i s t e r s , t h i s in itself

is not a reason to say t h a t the n o t i o n of mode of

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is not a real one. Here it w i l l s u f f i c e to p o i n t out the obvious: t h a t , for e x a m p l e , a poem c a l l s for a d i f f e r e n t mode of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n than a business report. In a discourse t h a t a reader chooses to read as a poem he w i l l probably admit more i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the phrases and sentences in the discourse than in a discourse t h a t he chooses to read as a b u s i n e s s report (1) ; in the l a t t e r he w i l l reduce the number of possible i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s by, f o r e x a m p l e , r e j e c t i n g possible m e t a p h o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s where normal ones are

available.

We s h a l l d i s t i n g u i s h between possible r e a d i n g s and l i k e l y r e a d i n g s . A possible reading is any reading t h a t the rules of the model w i l l allow. It

is t h u s not d i f f i c u l t to d i s t i n g u i s h between

what is and what is not a possible r e a d i n g : a possible r e a d i n g is one t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n of the model w i l l produce, and any other r e a d i n g is not possible. What c o n s t i t u t e s a l i k e l y r e a d i n g , however, is dependent on the i n v e n t i v e capacity of the decoder as w e l l as on the mode of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t he wishes to employ. It

is, t h e r e f o r e , possible to d i s t i n g u i s h between 'more l i k e l y 1

and ' l e s s l i k e l y ' r e a d i n g s , but by the side of t h i s scale of ' l i k e l i n e s s ' there is no m a t c h i n g scale of ' p o s s i b i l i t y ' : a r e a d i n g is e i t h e r possible or it

is n o t . It goes w i t h o u t saying

t h a t an i n t e r p r e t i v e model should f i r s t and foremost account for possible r e a d i n g s and that its

r u l e s should exclude all r e a d i n g s

t h a t are not possible. D e t e r m i n i n g the place of every possible reading on a l i k e l i n e s s at a l l ,

scale is something w h i c h , if it

can be done

is beyond the scope of t h i s s t u d y , since the present model

(1) We t h i n k t h a t purported " r e g i s t e r s ' l i k e ' t h e l a n g u a g e of poetry' or more g e n e r a l l y , ' t h e l a n g u a g e of l i t e r a t u r e ' are h a r d l y d e f i n a b l e as registers, but had better be looked upon as types of discourse e l i c i t i n g d i f f e r e n t modes of interp r e t a t i o n . (See the discussion of p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n in f a i r y - t a l e s and allegory in section 3 . 3 ) .

10

does not deal w i t h context and f e a t u r e s of discourse. A f i r s t approximation of such a l i k e l i n e s s scale can be made, however, by considering the ' i n h e r e n t 1 l i k e l i n e s s of r e a d i n g s , t h a t

is,

by d e c i d i n g which r e a d i n g s are the products of the more general r u l e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

and which c a l l for a f u l l e r

exploitation

of the d e c o d e r ' s s k i l l s ; the latter r e a d i n g s may then be r a n k e d after

the f o r m e r . A few proposals to t h i s e f f e c t are f o r m u l a t e d

in chapter three. 1.3

F e a t u r e s , concepts, senses and reference

The model is conceived in s t r i c t l y i n t e n s i o n a l i s t terms; it freely use of notions like 'concept 1 and ' s e n s e ' . It s p e a k i n g , not even concerned w i t h r e f e r e n c e , with adjectival

makes

is,strictly

since it

only deals

m o d i f i c a t i o n of n o u n s and not with f u l l noun

phrases. Nevertheless we shall b r i e f l y discuss how the semantic notions we employ are related to reference, how our proposals fit

if only to indicate

into a wider semantic theory.

We use the term f e a t u r e to indicate the semantic components into which the m e a n i n g s of words can be analysed. A l t h o u g h we agree w i t h K a t z (1972:101) t h a t these components are not of the same n a t u r e as phonological or syntactic features in that semantic components have i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e and can be parts of other components, we prefer u s i n g the term ' f e a t u r e 1 r a t h e r than K a t z 1 term ' m a r k e r ' , because it

is the more general usage and also

because

we want to avoid the suggestion of a K a t z i a n d i s t i n c t i o n (1) between ' m a r k e r s ' and ' d i s t i n g u i s h e r s 1 . We say that features represent concepts. How we use the terms ' f e a t u r e '

and 'concept'

and in what way they can be said to have i n t e r n a l structure best illustrated with an example. We say, for instance,

is

that

[ + h u m a n ] is a f e a t u r e and therefore represents the concept ' h u m a n ' ; we also state, by means of a redundancy r u l e , that the f e a t u r e [ + h u m a n ] is dominated by the f e a t u r e [ + l i v i n g j and that t h i s , in its t u r n , is dominated by the f e a t u r e [ + c o n c r e t e ] , thus expressing that the concept ' h u m a n 1 implies the concept ' l i v i n g 1 arid t h a t the concept ' l i v i n g ' implies the concept ' c o n c r e t e ' . (1) See Katz-Fodor (1963:412-16) and Katz (1972:82-88).

11

Features, t h e r e f o r e , do not represent - and concepts are not semantic p r i m i t i v e s . A c o n f i g u r a t i o n of f e a t u r e s that can be related to a phonological form is called a sense. A sense, t h e n , is the representation of ( o n e of) the m e a n i n g ( s ) of a lexical item (1) Such c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of f e a t u r e s may be said to represent u n i f i e d concepts. These are d i f f e r e n t f r o m i n d i v i d u a l concepts in that it is only on the basis of u n i f i e d concepts that a reference relation can be established. In other words, it is o n l y through a sense that a lexical item can be used to r e f e r ; the reference relation holds between the u n i f i e d concept that is represented by the sense, and the r e f e r e n t . A u n i f i e d concept in isolation - t h a t is, as it is represented by its sense in the lexicon - w i l l be said to denote a class of p o t e n t i a l r e f e r e n t s (or reference c l a s s ) . Thus the reference class denoted by the sense of an item like car in the lexicon, comprises all objects that can f u n c t i o n as r e f e r e n t s when the word car is used in an actual discourse. F i n a l l y , when a sense is used in context, it is said to refer to an object. The term Object 1 should be considered to i n c l u d e not only physical o b j e c t s but also events, actions, properties, abstract ideas ( i n c l u d i n g concepts) or classes of any of these^ . In the f o l l o w i n g chapters we shall occasionally employ a sort of verbal shorthand in t a l k i n g about reference relationships. We may, for example, say something like "lexical item a_ r e f e r s to object _x_" · Such a statement should always be understood to mean: 1. that it is not the lexical item itself that r e f e r s , but the person using it in a context; 2. that reference is made not by means of the lexical item but by means of its sense or one of its senses. (1) The question of polysemy - t h a t is the fact t h a t more than one sense can be related to the same phonological form - is discussed more f u l l y in 2.4.5. In that section we also consider the n a t u r e and f u n c t i o n of semantic f e a t u r e s in greater d e t a i l . (2) Cf. Bunge (1974:26): "... the denotata of a sign system may be a n y t h i n g whatever: i n d i v i d u a l s , sets, r e l a t i o n s , concrete or a b s t r a c t , possible or impossible. They are objects in the general philosophical sense of the word, not in the sense of concrete t a n g i b l e t h i n g " .

12

1.4

Metaphorical and non-metaphorical

As we have said e a r l i e r , we consider it

interpretations to be one of the

r e q u i r e m e n t s for an interpretive model that it

should be able to

provide i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s for metaphorical expressions. We may speak of a metaphorical expression if

one of the senses composing the

expression has a r e f e r e n t t h a t does not belong to the reference ( 1) class denoted by t h a t sense . The question that then arises is how we can tell when t h i s is

the case in a model t h a t , as we have

pointed o u t , is not d i r e c t l y concerned w i t h reference. The answer may, at f i r s t s i g h t , seem r a t h e r obvious: we can predict that an a d j e c t i v e - n o u n c o m b i n a t i o n is a m e t a p h o r i c a l one when the noun is m o d i f i e d by an a d j e c t i v e which is not n o r m a l l y used to predicate a property of a member of the n o u n ' s reference class. But there are c o m p l i c a t i o n s , as we can see from the f o l l o w i n g examples: (1.1)

a.

an a n g r y man

: b.

( 1 . 2 ) a.

an a n g r y letter: b.

(1.3) a.

a sad tree

the man experiences anger "the letter experiences anger

: b. *the tree experiences sadness

In (1.1.a) angry is a normal m o d i f i e r for m a n , as is shown by .paraphrase ( b ) . Similar paraphrases, however, are not possible for (1.2) and ( 1 . 3 ) . T h i s would lead to the conclusion t h a t the latter two examples are a l i k e and t h a t both call for a m e t a p h o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . But we know i n t u i t i v e l y that they are not of the same n a t u r e and t h a t , whereas (1.3) does require a metaphorical r e a d i n g , (1.2) does n o t . We know t h a t l e t t e r , most l i k e l y , does have a referent belonging to the n o u n ' s reference class, and t h a t angry predicates a property of a member of the reference class a d j e c t i v e is u s u a l l y applied to,

the

namely that of h u m a n beings

( a n ' a n g r y l e t t e r ' is one w r i t t e n by an angry person). We see then that the m o d i f i c a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p is not always a direct one and t h a t an a d j e c t i v e w h i c h , in s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e , ' m o d i f i e s ' (1) Cf. Reddy ( 1 9 6 9 : 2 4 7 ) : "The spontaneous and i n t u i t i v e f e e l i n g t h a t a word is operating m e t a p h o r i c a l l y is, I believe, c o n t i n g e n t upon the f a i l u r e to f i n d a r e f e r e n t for a given word w i t h i n its ' l i t e r a l sphere of r e f e r e n c e 1 " .

13

a noun does not always do so d i r e c t l y . It

is for cases l i k e (1.2)

-

as well as a great many o t h e r s - t h a t we have to make provision and t h a t we have to i n t r o d u c e the special semantic notions we (1) m e n t i o n e d on p . 7 When an expression c o n t a i n s no i n t e r n a l clues that one of the senses has a r e f e r e n t not b e l o n g i n g to the r e f e r e n c e class of t h a t sense,

the model w i l l , of course, not assign a m e t a p h o r i c a l

interpretation

to such an expression. T h i s means t h a t expressions

whose m e t a p h o r i c a l character is only recognizable in the ( v e r b a l or non-verbal) s i t u a t i o n in w h i c h they are u t t e r e d , w i l l receive a non-metaphorical r e a d i n g ; t h i s does not p r e c l u d e t h e i r being r e - i n t e r p r e t e d in a m e t a p h o r i c a l w a y , if should c o n t a i n i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t it

the wider verbal context

is necessary to do so. T h u s an

example l i k e R e d d y ' s ( 1 9 6 9 : 2 4 2 ) : (1.4) The rock is becoming b r i t t l e w i t h age w i l l receive a n o r m a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , u n l e s s in the wider verbal context it

should become clear t h a t rock m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d to

have a [ + h u m a n ] 1.5

referent.

T e c h n i c a l terms

We conclude t h i s i n t r o d u c t o r y c h a p t e r by m e n t i o n i n g , a n d , where n e c e s s a r y , d e f i n i n g most of the t e c h n i c a l terms w h i c h we s h a l l use in the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s , w i t h the exception of the terms t h a t have a l r e a d y been m e n t i o n e d and of some t h a t w i l l have to be discussed in d e t a i l . Most of the terms m e n t i o n e d below are discussed more f u l l y in the n e x t chapters. A lexical item is any free morpheme, a f i x e d c o m b i n a t i o n of free morphemes or a f i x e d c o m b i n a t i o n of f r e e m o r p h e m e ( s ) and bound m o r p h e m e ( s ) . The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

of the m e a n i n g of a lexical

item in the lexicon is called a l e x i c a l e n t r y

. A lexical entry

(1) In the case of ( 1 . 2 ) the s u p e r f i c i a l a n o m a l y is ' s o l v e d ' by a s s i g n i n g a generative f e a t u r e to l e t t e r , and an a d d i t i o n a l p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e l a t o r to a n g r y w h i c h is d i f f e r e n t f r o m the one used in (1.1). (2)

S t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , a lexical e n t r y should also c o n t a i n a representation of the phonological form of a lexical item. We s h a l l ignore t h i s , since we are not concerned w i t h phonological f o r m in the present study.

14

consists of at least one sense; lexical entries for polysemous lexical items contain more than one sense. The sense of a polysemous lexical item from which its other senses can be s y s t e m a t i c a l l y derived is its basic sense; t h i s is u s u a l l y the most " c o n c r e t e 1 , but not necessarily the most f r e q u e n t l y used sense of the item ( c f . 2 . 2 ) . Senses which can be s y s t e m a t i c a l l y derived f r o m the basic sense of a lexical item are called extended senses. By the m e a n i n g of a lexical item we understand the collection of senses m a k i n g up its lexical entry. That part of a sense which has r e f e r r i n g capacity is said to constitute the d e n o t a t i v e level (or semantic foreground) of the sense. Some senses have, in addition to a denotative level, a connotative level (or semantic b a c k g r o u n d ) ; the e l e m e n t ( s ) on the connotative level do not have r e f e r r i n g capacity but represent the a t t i t u d e of the average language user towards the reference class denoted by the denotative level. As we have said earlier in this chapter, contextual r e s t r i c t i o n s play a key role in determining what interpretive rules are applied. Contextual restrictions are represented in the form of contextual f e a t u r e s . These are assigned to adjectives and are stated in terms of basic or extended senses of nouns. When an adjective is in syntactic colligation with a n o u n , we check whether its contextual f e a t u r e ( s ) are compatible w i t h one of the senses of the noun. This checking operation is called a matching; the senses of the adjective and the noun involved in a matching are the members of the m a t c h i n g . The matching may be successful or not; when the matching is successful, we speak of a match, when it is n o t , we speak of a met. A match w i l l yield a normal reading; this is a construct representing (one of) the semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( s ) of the adjective-noun combination. A met yields either a t r a n s f e r r e a d i n g or a metaphorical reading. We shall use the term metaphor to refer to a met which has yielded a metaphorical reading. When a given sense of an adjective is matched w i t h a given sense of a n o u n , the other senses which belong to the lexical entries for the adjective and the noun but which are not members of the m a t c h i n g , are said to be suppressed senses. Suppressed

15

senses do not appear in readings. Senses may also be backgrounded; a backgrounded sense is one t h a t is s h i f t e d f r o m the d e n o t a t i v e to the connotative level. Backgrounded senses form part of metaphorical r e a d i n g s .

16 CHAPTER 2.

SEMANTIC FEATURES OF NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES

As we have seen in chapter 1, lexical e n t r i e s are sets of senses, each sense being represented by one or more f e a t u r e s . is represented by a set of f e a t u r e s ,

If

a sense

the f e a t u r e s c o n s t i t u t i n g the

set are ordered h i e r a r c h i c a l l y . The senses and f e a t u r e s of a lexical e n t r y appear in a given c o n f i g u r a t i o n , which is n o r m a l l y f i x e d , b u t under certain conditions ( m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n ) c h a n g e a b l e . In t h i s chapter we s h a l l f i r s t discuss the d i f f e r e n t

types of

f e a t u r e s we employ and comment on the r e l a t i o n between each i n d i v i d u a l type and the other types a n d , a f t e r

t h a t , summarize

and discuss the semantic c o n f i g u r a t i o n s in w h i c h they can appear. We d i s t i n g u i s h the f o l l o w i n g types of PRIMARY ( b o t h HIGHER-LEVEL

features:

and LOWER-LEVEL)

features,

GENERATIVE f e a t u r e s and SECONDARY f e a t u r e s . P R I M A R Y and GENERATIVE f e a t u r e s also f u n c t i o n as CONTEXTUAL f e a t u r e s to

indicate

co-occurrence r e s t r i c t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n to f e a t u r e s , the lexical e n t r i e s for a d j e c t i v e s also c o n t a i n one or more PREDICATIONAL RELATORS, which serve to account for the p r e d i c a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s h o l d i n g between a d j e c t i v e s and the nouns they can be predicated of.

F i n a l l y , we employ TRANSFER and EVALUATIVE f e a t u r e s ;

these

do not f o r m part of lexical entries in the lexicon but m a y , under certain conditions, originate 2.1

Classifying features:

Primary (henceforth: PRIM)

in r e a d i n g s .

primary f e a t u r e s f e a t u r e s a r e semantic constructs

which serve as labels for categories of concepts r a n g i n g f r o m very general - such as [+CONCRETE] - to very specific. Each category, except the two most general ones ( [ ± C O N C R E T E ] ) , can be looked upon as c o n s t i t u t i n g a subclass of a more general class. Since f e a t u r e s are t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s , for

they should not be m i s t a k e n

lexical items of the l a n g u a g e , a l t h o u g h the m a j o r i t y of them

17

are homophonous w i t h lexical items ( c f . Bierwisch, 1970:169). The n a t u r e and the f u n c t i o n of p r i m a r y f e a t u r e s are more f u l l y discussed in section 2.4.1. The f e a t u r e s we p o s t u l a t e have an i n t u i t i v e basis and have been arrived at by m a k i n g use of such common techniques as paraphrase and s u b s t i t u t i o n and common semantic n o t i o n s such as logical i n c l u s i o n , i m p l i c a t i o n , synonymy, a n t o n y m y , c o n t r a d i c t i o n ; they have also been tested e m p i r i c a l l y in the application of our rules to a large number of examples. We have not attempted to c o n s t r u c t a series of t e s t s to give our f e a t u r e s a more Objective' basis, a l t h o u g h we have occasionally made use of tests t h a t have been used p r e v i o u s l y , n o t a b l y by B e n d i x (1966) and L i p k a ( 1 9 7 2 ) . However, as pointed out in chapter 1, it

is not our m a i n concern

to i d e n t i f y f e a t u r e s t h a t have u n i v e r s a l v a l i d i t y in a general semantic t h e o r y , but r a t h e r to show t h a t s e m a n t i c f e a t u r e s are workable tools in d e a l i n g w i t h semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . We t r u s t that in general the f e a t u r e s we postulate are u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l ;

if

we d e f i n e house as a m a n u f a c t u r e d physical object and e l e p h a n t as an a n i m a l and t h e r e f o r e , by i m p l i c a t i o n , a l i v i n g b e i n g , it

is

h a r d l y necessary to j u s t i f y this d i f f e r e n c e in c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by p o i n t i n g out t h a t (2.1) (2.2)

is interpreted

is experienced as an i r r e l e v a n t

as a c o n t r a d i c t i o n , whereas anomaly:

(2.1)

It

is an e l e p h a n t but it

is not an a n i m a l

(2.2)

It

is an e l e p h a n t but it

is not a house.

In the present model we use two types of P R I M features: higher-level P R I M ( h e n c e f o r t h : H P R I M ) and lower-level P R I M ( h e n c e f o r t h : LPRIM) 2.1.1

features.

Higher-level primary f e a t u r e s

We use only a l i m i t e d number of H P R I M f e a t u r e s , namely those which can be accommodated in a b i n a r y tree-diagram (see f i g . 2 . 1 ) . All H P R I M f e a t u r e s are true binary f e a t u r e s , as opposed to most LPRIM f e a t u r e s ,

which are u s u a l l y pseudo-binary. (We use the term

•pseudo-binary' rather than ' n o n - b i n a r y ' because it

is not uncommon

in the l i t e r a t u r e to f i n d non-binary f e a t u r e s used in a binary n o t a t i o n , i.e.

w i t h a plus or a m i n u s value attached to t h e m ) .

o: EH

j > ω

uK

t

ω

ω

EH CQ M L EH

D J

ω EH

u

u ο

v


ε musical]

voice, tone, p i t c h , note, scale

[ £ motion—> ε vertical]

dive, j u m p , leap, bounce

I £ m o t i o n — > £ horizon-

w a l k , r u n , swim

tal] [ +ACT, -PH]

[ £ communicative]

voice, tone, speech, r e m a r k , answer, statem e n t , question, review

[ -ACT]

Ι ε natural]

w i n d , breeze, gale, tempest, earthquake

2.1.2.2

Lower-level primary features of adjectives

In general, we can say that LPRIM features of adjectives delimit categories of concepts which can be used to describe other categories of concepts. Their f u n c t i o n is p r i m a r i l y to state the meaning of adjectives in greater detail than the HPRIM features allow, for, as we have seen in section 2.1.1, HPRIM features create only three major categories of adjectives, viz.

[+STA, + P H , + D I M ] ,

33

I + S T A , + P H , -DIM)

and I+STA, -PH]. As we shall see later (section

2 . 3 ) , LPRIM features of adjectives may also be r e d u n d a n t l y associated with predicational relators denoting the predicational potential of adjectives. We shall f i r s t list all

the LPRIM f e a t u r e s we shall use in the

next chapters and give examples of adjectives they are assigned to, and a f t e r that discuss the n a t u r e of a d j e c t i v a l LPRIM features and their relation to L P R I M features of nouns and comment on some of the features i n d i v i d u a l l y . As with n o u n s , classes of adjectives delimited by LPRIM features may be members of larger classes which are also defined by a LPRIM f e a t u r e . Wherever this is the case, t h i s dominance relation is again indicated by means of an arrow, the f e a t u r e on the l e f t side of the arrow being the d o m i n a n t one. 1. Features dominated by the HPRIM f e a t u r e s I + S T A , +PH, + D I M ] : IE Ιέ Ιέ Ιέ

diml] d i m l ] -» dim2): dim3):

-> [€ h o r i z ] : wide, broad, narrow, long, short l € v e r t l : t a l l , deep, shallow, h i g h , low large, vast, extensive, small v o l u m i n o u s , spacious, roomy, big, huge

Ιέ

temp.ord I:

previous, preceding, subsequent, f o l l o w i n g , n e x t , l a s t , l a t e s t , late , f u t u r e , former >rme Ι έ d u r a t i o n ) : b r i e f , c o n t i n u o u s , l o n g - l a s t i n g , eternal, ( 3 ) [ε f r e q u e n c y ) : f r e q u e n t , rare, regular ( ε f r e q u e n c y ) — » (ε i t e r a t i o n ) : recurrent, occasional, d a i l y , weekly 2. Features dominated by I+STA, +PH, - D I M ) : [ε (ς |£

substance): m a t e r i a l , substantial s u b s t a n c e ) — » I G solid): solid, iron, wooden, gold, stone substance]—» l € l i q u i d ] : l i q u i d , w a t e r y , f l u i d

(1) For abbreviations, see the list of abbreviations and symbols, appendix 4. (2) As, for example, in her late husband. (3) The d u r a t i o n a l sense of a d j e c t i v e s like long and short accounted for by an integrated secondary feature. See section 2.2.2.

is

34

[ε substance]—» [£ gaseous]:

gaseous, vapoury

[£ substance] —» (£ t e x t u r e ] : coarse, f i n e , powdery, granular Ιέ l u m i n o s i t y ] : b r i g h t , s h i n i n g , clear, d u l l , dark [ε h u m i d i t y ] : wet, dry, moist (£ temperature]: h o t , cold, cool, tepid [ς colour] [ε weight] [ε

smell ]

Ιέ t a s t e ] (ε vision) [ε touch]

red, b l u e , green heavy, light f r a g r a n t , sweet—smelling, m u s t y , smelly tasty, palatable, savoury visible, vague h a r d , smooth, even, rough, soft

loud, noisy, quiet, silent sound·] 1 sound] —» [l£ m u s l : high-pitched, low-pitched weather] : r a i n y , windy, stormy, sunny fixity) : f i r m , loose, shaky [ε property] : r i c h , poor, wealthy [ε c o n t e n t ] : f u l l , crowded, empty tired, h u n g r y , weary, t h i r s t y , rested, [ε corp.cond ] h e a l t h y , nervous [ε c o r p . f u n c ] b l i n d , d e a f , m u t e , dumb, lame, dead (ε velocity] f a s t , quick, slow, h u r r i e d , speedy [ε a c t i v i t y ] active, inactive, b u s t l i n g [ε (Ε [ε [6

3. Features dominated by [+STA, -PH]: [g emotion] [£ a t t i t u d e ] 16 i n t e l l e c t ] [G t r u t h ] (ε comm ] [ε

manner]

sad, angry, jealous, happy,

joyful

bold, courageous, l e n i e n t , h a r s h , strict, patient, vicious, pious, h u m b l e , kind smart, i n t e l l i g e n t , stupid, crazy, knowing t r u e , f a l s e , obvious, evident, dubious, d o u b t f u l t a l k a t i v e , t a c i t u r n , gossipy, communicative, vague, abstruse, abstract, i n f o r m a t i v e d i f f i c u l t , easy, s k i l f u l

(1) Integrated secondary senses of low, deep, h i g h also belong to t h i s .class ( c f . 2.2.1).

35

[ε e v a l u a t i o n ) : [£ degree] :

good, bad, excellent, f a i r , perfect true, r e a l , u t t e r , absolute, mere, sheer, genuine

IG modality!

possible, l i k e l y , certain, probable

:

As pointed out earlier, LPRIM features of adjectives are similar in nature to LPRIM features of nouns, in that they also serve to state the senses of adjectives in greater detail than their HPRIM features allow. The resemblance between the two sorts of LPRIM features is not complete, however. We cannot say, for example, that "temperature" is the superordinate term for the adjectives hot and cold, or t h a t we^ is a hyponym of "humidity"; application of the hyponym replacement test would f a i l in these cases. The superordinate terms for these adjectives would rather be paraphrasable by something like "having a certain temperature" and "having a certain degree of humidity". In other words, the paraphrases would have to contain some predicational element which is inherent in the meaning of adjectives in order for the test to apply. We do not account, however, for the predicational element in the sense of an adjective in terms of PRIM features; this predicational element is isolated from the r e f e r e n t i a l content of adjectives and expressed by means of a predicational relator (see below, section 2 . 3 ) . A LPRIM feature like l£ temperature! can be looked upon as a label for the semantic f i e l d comprising such items as hot, warm, cold, cool, etc. The resemblance between the LPRIM features of nouns and those of a d j e c t i v e s , is only to be found in the f u n c t i o n they serve in the present model: both are the less general, more specific features used to analyse the senses of nouns and adjectives. But whereas the LPRIM features of nouns are based on a true hyponymy r e l a t i o n s h i p , the LPRIM f e a t u r e s of adjectives serve to d e l i m i t semantic f i e l d s , or more specifically, descriptive categories; t h a t is to say, they name categories of concepts that are used to describe other concepts. The m a j o r i t y of the LPRIM f e a t u r e s enumerated above denote properties which are scalable, t h a t is, properties which are expressed by r e l a t i n g them to a given norm. T h i s norm is the

36

average if the adjective denoting the property is used in the positive degree in a non-comparative context, as in John is tall/ short, it is c o n t e x t u a l l y bound if the adjective is used in a comparative context, as in John is taller/shorter than Peter. This means that among the adjectives whose lexical entry contains a LPRIM f e a t u r e naming a scalable class, we f i n d one or more pairs of adjectives which are in polar opposition, or, in other words, adjectives t h a t denote degrees of the property in question t h a t are situated on the positive and negative side of the norm, such as, for example, hot - cold, warm - cool, wet - d r y , long - short, rich - poor, etc. Such pairs have been called contraries ( c f . K a t z , 1972:159). This seems to be a better term than the much vaguer "antonyms" ( c f . L i p k a , 1972:58); the term "antonym" also includes pairs like mortal - immortal and alive - dead, which we shall call contradictories, f o l l o w i n g Katz. The t r a d i t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e between contradictories and contraries is f o r m u l a t e d by Katz as follows: "Contradictories admit of no possibility between them. They divide a common range of s i g n i f i c a n c e that is exhaustive as well as m u t u a l l y exclusive. Contraries, on the other h a n d , admit of possibilities between and beyond them. They mark out regions on their range of s i g n i f i c a n c e that are incompatible but do not j o i n t l y cover the whole range". It should be noticed t h a t K a t z 1 s contradictories resemble our true binary f e a t u r e s , whereas contraries are members of classes of adjectives t h a t denote scalable properties indicated by our LPRIM features. W i t h i n such classes it is o f t e n possible to i d e n t i f y more than one pair of contraries. This is exemplified by the pairs hot - cold and warm - cool, where all four of the adjectives have the LPRIM feature [6 temperature]. It is not necessary, as seems to be suggested by t h i s example, to have four of having two pairs which has

items in order to set up two pairs of contraries; instead two pairs _a - £ and £ - cl, it is also possible to have a_ - b_ and _a - c_. An example is provided by 16 h u m i d i t y ) , the pairs dry - wet as well as dry - moist. Bierwisch

(1967:7) suggests a test for i d e n t i f y i n g pairs of contraries in German, which can also be applied to E n g l i s h . The test involves sentences like:

37

( 2 . 5 ) a. the wall is too h i g h b. the wall is not low enough ( 2 . 6 ) a. the wall is not too h i g h b. the wall is low enough Whenever such (a) and (b) sentences are pairwise paraphrases, the adjectives in them f o r m a pair of c o n t r a r i e s . In order to d i s t i n g u i s h contrary adjectives w i t h i n classes denoting scalable properties we use the f e a t u r e [ l ± ] , where "I" stands for "intensity"· This notation is preferred to B i e r w i s c h ' s (±POLl because the latter seems to suggest a binary opposition, or, at the l e a s t , an opposition between the two extremes of a scale; but t h i s is contradicted, for example, by the existence of a pair l i k e warm - cool by the side of hot - cold ( u n l e s s one would m a i n t a i n that there are two temperature scales, one for ' w a r m n e s s ' , the other for ' h o t n e s s ' ) , or by the existence of a pair like huge tiny by the side o f , or rather beyond, the pair big — smal1. The f e a t u r e s l I + ] and l l - l , on the other h a n d , do leave open "possibilities between and beyond them". T h u s , the a t t r i b u t i o n of l l + ] to warm does not preclude the possibility of there being another term beyond warm, which is also situated on the positive side of the norm ( 1) In order to e s t a b l i s h to w h i c h member of a pair of contraries the positive and to which the negative v a l u e should be assigned, Bierwisch (1967) proposes another test. According to t h i s , those adjectives receive the f e a t u r e [ + P O L 1 which can be m o d i f i e d for degree by phrases l i k e twice as ("doppelt so") and h a l f as ( " h a l b so"). Thus ( 2 . 7 a ) and ( 2 . 7 b ) are said to be a c c e p t a b l e , and ( 2 . 8 a ) and (2.8b) unacceptable; t h i s would mean that h i g h , long and f a s t are I + P O L l , whereas low, short and slow are I - P O L ] : ( 2 . 7 ) a. twice as h i g h , long, f a s t b. half as h i g h , long, f a s t ( 2 . 8 ) a. twice as low, short, slow b. h a l f as low, short, slow (1) In the present model we do not d i s t i n g u i s h between adjectives l i k e warm and hot. Both adjectives receive the f e a t u r e s ( E temp, 1+).

38

Although the results of the test, in the examples given, are i n t u i t i v e l y satisfactory, reactions of i n f o r m a n t s to it are,

at

least as far as English is concerned, various and h e s i t a n t . The twice-as and h a l f - a s tests, therefore, seem to be less s u i t a b l e to determine polarity in cases which have a less secure i n t u i t i v e grounding. A better test, especially in i n t u i t i v e l y dubious cases, is one which does not ask for judgment about acceptability and deviance but for a semantic judgment on the question whether or not presuppositions are involved. On the basis of intuitively clear cases like high - low it is possible to observe the contextual semantic potential of positive and negative scalar adjectives. It appears t h a t a positive adjective like high is used in neutral questions i n q u i r i n g about the h e i g h t of something, whereas a negative adjective like low seems to presuppose a low ' h e i g h t ' Thus, of the two questions (2.9) (2.10)

.

How high is it? How low is it?

the f i r s t is a non-committal inquiry about the height of an object (which may be h i g h , low or average), w h i l e the second presupposes (2) that the object about which the inquiry is made, is low . On the basis of such i n t u i t i v e l y clear examples, one may use the how - test to determine whether a positive I-value should be assigned to adjectives whose polarity is less immediately obvious, as is, for example, the case with the pair deep - shallow. If we compare the sentences (2.11) (2.12)

How deep is it? How shallow is it?

we f i n d that (2.11) carries no presupposition as to the depth one inquires about, w h i l e (2.12) presupposes that this depth is shallow.

(1) O f t e n the noun denoting the scalable property is l e x i c a l l y related to the positive term: c f . long - l e n g t h , high - h e i g h t , wide - w i d t h . (2) Cf. S.C.Dik (1969:16).

39

Deet

therefore, receives the feature [ 1 + ] and shallow I I - ] (1) Some examples of the LPRIM f e a t u r e s assigned to scalar

adjectives are: high long fast

[ G vert, I + J [ε horiz, 1+] Ι έ velocity, 1+] (e temp, 1+] (ε d i m 2 , 1+]

wide

( ε horiz, 1+]

full

Ι έ content, 1+] te f i x i t y , 1+] [£ d i m , ε vert, 1+]

low

short slow cold small narrow empty loose shallow

Ιέ v e r t , I-] (ε horiz, I-] (ε [ς (ε [ξ

velocity, I-] temp, I-] d i m 2 , I-] h o r i z , I-]

(ε content,

I-]

[ε f i x i t y , I-] Ιέ d i m , 6 vert,

I-]

Among the classes of adjectives delimited by LPRIM features we can d i s t i n g u i s h , f i r s t of all, between classes which do and those which do not denote scalable properties. Among the former we f i n d classes whose members divide up between them j u s t one common range of significance and others whose members divide up more than one common range (e.g. long and wide which are both [ε h o r i z l , but which belong to d i f f e r e n t ranges of significance. F i n a l l y there are also "mixed classes" of which only a few members can form contrary pairs while others are non-scalar (e.g. t £ intellect] comprises the contrary pair i n t e l l i g e n t - stupid as well as the non—scalar k n o w i n g ) . It is obvious that classes covering more than one range of significance as well as mixed classes could be analysed into smaller sub-classes. W i t h i n the scope of the present model, however, we do not make these f i n e r d i s t i n c t i o n s in terms of LPRIM f e a t u r e s . In the l i s t i n g below we indicate to which of the four types the classes referred to by LPRIM features belong.

(1) The how-test does not yield satisfactory r e s u l t s in all cases. ( C f . How hard is it? How soft is it? How dark is it? How l i g h t is it? How warm is it? How cool is it? where the presupposition appears to be bound to the context.) However, a more thorough investigation cannot be u n d e r t a k e n w i t h i n the scope of t h i s model.

40

non-scalable:

temp, order, substance, colour, iteration, corp. f u n c t i o n , t r u t h , degree, modality.

one range of significance:

d i m 2 , 3 , d u r a t i o n , frequency, l u m i n o s i t y , h u m i d i t y , temperature, weight, s m e l l , taste, vision, sound, f i x i t y , property, c o n t e n t , velocity, evaluation.

more than one range of significance: mixed classes:

d i m l , touch.

i n t e l l e c t , a t t i t u d e , corp. cond., emotion, communication, manner.

2.1.3 Primary f e a t u r e s of nouns as c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e s HPRIM and LPRIM f e a t u r e s serve to analyse the senses of lexical items into more p r i m i t i v e semantic concepts. But besides this m e a n i n g - d e f i n i n g f u n c t i o n , their second m a j o r role in the present model is to indicate co-occurrence restrictions between lexical items. More specifically, w i t h i n the scope of t h i s model the co-occurrence restrictions h o l d i n g between an adjective and a noun determine whether the m a t c h i n g of the noun and the adjective is successful or n o t , or, in other words, whether the m a t c h i n g yields a match (which r e s u l t s in a normal reading of the adjective and noun combination) or a met ( w h i c h may r e s u l t in a metaphorical r e a d i n g ) . For t h i s purpose c o n t e x t u a l ( h e n c e f o r t h : CONT) f e a t u r e s (i) are assigned to a d j e c t i v e s ; one way of indicating these is to state them in terms of the PRIM f e a t u r e s of the class of nouns that the a d j e c t i v e can be predicated of. Thus an adjective like sad1, which is n o r m a l l y predicated of human beings, receives the CONT f e a t u r e s - [+CONC, +LIV, +HUM ] , so that (2.13) renders (1) CONT f e a t u r e s are associated w i t h the predicational relators of adjectives (see section 2 . 3 ) . For the sake of simplicity we shall ignore this in the present discussion. (2) CONT features are d i s t i n g u i s h e d from non-contextual features by a l i n e on each side of the brackets enclosing the f e a t u r e .

41 a normal

reading: person

sad

(2.13)

+CONC

+CONC (1)

+LIV

+LIV

+HUM

+HUM

In ( 2 . 1 4 ) , however, the f e a t u r e s - [ + H U M ] - of sad and [ - H U M ] of tree are f o u n d to be in opposition

a n d , consequently, a met is

s i g n a l l e d on the level [ H U M A N ] , (2.14)

sad

tree +CONC

+CONC

+LIV

+LIV

+HUM

-HUM -AN

A met may also occur on the (2.15)

level of L P R I M f e a t u r e s ,

savoury

as

in:

book +CONC

-LIV +CONC] -LIV

+SH —

ϊ food « Here the

+ART \ΜΕΤΛ

> £ writing

lack of correspondence between the L P R I M hyponymy f e a t u r e s

— [ £ food]- and (C w r i t i n g ] r e s u l t s in met-assignment. A combination like ( 2 . 1 6 ) , on the other h a n d , r e n d e r s a' n o r m a l reading: (2.16)

savoury +CONC

-LIV £

food

(1) In the examples given in t h i s section we l i s t , for the sake of c l a r i t y , all the H P R I M f e a t u r e s of the lexical e n t r i e s , a l t h o u g h the r e d u n d a n c y r u l e ( 2 . 3 ) allows us to state only t h a t f e a t u r e which comes lowest in the semantic h i e r a r c h y . L P R I M f e a t u r e s are only g i v e n where necessary.

42

In section 2.1.1 we formulated a redundancy r u l e which operates on lexical entries in so far as these are stated in terms of PRIM f e a t u r e s , and which is based on the dominance relations specified in the semantic tree of HPRIM f e a t u r e s and on those h o l d i n g between (1) HPRIM and LPRIM f e a t u r e s , stated elsewhere^ . These dominance r e l a t i o n s can also be made to operate w i t h respect to CONT f e a t u r e s , but instead of stating the r u l e in terms of upward dominance r e l a t i o n s as we did in ( 2 . 3 ) , we have to state the r u l e for CONT features in terms of downward dominance relations: (2.17)

the occurrence of a CONT f e a t u r e — I F ]— in a statement of contextual restrictions makes the occurrence of all the features dominated by I F ] redundant.

The d i f f e r e n c e between rules ( 2 . 3 ) and (2.17) is best i l l u s t r a t e d with an example. By applying the redundancy rules to the lexical entries for green and tree, their features can be stated as in: (2.18)

green

tree

-I+CONCl-

I-ANl

Here the feature t - A N l of tree stands for the semantic path i l l u s t r a t e d in f i g u r e 2 . 7 :

+CONC

-AN

fig. 2.7

(1) Cf. the l i s t i n g s of LPRIM features in sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2.

43

The assignment of the CONT f e a t u r e - l + C O N C l - to the a d j e c t i v e green indicates t h a t the a d j e c t i v e may c o l l i g a t e with any noun whose lexical entry contains any number of the f e a t u r e s dominated by I + C O N C ] , as i l l u s t r a t e d in f i g u r e 2.8:

-AN

+ART

-ART +ART

-ART

Because the noun tree has the f e a t u r e I - A N ] , which is one of the f e a t u r e s dominated by the CONT f e a t u r e - I + C O N C l - of green, (2.18) renders a normal reading. In s t a t i n g the contextual restrictions of an adjective we do not e x p l i c i t l y m e n t i o n , in the f o r m of a CONT f e a t u r e , the lexical item that denotes the descriptive category to which the adjective belongs. In other words, we assume that every a d j e c t i v e can be predicated of a noun that is the label, or is synonymous with the label for the class to which the adjective belongs. It is thus taken for granted t h a t , for example, adjectives like heavy and light can be predicated of the noun w e i g h t , which is their classlabel and LPRIM f e a t u r e , that large and vast can be predicated of size, solid and l i g u i d of substance, red and blue of colour, etc. This r u l e may in some cases allow for combinations which are a n a l y t i c or seemingly c o n t r a d i c t o r y such as silent sound, f a l s e t r u t h , true t r u t h , active activity. However, we would rather accept such combinations as semantically acceptable - although f a c t u a l l y anomalous - than not make use of t h i s important generality.

44

2.1.4 Residue of meaning It is obvious that we cannot make the claim t h a t the HPRIM and LPRIM features discussed in the previous sections enable us to analyse the senses of nouns and adjectives in f u l l . All they do is d i s t i n g u i s h a number of larger and smaller classes of concepts, and, by a s s i g n i n g them to lexical items, we can indicate the membership of these classes. The nearest we get to a f u l l statement of the sense of a lexical item is when we assign the f e a t u r e I I ± ] to adjectives d e n o t i n g scalable notions; thus the basic sense of the adjectives hot and cold would seem to be d e f i n e d s u f f i c i e n t l y by a s s i g n i n g to these words the f e a t u r e s I E temp, I - l , respectively. However, it

16 temp, 1+] and is o n l y with contrary

a d j e c t i v e s that we can d i s t i n g u i s h i n d i v i d u a l members of a class; in all other cases our f e a t u r e s only enable us to say that the sense of a p a r t i c u l a r lexical item belongs to t h i s or that conceptual class. It would, of course, be possible to devise a f o r m a l solution for t h i s problem of the semantic residue of lexical entries by a t t r i b u t i n g to each of the members of a given class a label s t a n d i n g for the unanalysed part of its sense. We might even try to make this label ' m e a n i n g f u l ' by attempting to describe the meaning of the semantic residue (1) . But t h i s ' s o l u t i o n ' would o n l y provide the semblance of completeness in our semantic d e f i n i t i o n s and add l i t t l e or n o t h i n g to our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the problem how the semantic residue should be a n a l y s e d . It is in f a c t d o u b t f u l whether the f u l l sense of a lexical item can ever be accounted for in terms of features alone. This question has been discussed by Leech (1969:87). In dealing with the problem of how to give a f u l l semantic d e f i n i t i o n of a word like e l e p h a n t , he mentions three possible solutions. The f i r s t is "embodying all

the characteristics of the species

(1) Cf. Bierwisch (1967) and K a t z (1972). In his discussion of polar adjectives in G e r m a n , Bierwisch uses the label R together with a subscript to indicate a remainder of semantic components in these adjectives. Katz re-defines the term 'semantic distinguisher' introduced in Katz and Fodor (1963) as follows: "Distinguishers can be regarded as providing a purely denotative distinction which plays the semantic role of separating lexical items that would otherwise be f u l l y synonymous" ( p . 8 4 ) .

45

( p h y s i c a l , social, geographical, etc.)

in the d e f i n i t i o n " . He

rejects this solution because "the result would be an encyclopaedia entry, not a d e f i n i t i o n " . The second solution "would be a selection of any group of properties s u f f i c i e n t to d i s t i n g u i s h e l e p h a n t s from other species". This is also rejected because "there appears to be no systematic basis on which one set of properties could be preferred to another". Leech opts for the third solution which is in fact the formal one we mentioned above. He would "assign a single contrastive component to every species, e.g. 1SPE for " d o g 1 , 2SPE for ' c a t ' , 3 1 S P E for ' e l e p h a n t ' " . At the same time, Leech mentions the drawback of t h i s solution: "in t h i s a n a l y s i s we f a i l to represent any of the known zoological f a c t s about elephants — we merely note t h a t the elephant is a d i s t i n c t species, separate from and c o n t r a s t i n g with all other species". At the basis of the problem that Leech discusses there is of course the d i s t i n c t i o n between meaning and reference. The discussion also shows that t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n is not n e a r l y so clearcut as we would like it to be. When we analyse the m e a n i n g of a word into semantic components and place the set of components in the lexicon in the f o r m of a lexical e n t r y , we say that we are d e a l i n g w i t h m e a n i n g , not w i t h reference. But at the same time it is the task of the lexicon to predict how a speaker may use a word m e a n i n g f u l l y in actual contexts, that is, how he may use the word w i t h r e f e r e n t i a l m e a n i n g . If, as is u s u a l l y the case, a word can be used meaningf u l l y in a number of d i f f e r e n t contexts, we compose the lexical entry in such a way that it contains more than one sense, s p e c i f y i n g for each sense, by means of a CONT f e a t u r e , in what k i n d of context it may be used, and we say that the actual context w i l l select one of these senses, w h i l e the other senses are suppressed (1) . The problem is only t h a t we cannot predict all the ways in which a word can be used m e a n i n g f u l l y ; the f e a t u r e s s p e c i f y i n g potential contexts can only predict the most l i k e l y contexts. We know, however, that a word may be used m e a n i n g f u l l y in other contexts than the predictable ones. This means t h a t in a semantic model like the present one, which purports to be able to account for (1) Cf. for example, Katz (1972:97) on the notion 'suppressed sense".

46

the semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of adjective-noun combinations in any interpretable context, we have to make provisions for senses and contexts that we are not able to predict, or can predict only in a very limited way. Leech's proposal, t h e r e f o r e , to reject the f i r s t two s o l u t i o n s and accept the purely f o r m a l one is only non-vacuous in a semantic system which allows for such provisions to be made. In the present model we allow for non-predictable or p a r t l y predictable senses of lexical items by means of l i n k i n g constructions, which create ad hoc (i.e. LPRIM f e a t u r e s readings ( 3 )

, transfer features

contextually motivated) , and rules for metaphorical

As we have already observed in chapter one, we would need many more features in a model that would account for the interpretation of complete nominal groups. We would need not only more detailed features of the types we employ now in a n a l y s i n g meanings, but also features of a d i f f e r e n t type to account more directly for syntactico-semantic r e l a t i o n s in readings of nominal groups exhibiting a sentence-like structure. In d e a l i n g with actual adjective-noun combinations we have found it necessary, however, to add some features of this k i n d , without which it proved to be impossible to account satisfactorily for the interpretation of some adjective—noun combinations. These features are mentioned and discussed below. I COLL 1. This f e a t u r e is given to collective nouns and added after the f e a t u r e that comes lowest in the hierarchy. Some examples are: [ 6 tree, COLL 1 [6 b u i l d i n g , COLL 1

: :

wood, forest town, v i l l a g e , hamlet

(1) One example ( 2 . 4 ) of a l i n k i n g construction was given in 2.1.2.1, where it is the context t h a t provides a "property s u f f i c i e n t to d i s t i n g u i s h elephants f r o m other species". For a more detailed discussion of l i n k i n g constructions see chapter 3. (2) See 2.2.1. (3)

See 3.2.

47

( - A N , COLL]

:

vegetation,

flora

[ + A N , COLL] [£ p r o f e s s i o n a l , COLL]

: :

fauna police, clergy

[ G ] . In order to get r e a d i n g s t h a t are also f u l l y explicit s y n t a c t i c a l l y , n o u n s that have the f e a t u r e ( + A C T 1 would have to be assigned c a s e - f r a m e s i n d i c a t i n g what roles are played by the arguments involved in the predication that is implied by the f e a t u r e I+ACT ]. (In the same w a y , of course, case-frames would be needed for the semantic a n a l y s i s of verbs.) As we are p r i m a r i l y interested in a d j e c t i v e and noun c o m b i n a t i o n s , however, we can u s u a l l y do w i t h o u t a specification of case-frames. But in some cases the syntactic f u n c t i o n s specified in case-frames can play an i m p o r t a n t role in the semantics of a d j e c t i v e and noun combinations. Thus there is a group of l + A C T ] nouns which are t y p i c a l l y goal-oriented, such as: review, o p i n i o n , i n f l u e n c e , accusation, j u d g m e n t . Such n o u n s can indeed render readings where a d j e c t i v a l / ^» m o d i f i c a t i o n p e r t a i n s to the goal . To account for such instances, the case label I G ] is associated w i t h the lexical entries for these n o u n s , in the f o l l o w i n g manner: e.g. review; [ + A C T , -PH ] ( [ G ] ) . Goal-oriented readings can only arise from matches with adjectives which have the f e a t u r e l £ e v a l ) . The goal-oriented reading introduces a special predicational relator ( P R ^ j ) , which stands for the a c t i v i t y t y p i c a l l y associated w i t h the goal of the l+ACT 1 n o u n . In the case of review, which has an optional [G] f e a t u r e , we w i l l therefore get two readings if we combine the noun with an [ G e v a l l adjective like bad. The reading of bad review which does not involve the I G ] f e a t u r e can be paraphrased as: "a review which is badly written"; the goal-oriented reading can be paraphrased as: "a review which j u d g e s some piece of w r i t i n g to be badly done" . (1) When no case is specified in a reading containing a I+ACT] noun, an agent of the action denoted by the noun is t a c i t l y implied. The relation agent-action in these cases does not a f f e c t the relation between noun and a d j e c t i v e , however. (2) The parentheses denote o p t i o n a l i t y , i.e. both the goal-oriented reading and a reading w i t h o u t respect to a p a r t i c u l a r casef u n c t i o n are possible. (3) For examples of such readings in f o r m a l n o t a t i o n , see chapter 3.

48

W i t h some I + A C T ] n o u n s the goal-oriented reading is obligatory. Thus poor opinion cannot be interpreted as "an opinion which held in a poor manner" but only as "an opinion which judges

is

something to be in a poor state or some activity to be carried out b a d l y " ( 1 ) . I PROG ] and ( P E R F l .

These are

aspectual f e a t u r e s which

are

given to present participles and past participles respectively, in order to account for the aspectual part of their m e a n i n g . ( P R O G ) indicates that an a c t i v i t y is in progress; [ P E R F ] indicates t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r state has arisen a f t e r and as a r e s u l t of a terminated a c t i v i t y .

2.2

Meaning-extending features

The types of f e a t u r e s discussed so far

serve, as we have seen,

to analyse the senses of lexical items and to indicate

co-occurrence

r e s t r i c t i o n s h o l d i n g between nouns and a d j e c t i v e s . The two types of features to be discussed next - generative and secondary f e a t u r e s - account for actual or potential extensions of the m e a n i n g s of nouns and a d j e c t i v e s . Such f e a t u r e s can produce c o n t e x t u a l l y motivated s h i f t s of meaning and may therefore be regarded as some sort of semantic rules; under the appropriate conditions they enable us to derive from the basic sense of an item a new sense based on the denotative or connotative potential of the item in question. The use of m e a n i n g - e x t e n d i n g f e a t u r e s t h u s creates the need for the notion of a basic sense from which the related senses of a given lexical item may be derived by means of certain general rules. It should be emphasized t h a t we employ the notion "basic sense of a lexical entry 1 m a i n l y as a practical tool; we do not want to claim t h a t some such notion as 'basic' or 'core 1 sense has theoretical s i g n i f i c a n c e in a semantic theory, nor do we wish to j o i n in the debate concerning the question of polysemy vs. homonymy. We acknowledge t h a t , u l t i m a t e l y , such d i s t i n c t i o n s are

(1) For examples of such readings in formal n o t a t i o n , see chapter 3.

49

rather arbitrary and idiosyncratic ( c f . Lyons, 1968:406-07). In the present model we have a polysemous item when we happen to be able to make a general statement about the r e l a t i o n between one sense of the item and a n o t h e r , so t h a t we can incorporate both senses in the lexicon as parts of the same lexical entry; when we are u n a b l e to observe any r e g u l a r i t y in the r e l a t i o n between two senses realized by the same phonological form we enter the two senses in the lexicon as two separate lexical entries, t h a t is, It

we consider the two lexical entries in question to be homonyms. should be pointed out t h a t the basic sense of a word does not

necessarily coincide w i t h what we i n t u i t i v e l y judge to be

its

'most f r e q u e n t 1 or ' m o s t l i k e l y ' sense. For e x a m p l e , we d e f i n e the basic sense of an item l i k e letter as ( + S H , +ART, £ w r i t i n g ] , whereas we account for the sense which views a letter as a means of communication by means of a m e a n i n g - e x t e n d i n g f e a t u r e , a l t h o u g h the latter sense is q u i t e probably the more f r e q u e n t sense of the noun letter. U s u a l l y , however, the basic sense that is required by the semantic rules has some sort of i n t u i t i v e f o u n d a t i o n . In most cases it

is t h a t sense which is f e l t

or "most l i t e r a l

1

to be the 'most concrete'

one, w h i l e the extended senses are 'more abstract'

a n d , in most cases, p r e d i c a t i o n a l extensions of the basic sense. E x t e n s i o n of the basic sense of a word can take place in two d i f f e r e n t ways. In the f i r s t place, there may exist a c o n c e p t u a l l y predictable r e l a t i o n s h i p between basic and extended sense; t h a t

is,

we can predict the r e l a t i o n between the two senses on the basis of our experience of the c o n t i g u i t y of two concepts in the real world (cp. m e t o n y m y ) . When such extensions of m e a n i n g have been l e x i c a l l y integrated in the language they are accounted for by a generative ( h e n c e f o r t h : G E N ) f e a t u r e , which together w i t h the basic sense and other possible extended senses c o n s t i t u t e s one e n t r y in the lexicon. When lexical i n t e g r a t i o n of the extended sense of a noun has not taken place, a t r a n s f e r ( h e n c e f o r t h : TR) f e a t u r e is elicited in the r e a d i n g yielded by a match of the noun w i t h certain predicational relators of a d j e c t i v e s . An extended sense may also be not c o n c e p t u a l l y , but e m o t i o n a l l y m o t i v a t e d , and hence only partly predictable. In t h a t case the extended sense arises through metaphorization processes;

when such a sense has been

50

lexically integrated

(i.e.

when it

is a 'dead m e t a p h o r ' ) we

account for it by a s s i g n i n g a secondary ( h e n c e f o r t h : SEC) f e a t u r e to the lexical item in question. The d i f f e r e n c e between GEN and TR f e a t u r e s on the one hand and SEC f e a t u r e s on the other may be summarized by saying that the former are based on the denotative potential of a word, while the latter are based on the w o r d ' s connotative potential. GEN and TR features are associated with nouns. SEC features are associated with n o u n s as well as adjectives. 2.2.1

Generative features and t r a n s f e r

features

Generative features are of two types: (1) X -» Y; (2) X : Y. The arrow of type (1) s i g n i f i e s a replacement r e l a t i o n s h i p : X is replaced by Y, where X and Y stand for the basic senses of two d i f f e r e n t lexical items. The colon of type (2) denotes a cross-referential r e l a t i o n s h i p : the basic sense of X is extended so as to include a cross-reference to the concept denoted by Y. We employ only one feature of the f i r s t type. It is used to account for pars pro toto cases (i.e.

synecdoche). N o t a t i o n a l l y ,

it has the form: [ p t -> w

'y']

where pt stands for ' p a r t 1 , w for ' w h o l e ' , and ' y ' stands for a lexical item d i f f e r e n t from the one to which the f e a t u r e is assigned. The f e a t u r e is to be interpreted as follows: because item X_ ( t h e item to which the f e a t u r e is attributed) denotes a concept which stands in part-whole r e l a t i o n s h i p to the concept denoted by Y, the PRIM f e a t u r e s c o n s t i t u t i n g the basic sense of X are suppressed and replaced by the PRIM features c o n s t i t u t i~~ n g the basic sense of Y_ (1) . It should be noted t h a t , since Y replaces _X_, the PRIM f e a t u r e s of Y cause a match w i t h any a d j e c t i v e whose CONT f e a t u r e s are i d e n t i c a l w i t h the P R I M features of Y. GEN and SEC f e a t u r e s of Y, if a n y , are not transWhen we say t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r sense of a lexical item is suppressed, we mean t h a t that sense does not occur in the r e a d i n g of which the lexical item is one of the members. The suppressed sense may, however, be recovered where needed by the context. Cf. Katz (1972:97) on the notion of 'suppressed sense'.

51

ferred to >C. The 'whole' is

specified by adding the word in

question w i t h i n single quotes, in order to avoid any possible a m b i g u i t y . Some examples of t h i s type of f e a t u r e hand :

[ pt-, w

"worker 1 ]

mind :

[ pt -» w

' person' ]

sail :

I pt -» w

' ship' ]

soul :

[ pt -, w

' person 1 ]

are:

GEN features of the second type d i f f e r from the f i r s t in that the basic sense of the item to which they are attributed is not suppressed, nor even backgrounded. Such f e a t u r e s ,

therefore,

can be looked upon as mergers of two senses: the sense denoted by the f e a t u r e on the l e f t side of the colon and the one denoted by the feature on the r i g h t — h a n d side of the colon. As an example let us consider the noun actor which has as its

basic sense:

I + H , ε p r o f e s s i o n a l ] and in addition the GEN feature 11+H ]:[+ACT ] ] , where l+ACT ] stands for the activity typically associated with (1) the basic sense of the noun . We shall indicate the two senses as actor1 and actor^ respectively. A phrase like poor actor w i l l therefore yield two r e a d i n g s , one w i t h actor^- and one w i t h actor 2 , In the reading with actor"!, poor is predicated of the noun in the ' n o r m a l ' w a y , expressing that the referent

of actor^· is in a state

of penury; in the reading w i t h actor 2 , the manner of the activity t y p i c a l l y associated with actorl ( ' a c t i n g ' ) is q u a l i f i e d as 'poor'

. Thus the r e a d i n g w i t h actor1 would r e f e r to a penurious

person who also happens to have acting as his profession, whereas

(1) We use the term "typically associated with" to indicate a concept which is contiguous to another in our real-world experience. That is, concept _Y is " t y p i c a l l y associated with" concept X, if X n a t u r a l l y and immediately suggests _¥. The associated concept can be i d e n t i f i e d by a s k i n g such questions as: "what does an X do?" (if X has the LPRIM f e a t u r e [e p r o f e s s i o n a l ] ) , or "what is an X used for?" (if X has the LPRIM f e a t u r e [G i n s t r u m e n t ] ) , etc. For a f u l l e r discussion of the notion " t y p i c a l l y associated w i t h " , see 2.4.2. (2) The two d i f f e r e n t ways in which the a d j e c t i v e is predicated of the noun are accounted for by two d i f f e r e n t predicational relators of poor, one of which is associated w i t h a CONT f e a t u r e t h a t selects the basic sense, the other w i t h a CONT f e a t u r e that selects the extended sense of actor.

52

the one with actor*? would refer to someone who acts in a poor manner. The d i f f e r e n c e between the basic sense and the extended sense of actor is m a n i f e s t e d by the fact that (2.19) is an acceptable paraphrase for poor actor 1 , but not for poor actor·?; (2.19)

the actor is a poor person

where the noun person is the lexical r e a l i z a t i o n of the HPRIM f e a t u r e I + H ] o f actor 1 . That in the GEN f e a t u r e 11 +H ] : | + A C T ] ] the basic sense of actor is not backgrounded is apparent from a comparison of sentences ( 2 . 2 0 ) - ( 2 . 2 2 ) . (2.20)

χ is a poor actor2

(2.21) (2.22)

χ acts poorly χ is a poor actor 2 , but χ is not a person

Sentence (2.21) paraphrases the meaning of poor actor 2 in ( 2 . 2 0 ) , and through its syntactic form also brings out the predicational character of the GEN feature. But in spite of the fact that (2.21) h i g h l i g h t s the I+ACT ] element of the GEN f e a t u r e , the unaccepta b i l i t y of ( 2 . 2 2 ) shows that in ( 2 . 2 O ) the f e a t u r e 1 + H 1 of actor 2 is not suppressed or backgrounded, but is needed in the reading of poor actor 2 . If it did not occur in the r e a d i n g , ( 2 . 2 2 ) would be acceptable, because the second h a l f of the sentence would then merely assert that a lexical entry which contains the f e a t u r e I + A C T ] does n o t contain t h e f e a t u r e t + H ] . The f a c t that GEN features of the second type combine two senses causes both the f e a t u r e on the l e f t side and the one on the r i g h t side of the colon to lose their v a l i d i t y in m a t c h i n g s which involve either one of these f e a t u r e s as CONT features. Thus the a d j e c t i v e tall which has the CONT f e a t u r e - ( + C O N C ) - matches w i t h actor*1· (because the redundancy r u l e ( 2 . 3 ) a p p l i e s ) , but not w i t h actor 2 . T h i s prevents the phrase tall actor f r o m y i e l d i n g two readings. The only reading we get is with the sense I + H , € p r o f e s s i o n a l ) . This seems to be i n t u i t i v e l y correct, since tall actor is interpreted as r e f e r r i n g to a human being who is tall ( a n d who also happens to have acting as his p r o f e s s i o n ) . The CONT features - I + H ] - and - I + A C T ] - , t h e n , do not bring about matches with the GEN feature ( [ + H ]:[+ACT ] ] . This means that

53

GEN f e a t u r e s of t h i s type must also, like P R I M f e a t u r e s , be associated as CONT f e a t u r e s with the proper predicational relators of adjectives. An a d j e c t i v e like poor has t h u s two CONT f e a t u r e s associated with it:

— I + H ] — and — U + H ] : l + A C T ) ] — .

In the present model, we use ten GEN f e a t u r e s of the second type. They are enumerated below; each i n d i v i d u a l f e a t u r e is discussed b r i e f l y and examples are given of n o u n s to which it

is

assigned as well as of some adjective-noun c o m b i n a t i o n s in which the f e a t u r e is used. Π +H 1 : 1 + A C T Π . T h i s f e a t u r e is assigned to n o u n s which have the LPRIM f e a t u r e [£ p r o f e s s i o n a l ] as well as to de-verbal n o u n s denoting the agent of an action. The extension [ + A C T ] .refers to the activity typically associated w i t h the basic sense of the noun. In most cases there is a lexical item a v a i l a b l e to indicate t h i s activity. U s u a l l y t h i s item is also m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y related to the noun (e.g.: actor - act, student - study; smoker - s m o k e ) . Sometimes, however, the a c t i v i t y cannot be expressed by a single lexical item (e.g.: secretary, policeman, l a w y e r ) . Some examples of n o u n s to which the f e a t u r e is a t t r i b u t e d are: s t u d e n t , secretary, teacher, p i a n i s t , actor, policeman, lawyer, poet, professor, sailor, carpenter, surgeon, worker, preacher, When the GEN f e a t u r e produces a match between a d j e c t i v e , the a d j e c t i v e q u a l i f i e s the manner associated w i t h the basic sense is p e r f o r m e d ,

smoker, driver. a noun and an in which the a c t i v i t y or the f r e q u e n c y

w i t h which it is p e r f o r m e d , for example: a good/bad secretary, surgeon, carpenter; a strict teacher; a bold s a i l o r ; a w i l d driver; an occasional actor; a part-time worker. T h a t a d j e c t i v a l modification in these cases is restricted to the GEN f e a t u r e , and not extended to the basic sense of the n o u n , is a p p a r e n t f r o m the f a c t that sentences like ( 2 . 2 3 ) are not contradictory: (2.23)

he is a bold sailor but a timid m a n .

[ I E i n s t r u m e n t ) : ( + A C T ]].

A s t h e label o n t h e l e f t o f t h e colon

indicates, t h i s GEN f e a t u r e is only assigned to nouns which have the LPRIM f e a t u r e 1 C i n s t r u m e n t ) . Again the extension I+ACT 1 denotes the a c t i v i t y t y p i c a l l y associated w i t h the n o u n . In

54

matches with a d j e c t i v e s , the adjective f u n c t i o n s as a manner adverbial q u a l i f y i n g this activity. Some examples of nouns which have this GEN feature are: k n i f e , wrench, d r i l l , needle, eraser, lock, screwdriver. The feature is used in combinations like: a good/bad/excellent eraser, k n i f e , wrench; a d i f f i c u l t lock, an easy can-opener. Nouns with the LPRIM feature [ £ vehicle], which form a subCD class of I E i n s t r u m e n t ] nouns , receive the more specific GEN f e a t u r e [ [ £ vehicle ] : t + A C T ] ] . This f e a t u r e is given as a CONT f e a t u r e to [ζ velocity] adjectives, thus accounting for combinations like: a f a s t / s l o w car, t r a i n , b u s , boat . t[-ACT 1:[+ACT11. This f e a t u r e is attributed to nouns basically denoting events ( [ — A C T ] ) whose meaning is extended so as to include a reference to the activity of the persons involved in the event. It is assigned to nouns like: war, riot, ceremony, t r i a l , meeting. When the f e a t u r e is used in adjective-noun combinations, the adjective again functions as a manner adverbial m o d i f y i n g the I + A C T ] element. Examples of such combinations are: a quiet ceremony; a d i f f i c u l t meeting; a wild riot.

(1) See p. 30.

(2) These f i r s t two extensions of meaning have been discussed i n f o r m a l l y by F i l l m o r e (1971:382-3), who points out t h a t : "many d e f i n i t i o n s of nouns contain a component which expresses a typical f u n c t i o n of the e n t i t y the noun can refer to ... A noun which refers to a 'typical 1 ( e . g . ' p r o f e s s i o n a l ' ) Agent in an activity is evaluated according to whether the Agent conducts this activity s k i l f u l l y ; a noun which names a typical i n s t r u m e n t in an activity is evaluated according to whether the t h i n g permits the activity to be performed easily. In these ways we can make i n t e l l i g i b l e our ability to understand expressions l i k e a good pilot, a good p i a n i s t , a good liar, a good k n i f e , a good lock, etc." Cf. also Chomsky ( 1 9 7 2 : 3 2 ) : "The a m b i g u i t y , being characteristic of all expressions that refer to humans by virtue of some f u n c t i o n that they f u l f i l l , can be handled by a general principle of semantic interpretation". Kooy (1971:142) seems to be m a k i n g the same point when he says that "inherent to the sense of nouns like president and pope and noun phrases like chairman of the w o m e n ' s league are a component 'somebody' and a component ' f u n c t i o n ' " .

55

[ ( G writing]:[£ communication]]. T h i s f e a t u r e is assigned to a f a i r l y small class of n o u n s , namely those which have [£ w r i t i n g ] as their basic sense. The limited membership of the class enables us to specify the semantic class to which the a c t i v i t y introduced by the GEN f e a t u r e belongs: l £ c o m m u n i c a t i o n ] . The f e a t u r e is associated with nouns such as book, paper, n o v e l , l e t t e r , j o u r n a l , magazine, report. When these nouns are used w i t h an a d j e c t i v e having this GEN feature as a CONT f e a t u r e ,

the a d j e c t i v e may be

predicated of the extended sense of the noun in a number of ways. First of all, it may indicate t h a t the concept denoted by the noun serves to m a n i f e s t or communicate some emotion (expressed by the a d j e c t i v e ) which is experienced by the agent of the communicating act, as in: a jealous letter; an angry report; a j o y f u l j o u r n a l . It may also refer to the a t t i t u d e of the agent, as in: a bold letter; a vicious report. T h e n , l i k e the GEN f e a t u r e s already discussed, it may f u n c t i o n as a manner a d v e r b i a l , as in: a good/bad book, novel, paper; a d i f f i c u l t m a g a z i n e . F i n a l l y , the adjective may be used with reference to the f r e q u e n c y or temporal order of the a c t i v i t y involved: his next/previous book, novel; an occasional letter; f r e q u e n t reports. We have already pointed out ( p . 4 9 ) t h a t the basic sense of a lexical entry is not always necessarily the most f r e q u e n t or the most likely sense. The [ € w r i t i n g ] nouns mentioned above probably i l l u s t r a t e t h i s ; it seems reasonable to suppose t h a t their ' a c t i v e ' , ' c o m m u n i c a t i v e ' sense has a greater f r e q u e n c y of occurrence than their [ + S H , + A R T , £ w r i t i n g ] sense. The f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n , apart f r o m showing t h a t a noun like j o u r n a l does have a [ + S H , +ART ] sense, suggests t h a t the 'concrete' sense is the less l i k e l y one, since the writer f i n d s it necessary to make clear that he has this sense in mind by adding the word p h y s i c a l l y : We are g r a t e f u l for permission to r e p r i n t corroborating excerpts f r o m the u n p u b l i s h e d R u s s i a n j o u r n a l of Henry Bech. The j o u r n a l , p h y s i c a l l y , is a faded red expenses d i a r y , m e a s u r i n g 7 3/8" by 4 1/4" stained by Moscow brandy and warped by Caucasian

(1) From: John U p d i k e , Bech; A Book, New York 1970, p.191.

56

[[+ACT, + Ρ Η ] : ΐ ε communication]]. so f a r , which all

U n l i k e t h e features mentioned

involved a s h i f t of sense from one m a j o r category

to a n o t h e r , this GEN f e a t u r e creates an extension of m e a n i n g only on the level of LPRIM f e a t u r e s . The f e a t u r e is assigned to certain [+ACT ] n o u n s , providing an extension of their basic meaning to [ε c o m m u n i c a t i o n ] . Some examples are:

k i c k , tap,

slap, dance, t r o t ,

g r i p , yawn. In matches between these nouns and a d j e c t i v e s ,

the

a d j e c t i v e indicates t h a t the concept denoted by the noun m a n i f e s t s an emotional or corporeal condition experienced by the agent of the basic [+ACT ] sense of the n o u n , for example: an a n g r y / f u r i o u s / f r i e n d l y k i c k , tap,

slap;

a weary trot; a nervous g r i p , a h u n g r y

yawn. Π ε sound, £ p h y s ] : [ G communication]].

T h i s f e a t u r e also involves

a s h i f t of sense on the level of L P R I M f e a t u r e s o n l y . It

is

a t t r i b u t e d to a number of (ε s o u n d ] n o u n s , the most i m p o r t a n t of which are:

cry, s h o u t , y e l l , scream, l a u g h t e r , snort. In matches

w i t h a d j e c t i v e s the a d j e c t i v e indicates t h a t the agent involved in the

I+ACT, + P H , ε s o u n d ] sense of the noun experiences an

emotional state m a n i f e s t e d by the action denoted by the n o u n , for example: an a n g r y / j o y f u l

cry,

shout; happy laughter; a contemp-

tuous snort. 11ε bodyptl:[E expression]].

Through t h i s f e a t u r e a m a j o r

shift

of sense is brought about, since the L P R I M f e a t u r e of the basic sense of these n o u n s is dominated by l+CONC ]. The f e a t u r e applies to a very limited group of n o u n s , notably: h a n d , face, eye, mouth. In matches w i t h a d j e c t i v e s ,

the a d j e c t i v e indicates t h a t the part

of the body m a n i f e s t s some emotional or corporeal state experienced by the human being involved: nervous hands; sleepy eyes; sad face, angry mouth. [t+H]:[+STA]].

T h i s f e a t u r e can be attributed to a great many

n o u n s which also have the GEN f e a t u r e [ [ + H ] : [ + A C T ] ] as well as to some others, such as f o o l , rogue, brute, bastard, knave, f r i e n d , stranger, s a i n t . The [+STATE ] extension stands for the typical property or properties associated

w i t h the basic sense of the n o u n .

57

The feature f u n c t i o n s as a CONT f e a t u r e of [e degree] adjectives. In matches with these adjectives, the adjective denotes the degree to which the human being possesses the property associated with the basic sense of the n o u n , for example: a true poet; a genuine preacher; an utter fool; a perfect knave; a real f r i e n d ; an absolute stranger; a rank t r a i t o r . For some of the nouns mentioned above ( f o o l , knave, rogue, brute) it seems h a r d l y possible to occur w i t h a basic I + H 1 sense; thus combinations like a tall fool and an angry knave are u n l i k e l y . To these n o u n s , whose semantic f u n c t i o n seems to be p r i m a r i l y a d j e c t i v a l , we therefore p r e f e r to assign only t h e G E N f e a t u r e I ( + H J : I + S T A J 1 a n d n o t t h e basic t + H ] sense. I t - S H , -ART 1:1-ACT 1 1. This f e a t u r e is assigned to the nouns r a i n , snow, h a i l and extends the basic sense of these n o u n s , which d e f i n e s them as r e f e r r i n g to a substance (possibly their less f r e q u e n t sense) so as to have them also r e f e r to events. As such, they can be m o d i f i e d by a d j e c t i v e s h a v i n g the LPRIM f e a t u r e s [ε f r e q u e n c y ] , I 6 temp, o r d e r ] or [ £ m o d a l i t y ] as in: recurrent/occasional/subsequent/possible

r a i n , snow, h a i l .

[|+CONC]:(£ location]). This f e a t u r e is given to nouns which all include the H P R I M f e a t u r e I + C O N C ] in their basic sense, e x t e n d i n g this sense in such a m a n n e r that it is also viewed as a location where c e r t a i n conditions may o b t a i n , people may experience emotional states, and a c t i v i t i e s may be performed in a c e r t a i n m a n n e r . It is assigned to the f o l l o w i n g classes of nouns: ( 1 ) [-AN, COLL], e.g.: wood, f o r e s t , j u n g l e ; ( 2 ) [ ς b u i l d i n g ] e.g.: prison, house, o f f i c e ; (3) [e b u i l d i n g , C O L L ] , e.g.: street, square, town, v i l l a g e ; (4) I + S H , - A R T ] , e.g.: m o u n t a i n , rock, r i v e r , v a l l e y , shore. The GEN f e a t u r e of these nouns is used in combinations like a sunny street; a hot valley; a w i n d y mountain; a r a i n y forest; a happy town; a c h e e r f u l house; a quiet square; a noisy o f f i c e .

58

As the above discussion of GEN features shows, it is not always possible to accurately specify the extension of meaning of i n d i v i d u a l lexical items; the f a c t that we want to make the features as general as possible prevents us from doing so. T h i s does not mean, however, that it is impossible to i d e n t i f y the typical extension associated with the basic sense of a lexical item. In f a c t , we only assign a GEN f e a t u r e in those cases where the possibility of i d e n t i f y i n g the typical extension does exist. Even when we use a general label like [ + A C T ] on the r i g h t - h a n d side of the colon, it is easy enough to i d e n t i f y the typical activity associated w i t h the basic sense by means of the LPRIM f e a t u r e of t h a t sense, even w i t h o u t u s i n g test-questions of the k i n d suggested above (see p.51, f n . ) . Thus there can be h a r d l y any disagreement about the typical activities associated with the basic senses of words like p i a n i s t , s a i l o r , k n i f e or needle. When these nouns co-occur with an a d j e c t i v e like good, there can be no doubt that the adjective refers to the activities denoted by play the p i a n o , s a i l , c u t , sew, respectively (1) . Good, in a good p i a n i s t , could not possibly refer to any other activities in which the pianist might engage, such as d r i v i n g a car, raising his c h i l d r e n , p l a y i n g t e n n i s , and so on. In some cases, however, more t h a n one typical activity may be associated with the basic sense of a n o u n , with the result that the reading yielded by a match between such a noun and an a d j e c t i v e may be ambiguous. For example, a d i f f i c u l t letter may refer either to a letter which is d i f f i c u l t to w r i t e , or to a letter which is d i f f i c u l t to read. In such a case, the ambiguity can only be resolved by the wider context. It is clear t h a t there are many nouns which cannot, in i s o l a t i o n , be associated w i t h a typical activity or state, in other words, there are many nouns to which we cannot assign a GEN f e a t u r e , f o r , as we have pointed out, in the lexical entry for a given word we can only specify those elements of meaning which are predictable. However, the fact that a given noun does not have an extension of meaning in the lexicon does not preclude the

(1) As we have already pointed out ( p p . 4 6 - 4 7 ) , the case-relations involved may be d i f f e r e n t .

59

p o s s i b i l i t y of its being associated with a particular activity or state by means of the context in which it occurs. A phrase like a good stick is practically ' m e a n i n g l e s s ' in isolation, because we cannot predict what a c t i v i t y is associated with the basic sense of stick and q u a l i f i e d by the a d j e c t i v e . O n l y in context can it be established whether the stick is good to lean on, to make a f i r e w i t h , to beat a dog w i t h , or whatever other a c t i v i t y in which the stick could be involved as an ' i n s t r u m e n t ' . To be able to account for such cases, where the lexical entry for a noun does not provide an extension to l+ACT] or [ + S T A 1 and where such an extension is needed by the predicational relator of the a d j e c t i v e co-occurring with the n o u n , we use t r a n s f e r ( T R ) f e a t u r e s . TR f e a t u r e s , t h e r e f o r e , are not f o u n d in the lexicon but can only originate in readings; they provide an extension of meaning for a noun whenever the noun co-occurs with a predicational relator that c a l l s for such an extension of meaning

. When, for example,

a predicational relator specifies the predicational force of an adjective as being that of a manner adverbial, an extension to [+ACT] is created in the reading with a noun which does not have I + A C T ] as a P R I M f e a t u r e or as part of a GEN feature. When a predicational relator specifies the predicational force of an adjective as being that of a degree adverbial, the noun w i t h which the a d j e c t i v e co-occurs receives an extension to [+STA] in the reading. To d i s t i n g u i s h such ad hoc, contextually motivated extensions of meaning f r o m GEN f e a t u r e s specified in the lexicon, (1) Weinreich (1972:61-65) was the f i r s t to introduce the concept of t r a n s f e r f e a t u r e s . It should be noted that our use of the term d i f f e r s f r o m his. With Weinreich, t r a n s f e r f e a t u r e s are specified as such in the lexicon. They are features belonging to the set of features d e f i n i n g a particular sense of a lexical item; when such a sense is used in syntactic colligation with a second lexical e n t r y , the t r a n s f e r f e a t u r e is given to the second entry. Thus herd would be defined as 'group 1 < * l i v e s t o c k 1 > (where the angular brackets indicate that the f e a t u r e is a t r a n s f e r f e a t u r e ) . In the phrase herd of a n i m a l s , the f e a t u r e < ' l i v e s t o c k 1 > is transferred to a n i m a l s , so that herd of a n i m a l s = ' g r o u p of livestock". In our model there is no question of a direct t r a n s f e r f r o m one lexical item to another; TR f e a t u r e s do not form part of lexical entries, but originate in readings through the application of contextual rules.

60

the label TR is prefixed to the extended sense of the noun used in the reading. T h u s the sense of stick in the reading of good stick is specified as: [ t + S H , - A R T l : TR l+ACT ] ] , whereas the extended sense for wrench, for example, is simply [ [ £ i n s t r u m e n t ) : [+ACT]]. To say that u n d e r the proper conditions nouns d e n o t i n g living beings, obje_cts and substances can undergo an extension of meaning to [+ACT ] or [+STA ] is, of course, to make a prediction about the semantic value these words may have in context. S t i l l , we do not want to account for such c o n t e x t u a l l y determined extensions by means of a t t r i b u t i n g a specific f e a t u r e to such words in the lexicon, because of the impossibility to f u r t h e r specify the I + A C T 1 or ( +STA ] e l e m e n t . For in the case of TR f e a t u r e s t h i s i m p o s s i b i l i t y is due to the n a t u r e of these idiosyncratic extensions and n o t , as in other cases, to a lack of sophistication in our f e a t u r e system. We t h e r e f o r e p r e f e r merely to observe that certain nouns have the potential of creating an extended sense and to elicit t h i s extended sense in readings through certain c o n t e x t u a l r u l e s , rather than e n t e r i n g a " m e a n i n g l e s s 1 - because m u l t i p l y ambiguous - f e a t u r e in the lexicon . 2.2.2

Secondary f e a t u r e s and e v a l u a t i v e f e a t u r e s

SEC f e a t u r e s are used to account for extensions of meaning which are i n t u i t i v e l y recognized as metaphorical. In this section we shall m a i n l y deal w i t h metaphorical senses that have become l e x i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e d , that is, w i t h cases of 'dead m e t a p h o r s ' . However, in discussing the SEC features we employ in the present model, we shall also have to deal w i t h the question of how they have originated. We shall t h e r e f o r e also examine certain regular metaphorization processes that can produce new metaphorical extensions of m e a n i n g . The l i n e between metaphorical and non-metaphorical extensions of meaning is not always easy to draw, and in some cases the

(1) For a formal discussion of how elicitation of TR f e a t u r e s occurs, see the section on predicational relators in t h i s chapter and chapter 3.

61

d i s t i n c t i o n is rather arbitrary; some of the extensions of meaning that we indicate by means of SEC features appear to be more ' r e g u l a r ' and can be more easily accounted for than others. In general, however, we can say t h a t what d i s t i n g u i s h e s metaphorical from non-metaphorical extensions is the fact that in metaphorical extensions of meaning the whole or part of the basic sense of a lexical item is backgrounded ( a n d replaced by the metaphorical s e n s e ) , whereas in extensions that are accounted for by means of (1) GEN f e a t u r e s the basic sense is not backgrounded . Thus ( 2 . 2 4 ) , where the SEC sense of fox is used, is not contradictory, whereas ( 2 . 2 5 ) , w i t h the GEN f e a t u r e of p i a n i s t , is: (2.24) (2.25)

Peter is a f o x , but he is not an a n i m a l Peter is a good p i a n i s t , but he is not a person.

We d i s t i n g u i s h two m a j o r types of SEC f e a t u r e s : e x p e r i e n t i a l and symbolic f e a t u r e s . We have an experiential extension of meaning in those cases where the experience that human beings have of the concept denoted by the basic sense of a lexical item enables them to relate a part of t h i s sense to another concept or class of concepts ( 2 ) . In a symbolic extension of m e a n i n g , on the other h a n d , the r e l a t i o n between basic and extended sense appears to be completely arbitrary and idiosyncratic. It is for example possible, as we shall see, to account in semantic terms for the f a c t t h a t an a d j e c t i v e like b l i n d has the extended sense ' u n h e e d i n g ' (where the n e g a t i v e p r e f i x paraphrases the part of the basic sense of b l i n d which is r e t a i n e d , standing for the negative element in b l i n d ) , but it is impossible to provide a semantic e x p l a n a t i o n for the f a c t that an a d j e c t i v e like square has the extended sense 1 conservative'. The f i r s t type of experiential extension of meaning shows some s i m i l a r i t y to the extensions which have been accounted for

(1) T h i s is not true of the pars pro toto extensions of meaning discussed in the preceding section. Perhaps these extensions had better be regarded as metaphorical. (2) This idea, u n d e r l y i n g our postulation of experiential SEC f e a t u r e s , also forms the basis of D i k ' s (1974) notion of " i n d u c t i v e generalisation", which he uses to account for historical s h i f t s of meaning.

62

by the GEN f e a t u r e

11+H ]:I+STA1J

and the TR f e a t u r e i n t r o d u c i n g

[+STA 1 in r e a d i n g s . As we saw in the

preceding section, a TR

f e a t u r e of the f o r m I [ X ] : T R t + S T A ] ] can be elicited by the

adjective

in an adjective-noun r e a d i n g to r e f e r to properties of the concept denoted by [X] which are not l e x i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e d , but referred to in the wider context of the a d j e c t i v e - n o u n c o m b i n a t i o n . When the [ + S T A ] element r e f e r s to a property typically associated with the basic sense of the noun (i.e. contextually established)

when it

we account for

does not need to be it

by means of a GEN

f e a t u r e which is entered in the lexicon. N o w , besides the nouns to which t h i s GEN f e a t u r e is assigned there is another group of n o u n s which have a l e x i c a l l y integrated extension of meaning referring

to some property associated w i t h the basic sense of the

noun. Some examples of such nouns, most of which denote a n i m a l s , and t h e i r extended meanings are: ass;

' s t u p i d ' ; chicken:

fox:

~TT) ; "cowardly"

' s l y ' ; cat; rat;

"vicious1;

— 'mean';

lamb; ' m e e k ' ; / p \

snake: ' t r e a c h e r o u s ' ; worm; It

'abject';

tiger; 'aggressive'

.

should be noticed that there is no need for paraphrases like

' s l y p e r s o n ' , ' v i c i o u s p e r s o n ' , etc.,

because s e m a n t i c a l l y these

extended senses can only f u n c t i o n as adjectives;

t h a t is,

they

cannot be used to denote persons, they only serve to predicate a p a r t i c u l a r property of a person. The reason why we treat such senses as SEC rather than GEN extensions is in the f i r s t place, as we have already pointed out, t h a t in the SEC f e a t u r e the basic sense of the lexical item is backgrounded, whereas in a GEN f e a t u r e is not. Moreover, a GEN f e a t u r e r e f e r s to a property which

it

is

t y p i c a l l y associated w i t h the basic sense of the noun, whereas these extensions are a r b i t r a r i l y associated w i t h the noun. Foxes may be sly,

but they are also f a s t and rapacious; there seems to

(1) The a d j e c t i v a l character of the extended sense of chicken is m a n i f e s t e d s y n t a c t i c a l l y by the fact that the i n d e f i n i t e article can be l e f t out: he is chicken. (2)

Occasionally human proper names are used in the same w a y , for example: he is a Hitler, our President is no Lincoln. Cf. also Geach (1968:42): "A proper name is never used predicat i v e l y - u n l e s s it ceases to be a proper name, as in "He is a Napoleon of finance" or ( F r e g e ' s example) "Trieste is no Vienna"; in such cases the word a l l u d e s to certain a t t r i b u t e s of the object customarily designated by the proper name".

63

be no p a r t i c u l a r reason for selecting slyness as their most typical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . In John is a f o o l , John is a s a i n t the nouns f o o ^ and s a i n t may be said to name the property a t t r i b u t e d to J o h n , but we cannot say t h a t f o x or rat

name the

of slyness or meanness in John is a f o x , John is a

properties rat.

N o t a t i o n a l l y , these SEC e x t e n s i o n s of m e a n i n g are represented by a f e a t u r e of the f o l l o w i n g form: (2.26)

[> SEC ' _ x ' , [ + H ] ]

which is to be interpreted as "has developed the l e x i c a l l y integrated metaphorical extension to the basic sense of * _ x ' " , where '£' stands for an a d j e c t i v e . it

When the f e a t u r e is used in a m a t c h i n g ,

replaces the P R I M f e a t u r e s c o n s t i t u t i n g the basic sense of the

item to which it

is a t t r i b u t e d by the P R I M f e a t u r e s of the basic

sense of ' x_' , w h i l e the o r i g i n a l set of PRIM f e a t u r e s is backgrounded. Since extended senses of t h i s type t y p i c a l l y apply to (11

human r e f e r e n t s , we add [ + H ] to the f e a t u r e in ( 2 . 2 6 ) .

l+H ]

stands for the reference class of the noun of which the a d j e c t i v e is predicated. Thus the metaphorically extended sense of fox represented

is

by [> SEC ' s l y ' , l + H ] l , t h a t of snake by

[ > SEC ' t r e a c h e r o u s ' , l + H ] ] , and so on ( c f . the discussion of old star (3.21) and eloquent star ( 3 . 5 9 . 5 ) ) . There is a special group of a d j e c t i v e s which are morphologically derived f r o m [+AN ] nouns and which can be looked upon as lexical r e a l i z a t i o n s of the metaphorical senses discussed in the above paragraph. By the side of f o x , for example, we have f o x y

to

denote the extended sense ' s l y ' , and the lexical r e a l i z a t i o n of the extended sense of cat is catty. The coincidence of morphological and semantic extension is not general, however; for instance, we do not have denominal adjectives

to denote the extended senses

of lamb and chicken. C o n v e r s e l y , there are also adjectives which derive their sense f r o m a metaphorical extension of the corresponding n o u n , although the noun does not have t h i s extension as a

(1) In some cases, however, a more restricted reference class has to be associated w i t h the extended sense, as, for i n s t a n c e , for the extended sense of cat, which is assigned the f e a t u r e I-Ml.

64

lexically integrated sense, e.g.:

m u l i s h , sheepish, bearish.

These a d j e c t i v e s have, respectively, the meanings ' s t u b b o r n ' , ' s t u p i d 1 and ' g r u f f , which are properties associated w i t h the a n i m a l s denoted by the root of the adjectives. That the nouns do not have these a d j e c t i v a l meanings as l e x i c a l l y integrated extensions appears f r o m the f a c t that sentences like John is a sheep/bear/mule are h a r d l y acceptable as normal r e a d i n g s . It

should

be noted t h a t t h i s group of d e n o m i n a l a d j e c t i v e s does not have the " l i t e r a l 1 sense of ' b e l o n g i n g to ...'. In other words, they are not related to the basic, but only to the extended senses of the corresponding nouns. To r e f e r

to the basic senses of the

l + A N ] n o u n s , a d j e c t i v e s of L a t i n origin are used. Thus we have the f o l l o w i n g pairs of noun and a d j e c t i v e r e f e r r i n g

to the basic

sense of the n o u n : c a t - f e l i n e , b e a r - u r s i n e , dog-canine, wormvermicular, rat-rodent(ial), tiger-tigrine / ^ . In the f e a t u r e representing the meaning of these adjectives l i k e f o x y , c a t t y , etc.,

we use the notation [

|

1

•H r-H

1

(0

1

O 10

0) £

-

1 '

| 11

r.

0)

«.

4J

ω α.

1

11

>s,

0)

CO

-P

1

1 1

1

^

1

rH 3

-

l! '

•H

X)

.

xT |

-P

1

υ . •H |

„

-^α '1

i ι

rH

01

-P

0)

C •H

>

rH U

CO

ο

Μ Η

υ Η Οί

Ε-"

ω OL

I |

C

(0

•rH

l

E

1

ε

'

-u

. I

>

U

3 -P •M

-H C 3

Ό

Ε

-P fB

J ·—) Η Χ

υ

Η 2 Ο

υ

r*

ι I

υ •Η

.

O

ω

(β υ Λ; ·Η

L, -Ρ

' Ι

XI IB

Ι '

C 0)

rH

-P

IB -P

0) U

in 3 ω

1 1 1 1

>

H J

•—·

1

Ο

ω

(M

Η

,_,-

Η U Ο CO CO

ε

•H Ό

U)

ce ω α. ce

1 1

U -P

I

1

1

1

E

l

ο

I

"

1 1

en 1

—

C

1

S-4

•H

|

01

ε , § — υ

•H

|

IK

»

I

|

1 I1

m ·** _^ U

o

L) «—· |

1

Ul

1_J

Λ

f

J_

t

I

11

~_l

+

l

|

1 ~ | |

1 1 1

1

·· vH

ω >

O.

I




3

-P

1

—

"ίο

(0

IK

C 0 •H

Li 3 T3

Ll

3 T3

u, "

Μ

V.

98 Ο -Ρ

— ε

·. Χ) Ε

».

ε χ ω

0) 3

ε ·»

ΜΗ

u -P

Χ!

>

(0

x:

-p

to

2 Ο Η ΕΗ

υ Η

ΕΗ

2 Ο U

Ι

S

α ω Ε-^ υ

EU

C/l

d) -p

M n Q i O U X :

^ 3 O d )

o cu co

·

E H |

3 ΜΗ *

α. i-l ο υ UI

d) ·Η

MnOCJ Τ3 Ll

v1

-α:

SH α, CU - H l

^H4->GUJdl

U O -H — x:

c3

x:

'HdJ

5 4 J -

MH

CUO

-P

4Jrd

X O — d l ' H I E H 3i-l -HOi-H^^CO 3—^2 d) tO Ό ι—Ι >* ι-Η ^ιΟ Ο. ) O4- d) C O d l U O O

d)x:MH-H ωχ: di ij U >"D > 4 J ( U 4 J d l ro -H d) -H c -.H m x: c > ^ f~^ -|J "3 ι ι φ [ ι >Γ^ .,_( · d)34JUO U3 O4J r

• ~iLU>

1 "I + _

2 < Η·—

c

1 •

1

O

codl

E H XI Ό — X ! < l £

•—·

• c o u



3 O + 4 - 1 ·

-P ·Ή '—'

ο Η
•H 4->·

Ι

MH >, 3 4J ΜΗ

U co cr> d>

«. ^X,

dl

—

fO EH Ή

co

— 3C 2 < + 4^^ *—

(0

X: VJI

Ό

,Q|

—

—

i-i fO — U

T3 - d) >. 4->

d)

d)

>α

ro u ~ c

». σ( •H

___

ΕΗ Η

3— ·

ro

-H -P

dl

(t) x: d) 3 "

•I—1

>

O D i-ι

i-ι

ι—Ι

CO

r-H

>. ro

ο

ro -P

x: d)

4-> *-

». W 3

x: di + .^-ρωω.-ρ— -P — — d) l υ x: I-H w

^H

ω

ΕΗ

dl Li

+ 4J d)

u ο x: w

OC. ΕΗ W

1

C ·—· CO ΙΛ

d)

«Η

d) 0)

>^

x:

CO

x:

ΜΗ τ-ι Ό ΕΗ CO Ζ

o * —* >i

d)

d)

dl

α

d)

0 o d) u -POX:

x:

•Η ε ι—Ι ΓΟ

3 ·Η

mu

r

2 Ο

αϊ •ο

•

^ Q.

>

-Ρ -Ρ

di

EH

Ό fO

Ό C

ίο

d> i^ 3

MH

τ>

m

i-l

>, l U) £> ~ - W CJ ·—' rd Ό 2 i-ι "-Η

-ρ Ό

-Ρ

(Ο dl

αχ: _

,.

di diω

αϊ

SH

Ι Επ

3 -Ό

to ω ,ι α

>,

MO)

H K

ω CXI £K

ο,

ω

Qj X

ω

ι

Ι

-^

>·,

α

-

Ο.

Ό

ro -C

-

W •Η

D. (0

S-i

£

ίο

α

0

3

,-H

10

3

ωι

α

S-i

Λ

£Χ

ε χ

τΗ

ρ I

-Ρ

3

·> >»,

ι

Ν (0

1

'

s-i α c - m

m

.-H

3

| 1

-

3 Μ-,

0 .Η

| '

cn

φ

'

I

3 ΜΗ

' |

r*

·> >,

•υ

QJ

S-I

DI C 3 £

'

>, u

O -r-ι

rO

|>^

.

Ο

I

tO W

r—t

\

0

•a

£ 4-)

ι—Ι

^H

s-,

·^>,

Γ"

.

Ο

>.

S-I

I

3

-

ω

c

- ε

••-ι Ό

ι

1

>,

οι

ι

-Ρ 10

Ι

>.

0)

Ι

-Ρ CO

ω

α φ φ r—1 ω

S-ι

·* >^

~ Ό Φ SH

S-I

10 Φ

•Η -Ρ

3

J. "ε ε ο ο

Η ΕΗ

υ Η

α:

ΕΗ

ω κ |

Di χ

η

«^ D ΕΗ Χ

ω

ΕΗ 2

Ο

υ

JL "ε ε ο υ

c Ι ·Η

«-Ν

^^ rH νΗ^

^

Ι

— -Ρ ε·Ή

α. -~ + -a -

C 3

ι ε s-, Η ο

—

U

in

< U) + + I D — —

Ui —.

— 2 Χ +

~ -Η

Ο

υ

,

3


Ι 13 '

α ο |

χ

Φ

χι

Ι

*"" ι UI — Ι

ι ι

3

SH

0)

ω

ω cn

c

J^ c ο •pH (Λ

ω

φ

^-^ CM

S-I

Ι

α χ

ν

Ι •—.

Φ

c ^

0

— |

-P . a I

•Ό C

3

,

ι m l —

•a

EH 2 O

χ u

ω H H U

· ·

Φ τ)

3

Α "

-Η

4-J

ω J κ ω α, κ

Μ

α: α,

1k

2

< ε

rH

u ω

4-1 Ο Ή

rO φ

Ο ·Η 3 4-J Cn XI

φ -t-, C

ΜΗ Τ) (0

rOφ 4-1

O 4J u φυ rfl Λί (0 i-H

-

U O VH

ΕΗ ΜΗ 2 — Ο

c c a: Φ OH cn in

•H ·Η SH

rH llj φ Ή 1 13 φ — C

Γ-Η α

ίο φ in 4 J 2 3 ro 4-ΐ c< α Φ •H -t- in

a c ·Η 3

ΜΗ D 3 3 0 Ο 4-1 — φ U Χ Φ 0) 1 > C T3 £ U 13 3 -H ro C C 4-1 4-1 Ο - φ > οι α 4-> ro ·Η ·ι—ι in •Η φ 3 Φ 4-1 SH 3 4J rH rO ro ro rO Φ £ C Φ Ο Cn £ XI SH O φ 3 13 rd XI I r SH c— Φ £ Φ - £ 4-1 Ο > 4-1 £ 3 •H O 0) •Η φ in 4-1 SH ΜΗ ·ι—ι — C £ ro 4-J 4-1 in E 4-1 ro Ο Φ 4J 3 4-1 ·Η -Η .- -P φ 13 >ι2 Ο ~ Q. ^^ φ 4-J D-£ ΜΗ ·Η •Η Ο α (0 < ·,- 4-1 3 -Ρ 4-1 SH 10 in U l-l 4-1 Ο ro 13 £ 10 l C r φ in C — ro φ CM 3 — ·Φ 4-J Ι ·Η rH - ce MH Cn Ll 0 - 2 IM SHΦ £ ΕΗ— -Ρ C U rH O) a. O C φ φ >1< Κ φ ι—ι -t- d, ΜΗ φ 13 Ο Φ rH 4-1 φ 13 -H £ Χ! ο .. rH C U 4-> ι-Η ·Η •Η ·— ΜΗ 4-1 SH rH •Η 4-1 rfl -P SH l SH ·Η rO 3 rH E ro in c E in O ro ·Η ro cn φ ro Φ Φ £ φ ro rfl Ο Ό £ ΟΦ QJ ·ι—( (/) ·ι-\ 4-J -H 4-1 Cn in c ΜΗ U I X φ > C — IH U) Φ •H in c Φ u φ ·Η 0 SH OT Ο φ Χ ·Η — 13 Φ 4-J φ SH ε Φ W Ο Χ) C r -H SH in U ro in rO >,i3 ro a. Φ ro £ Ο — £ ΜΗ Ο Φ ro c 4-> χ £ 4-1 Φ Φ rH Ο φ φ U CO I 4-J Ο ΜΗ «^ ε 3 m φ 3 ·Η 0 C SH rO 4-1 E X! —

ε + Φ

f~ *.

rH

^_,

Ο ro

ν

to ω a, ro

Χ|4-> - -Η 4-1 ΜΗ 4-1

ω

Η

cc

0

H EH Q
, 4) — £ rH -"-i tt) X) 73 MH £ 10 73 -H r O O C cd

CΚ

ι

to CD u* -P 3 -P — 41 ΜΗ ·Η c 4) > O -H 4) u -H 3 > ro JJ U > tt)

υω

rΜ

'

3

rH

-Η

4) ι > £ 1

Μ-ι

C

tn 73 4) ro >

Ι

73

ro Q.JJtt) £

rH

4)

ω 4)

tt) Li -H tt) JJ -H C £ 4) Q,

£ ro 3 Ή

4)

1

to

-p

3

3

4! O U 73 C ·Η C Ι ΜΗ 3 tt) ΜΗ > ·Η

|

4) Λ tt) U MH ro 73 0) JJ 3 C rfl 4) K CO 73 >ι 0 n) MH 2 £ O, 3 i-l tO c E ^^ · ·>-> _ Q, £

tt) O

lj

11

·*

rji

rH

ex

101

1 tn·

rH

EC

73

- 3

-P £

r-

1

υ •Hc

tt)

.

1

>.

anno

4j f.

—

rH ·Η

ff^ ^H

^,

r—1

ro ^>

4) ID

C £

Ο -Ρ

.,

1

p «

£ C 3

jj

1U^

X

^

10

•D v. rH O O

U v.

ε

r/5

ω

W •H

O

LI

-

73 rH O U

Cd

^ -P

O

in

>,

·*

N

L, T3

O

3

rd Li

13

C

to

-

3 to

>. G.

-H L, 3 ΜΗ

>.

·Η

d)

Cu

Cu

Ll

Ll

DI

Ό C

Ό

α:

Ό rO

LI

3

£

"—'

d>

0) Ό

C

c

ο

3

rO

0)

0) tt) tO

vH•

•H

Cu ^ r-l

•H

4-1

rH v^

-P

rH

U

rO

H-

1

-H

..

O

>. -P

X +

[d Cu +

U

ro

1

di υ — •π ·Η (J Ό

(d

Li O ΜΗ

Q. K

>ι ω

CU HtO — rd 1

cu

•f-l

Ό Li

o

MH

tn — — rO

• CM

T3 C

Ό

·Η

£

-Ρ

ε rd 3

£

01

3

UJ

U*

U*

*~·

*·^

^^

~~

c

c\i

O

K CU

·Η 4-1 O

i

d) ω

αζ

Ll

CU

C

C

rH

A

C D ro 0

ro >

[-

1

Li -H 0)

·

CM

•H

3

U M Q Cd

o: cd

Li -H 4-1

K

2 O

U

£ C 3

10

K

^>1

-P •H 10 O

c ·Η

•

«—1

3

ro ω

rH

X EH H

υ

in

rH

αϊ L,

10

Ή

·Η

ε

•Η 4J ΓΟ

υ ο

~

£ -P

r~ 4-1

C

•rH

u

1

Ή

.—t

—

0

Cd EH

l

ο

rd

[H

td u o

rO U 0

^

tO

£ 4-1 •H

c

•H

-Ρ

-H

Ο

«—·

o

c

d)

3 >,

cu

•-^

~^

o H

*σ> c

cu

|

·Η

cd

·ΊΗ

C\J

ι

Ll

c

C

>i

- ο -σ

3

»k

cn c

·Η

rH

tO

>< rH r-H

ε ·Η

Γ>·

··

·"Ό ·Η

•Η

ro

C Q) Ό Ό

CM

o:

to

-P £ rjl

s: .D £

-H

α ro £

>,

>. N N •H T3

3

W

C - c

- > >, 3 c O ·Η

en - C σ> -Η c -P

N 3

-H

C -H

^^

>ι .ν rH

0) 3

rO Li 3 rd (U κ rH

S χ

«i-*

4-1 Ό

^|

CU

α α rd £ c

>
^

ε ε

Ό

σ> c

»* -

O

CM K

Cu

u

· Q. L,

tl ωs

|

1

SH

XT

73

rH

73 Φ Μ

χ:

Φ

^ 10 φ

in Φ >

73 χ: E rfl

103 ^-ι 4-1 C— rH

in in - φ x: Φ 4-J φ SH 4-1 O W 3 0 ro -P SH φ φ •Ή SH O c rO in o SH C u Ο 3 χ: SH 3 ω 3 c Φ C C 3 MH χ: ο 3 •—· τΗ -Ρ CX 4-1 Ο < rH 4-1 73 U -μ χ: ·Ή X) ro 4-J -H O rO 3 Cn u x: ro 4-J 4-i c in φ σ EH σ r φ r-H U r 73 -Ρ ΙΗ r C H U ro σ Φ r φ 4-1 Φ U O — SH CJ -H SH MH c c S-ι '-^ OT C φ 3 O ΜΗ • •H rO in MH + 3 ε 0 1 ο Φ c 4J χ: c in φ 73 •H c C O W 73 3 MH ιη d.^-' O c ·· -μ ο Ό 3 C x: O 73 V Ο α 3 ro U •rH t—. c O 4-J m u ιη 3 c Ο 0) Ο U ro C Ό ·Η ε rO CJ U 73 φ cn —·· C φ ro φ SH Λί f. * ..H -P -rl IJ SH O ο 73 o 73 Φ C 73 •—· in o (D 1 O 73 o 73 Χ! -Η φ X-f ro c c σ SH U 73 ΜΗ ·Η C 73 Q. Q. Φ φ 4-1 o c 3 73 C rH H rH in χι ε in X) c O C rO MH rO 3 > O) S-l C) .H -HU in in C X) ro — x: in •H Ή -Ρ 4-1 (Ο O 3 Φ i—1 CJ 10 in Φ r U' P φ 4-1 C rO Ο in U Cn · O x: er -P •H ο r φ Φ C c r x: -P C U Q- > U> 4-1 O >i^-* •H O Λ; ro U C "H 0)

— Cn

-Ρ

-P 73 · ·Η

D c s-ι c c in 3

-μ C

•

· pV

0)

,-x

•rH

•rH

C

Φ r-H

•H

rH

3

•H

-

ro X! U

ω cn r c

X) -H 73

ro r

Φ

C SH Φ φ rH 3 ro -P U

•H Φ φ -H ro Φ -H 73 in 73 3 73 C 73 ΜΗ r-H x: ro ΜΗ Ε ••-..Q SH •rH 73 C 73 r in φ X) rfl ΕΗ ι 1 -P α,-μ ιη φ 73 O φ rfl x; x: D. SH S-ι CJ -H φ K U D •H ^^ 3 ro -P x: 2 3 r O CJ Ο O -P x: n o Sj o 73 • · 4-J Φ Q, Ο Ο x: Φ ε rH SH CnOT 3 ΜΗ U MH U χ: -P α ο Φ -μ c D ΤΗ .ρ ·ι—. rjj Λ: r φ · 4-1 ~ φ— CM ε ro U U •rH •H · (V 4-J ιη W φ φ ro SHK U φ x: in o I-H 73 ΜΗ Ή ,Λί in MH ·— in 3 ·Η (0 MH 4-1 r O 01 -H 10 10 - r 73 3 in SH XI φ CC - - 73 x: c ro 4-1 MH ~^ U ΓΙ Φ O -Ρ Χ) r >, X ro 1X1 73 O CM Cn CE SH a, XJ ΜΗ 3 rfl ε Φ CI + X) 73 -P 3 in r n U O l_| rO -Ρ Cn ,ν x: — n: cj ε κ in o. O Φ 73 4J 2 •r—t · >1 OJ C -Ρ ·Η •4-J «^-^ r o, > α, ο α 0) >1 in - C 73MH · 0 73 MH -Ρ φ Ο •H . 3 3 r-l x: r-H cn c rfl U C in 73 SH -H r rH -P C 73 * 4J CM C (0 in ij c 0) 4-> o r 4-1 r-H ^-~ r c Φ r φ φ Φ Φ 0 α c x: . 1 •H _C ro •H c) o > s-i υ x: SH ΙΗ X) U (0 4-1 C ro ce Φ Φ in 73 ·Η r Φ cn-H x: cn 3 O Φ Φ Ο C~ [-1| Φ SH φ U K -73 -P 73 4-1 ·Η _p * -Ρ C α: .ρ χ: m o. f~^ •H ω 4-1 r 3 φ -P C ro 3 U Ο C Φ -Ρ 4-J 73 Q, --H O O >. 4J— α, C l) >, in MH CT SH •r-l SH 17) 01 SH X) cn|73 in x: 3 -P C Ο CJ 3 MH 73 cn φ SH •ri in SH ro O - φ 10 rH C C CJ -P -P C φ -P . , £> SH -Ρ O r ro ΜΗ O -P -P C 10 — Χ) ·Η C •—· MH i-H -H Ή ro Φ Φ MH 73 Φ SH ro -H 1 o > Φ £> 3 U 1 rj -H c 0) in 0) r S-ι r Φ X) -U -Ρ Cn Ο Ο Φ XT Φ φ Φ C SH ΜΗ •H -P ω χ: ο C) 73 0 Η Φ χ: Ε "~ K Φ C C -P 3 XT SH ΜΗ O

ε

— H > rH 73

.r-i 4-i rO

cn •rH

X > SH t -p C in

i-H

r

CJ

c

•H rH

*^r

1

tt)

r 73

73 4-1 ε o

C ro 3 SH

c φ

ο ε

ε in

ω α, + —

ε

φ

ο ι o υ

ε

ε ·Η c c

φ

c φ

o

ο

u

φ

u

ε φ φ

α >,

-Ρ ε Φ ·Η

ε

α c rH u cj 4-1 x:

-μ ro •H i-H α: Cn •H in 4-i o u ω Ε ·Η > (0 φ 73 x: x; 3 ro α, — cn Sj 73 O c CJ 73 φ r in 73 Φ Φ 73 C ^> Φ c U SH ·—ι χ: r α ο. ο in SH c -H O c O r X) O > ^x Φ 4-1 φ (0 r X) SH 10 ·Η Ο. ·ιΗ ·Η •rH 17) 73 73 in in o -p φ > -H ιη -P O κ r—ι Ο 73 SH ^- χ; 4J 4J C i-H •H Φ E α 3 ro 73 ro in x: Φ SH -P SH r O — EH r Φ α in r Φ Ο x: ro χ: χ: 73 φ ro MH κ XT C Ο 73 in -H U 3 φ Φ ro Φ Φ SH rfl 4- C E s cn EH ·· SH U > SH φ 3 CD U C -H 73 01 O •H x: ro m υ Χ -p 4J SH χ: r rO c cn O 3 C ---i C >, υ SH C •H χ: Φ ο u i-H φ in in SH υ cn O 73 · o U r Φ -H C Φ 2 XI In -P SH in x: -H SH < 4-1 O U Φ r E Φ— Φ (UDO C U ro ·—· -P x: αχ: υ = C -P ί> ί> · ·Η c χ: 3 φ ;> SH to r 4-) 73 3 I χ: φ MH u ro 3 Φ 4-1 Φ 73r Ο Φ •H ·Η C Q. 4-1 C C o; x: 3 -P (0 SH •Η O φ SH Φ r -μ __ MH D,-r-\ in X 4-1 x: in χ: Ε Φ ro — •H r 73 C -P -P O SH in -H rO ω 4-J c x: -p x: in 73 SH *. u υ Ή ο Ή ro α, 3 -Ρ Φ 4-1 Φ υ Q. •rH Q. O SH -μ ro ro Φ 73 Cn η Γ-Η -P MH CD -P r-H χ: φ ro 3 ΜΗ Φ (1) -P υ 73 4-J C in E O 4-1 Φ SH •r—t -f—i o SH QJ O C U Φ ro MH CJ C Φ -Ρ •ι—ι -μ CT Φ Φ l£i rO ε ω 4-J Ο Φ ιη φ x: -H SH O -H •Η 73 Φ Φ χ: in χ: κ α: x: cc SH 73 73 E U) Ο Φ XT CJ >. x: ro -P 0 3 X) -P in SH C

•rH

•H

1—1

-rH

1

r—l

φ

•rH

·Η -rH

• rH

l_

< rO φ

Φ

-P

O 2

P U 3(0

MH rO ΜΗ 3 Ό ΜΗ -P 73 -P

υ >. 3

17)

ε

in 4-1 -rH 4-J

ΕΗ Ο,

-P ro a, ro

ι

ΙΟ 4

Ι

ι

^ Ό Φ •ιΗ U

L,

D «. 3 Ο

t/) ω

Ι—l

Ι >. -Ρ

ι Ι

£

ι

ο)

ι

ι

•-φ1

Ι Ι'

•Η Φ

Ι ι ' Ι

,-Η

'

οι ·* 301

Q< *ζ Χ

Λ: u •ιΗ

ω

3

σ ·.

-Ρ

ω ro

Ι

*.

υ •Η

φ •Η C Φ »-Η

.* JJ C

c

α 3 *. Ο Φ 4J σ υ ω

Π) i_|

3

Ο

Φ

Ι

·* Ό 1—1

Ο ·°

•Η U -Ρ W

Ι Ι Ι ιΙ

to

Η Ο

ι ,—,

to ω α: j

,

Η Χ

ω

2

Ο

υ

Ι _ 1

Η " | U ΕΗ < U |

Ι

—

ΕΗ U

— Χ

+

—

Ι

Ι

*""*

··

Ι

Γ~

·—·

ι

Φ >

ΕΗ Ι U |

υι

ι Ι

~ — Ι

ι

' Ι

Ι

Ό

σ -

•σ

3 Ο ^Η

Ή

M

•^ φ

,—| XI

ε

3

Σ.

**

in

•H

D.

ο

3 JJ i-H 3

- ε3 JJ

n

o: α

C Φ

ι-Η •Η 10

φ

^|

c

-

Φ

XI

c-H

-Η

t/i

σ>

c

>. Ό Ό

3

W

•Μ Ο

Φ Φ CO

C

C

3

OT

·Η

3

3 (0 Ο C

Φ

Ι •—·

ΕΗ

υ + . . |

^^ EH L) < + ta^ ·· ~^ X

ι

ι *~^

_

S

>,

—^

^^

£_|

+

U

+

ι

..

χ "υ (Χ ΕΗ
ι

-Ρ

D1

•H x: SH W

i-H ·Η Ή i-H Dl

c ~~ .

,

3 0)

r~ -P

O SH · C 3 *-* 4J >

•H

Φ ro 4J χ: Φ -H

3

in

4J MH C 3

D"

73 ce ε

c

C EH E

•H

ro Φ

> 4-1 73

SH

•H 0 4-1 C Ο

C

υ Φ DI φ >

•H

••-.•Η ro

73 Φ

+

— in

EH O)

0) OC SH H 3

ω

φ ro

4-1

U

I |

1

^ vH *-^

M ω

EH Ο

^-^ CNJ v^

.m —* ^^

•H

EH ^^

U -P

< ra + u

~~ SH EH Q) >

x-^ ^J1 ^^

AH uu · 4-> + >ι •H -P •H

c o; 73

4J

W Φ ^ ro 4J

3 EH -H in φ O U C 0) 3 ;> SH i-H •H 4J 0) 3

x: -P in 4J ro in Φ Φ

73 ΜΗ ι—t C -P 10 CE SH H 0 0) MH > Φ MH

U

0) •i—t 73

ra 0)

-P

4-1 -Ρ

U

01 C 73

•r-, φ i-H

73 > ·Ή

i-H U

MH

0

ro ·Η χ: α

" -H i-H rH XI

0) -H r-l

φ x:

C

4-1

Φ O C 73 IM ro

ε Ο MH C MH

in (U

·—« SH W 4-1 3

ra c ra e c u ro 3 -H > 3 4J

· —· ·

k~

x:

Q,

ro

•rH

in

φ

U -H

Ο

DI U

73 Dl

4-1 •H

^^ *—t EH I U +

SH 3 U C

in ra o φ οι υ •Η χ: Φ x: Φ χ:

73

~° ΧΓ EH

^^

ta—

4-1

•H ce EH c

+

t-H φ

ra

υ +

2

S ι SH O O

r

0 EH 1 U 0
DI ra ce ·

>t C

Di·—· •H

υ—

0 < CC. < ce DI ι C + H + EH C 13 ?* · EH Q! •H rH ι ro - in 01 > · H φ · φ Ι ΜΗ ro cc. x: SH x; ro j- χ: ω ι H £· EH EH 0 EH x: J EH ^ ι

^ rH U ro c 4-> 3 C MH 0) E

3

υ

1

SH C 3 -H U

in c

< + ' υ ro ·Η u c SH Φ φ + — Ι ο U SH 3 3 3 MH •H 0 -P O 4-1 3 ro c ra Φ • 4-1 7 ι Ι "ο! X ΟΙ ·^ οι χ: ^~* ro Φ ^-' rH EH MH ·—· MH 4-1 t-~ Ι ω U 2 5 MH

1

Χ_^

α ω

•H

Ι

ι

I

O 4J| C 0)

OJ

x: x:

2 4-1 3 Ο

Λ

ta—

+ Ό 4-1 73 τ) - ι χ: t«— ··• ra c ro ro 01 O) Φ C Ό ' -Ρ -

1

Κ ΕΗ 10 U Κ

c 30 ce ^^u

L)

ιη

υ Η

3 -P ro 0) MH ·

11

Ι ι1 ω ^^

SH

Ι

.

Μ ΕΗ

3

X -f.

73

I

2 Ο

χ:

ω c

·—·

ro α)

Ό

0)

.-Η

•Η ro

(j

•Η

χ;ε Φ Ι υ+ 3 ε . _

ωε ο

ιη

3

in

χ: 0)

C EH W SH — 01 Ο

MH

ιη ΜΗ (0 01

Ι

ε

4-1

SH

'

3

ε ιη •Η Ο) in I-H -

ι

4J

α ιη

l/l

I

105

ιη

·Η

ω

QJ X!

— Φ 73

ro 4-1 ra

ro -P ro

MH

MH ·· ·· O 4-1 ·

—

x:

·· ..

x:

». IH · φ [^ •H K i-H Q
-P 73 C ra ι—ι Ή ε Φ 73 •H ra φ >, φ χ: ΙΗ -ρ χ:

ro C Φ •H ro *— 73 SH x: Φ Φ u in DI -p α 4-1 73 C C 0 ra I-H Ή•H E Φ 73 •Η ra p, £> 0) >. 0) x: SH -p x:

φ 4J

ΜΗ ·Η χ:

4-1 φ ΜΗ ·Η χ: M 3 4-1

ω Φ < c

4J ω

H 3 -Ρ f~ *. LO

**^

Φ DI

DI ε ·

f~^ *X) S_x

•H

3 ra Dl

s-^

r— ^^

ι

106

οι

ω

Ε

.*

·-

SH 01 -Ρ

SH 01 0)

ι-Η ΓΟ -Ρ

-Ρ .C 3 CO

-Ρ

W

Γ.

cn ω

,ι Cu

Σ ίο

r-H

ίο 0) SH -

Φ

φ -Ρ Φ rH

α

3 ε

Ο r.

Ο

•Η ·—.

C CC

(0

SH Φ > ·* Φ C Ή 3

C

r-|

f~^ τ-t ν^

α: Η cn ω α:

3 Η 0 C Φ

Sn

0

Φ 3 · .C -Ρ ,

•^ -P

Φ υ

Φ in

QJ 3 SH

|

D1 tO

,ι

cn 4.

ι *—·· •—t

ΕΗ

cn + + ·— ι ι

υ

,-~, VH x_x

ω

DJ 02 Ο

** -P

φ φ SH C α

>H

υ ο

rH

C

•iH

ΜΗ

•—·

H ΕΗ

< α

10

•Η

Ο

H EH Q


υ

I

UJ

SH Η

U 3 ω

,

φ >, φ -Ρ £

1

·

— — 1 1

10

Ι

ω to

-H

Ε Φ -σ •Η

, SH , . Ι

0)

Ε-


SEC' f a m o u s ' , t +Hl ) ' ^ ,„. i^„„„. . , ,. (3) I>SEC' star-shaped 1 , I+ARTJ] (1)

E+

...

The f i r s t m a t c h i n g cycle, that is, w i t h the sense (ε celest.body] ( ' c e l e s t i a l b o d y " ) of s t a r , does not yield a normal reading. The metaphorical reading w i t h the a d j e c t i v e as head has the f o l l o w i n g semantic c o n f i g u r a t i o n : (3.59.2)

eloquent

star

lecomm] PR1 - l + H l -

l +H ]

E+

Ι έ celest.body]

(1) In this and many other i l l u s t r a t i o n s , the adjectives selected to denote the extended senses of the nouns ( s u c h as famous and star-shaped) are c l e a r l y o n l y labels for these senses; they should u l t i m a t e l y be replaced by a complete semantic representation of the i n t e n d e d a d j e c t i v a l predication.

188

The basic sense [£celest.body] of the noun has been backgrounded and - 1 + H l - , the CONT feature of the typical PR of eloquent, assigned to the denotative level of star in accordance w i t h (3.57.1.1) and (3.57.1.2). The r e s u l t i n g reading is represented in ( 3 . 5 9 . 3 ) : (3.59.3)

M R - Α : PR1( [+H/E celest.body ],[£ c o m m / E + ] ) "A person has 'eloquence' as a temporary or permanent property, and the speaker's a t t i t u d e towards that person is the same as towards a ' s t a r ' ( i n some respect)."

W i t h the noun-as-head i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the phrase exhibits the f o l l o w i n g semantic c o n f i g u r a t i o n : (3.59.4)

eloquent

star

USTA,+PH,Ev+]

l e celest.body]

PRl

Ι ε comm 1

...

PRl - I + H l -

The basic sense of the adjective and its typical PR have been backgrounded in accordance with rule ( 3 . 5 7 . 2 . 1 ) . P R l , the typical PR of [ + C O N C ] ( t h e f e a t u r e d o m i n a t i n g I + S H , - A R T ,£ celest.body] of star) has been assigned to the denotative level of eloquent, together with the f e a t u r e s I + S T A , + P H ) representing the typical CONT restriction of PRl ( r u l e s 3.57.2.2 and 3.57.2.3). The f e a t u r e [ E v + J , created on the basis of the connotative Ε-value of e l o q u e n t , is equally assigned to the denotative level of the a d j e c t i v e ( r u l e 3 . 5 7 . 2 . 4 ) . The r e s u l t i n g noun-as-head reading then looks as f o l l o w s : (3.59.5)

MR-N: P R l ( [ £ e e l . b o d y ] , [ + S T A , + P H , E v + / PR1([ +H ],ie c o m m ] ) ] ) "The ' s t a r ' is in some physical condition that is positively evaluated, and the speaker attributes t h i s positively evaluated condition to the ' s t a r ' in the same way that he attributes the property of 'eloquence' to human referents."

189

Notice t h a t in the second m a t c h i n g cycle, the SEC f e a t u r e t > S E C ' f a m o u s ' , ( + H 1 1 of star creates an extension w h i c h can o n l y f u n c t i o n as an a d j e c t i v e and t y p i c a l l y a p p l i e s to h u m a n

referents

( c p . chapter 2, p. 6 3 ) . T h i s typical reference class is

represented

in the SEC e x t e n s i o n by the f e a t u r e 1 + H ) , which matches w i t h the CONT f e a t u r e of e l o q u e n t , y i e l d i n g the r e a d i n g : " e l o q u e n t ' f a m o u s person 1 ". T h i s extended sense is selected if

the r e f e r e n t

intended

in the wider context is a person. The f e a t u r e ί + Η ] in the extended sense of star may t h e r e f o r e be regarded as the integrated part of the ' h u m a n s t a r , 3.21; section

cf.

1

referent

counter-

i n t e n d e d in the c o n t e x t . ( C p . old

also the d i s c u s s i o n of ' r e f e r e n t i a l 1 m e t a p h o r in

3.3.)

In the t h i r d m a t c h i n g c y c l e , [ + A R T ] s t a n d s for the typical reference class to which the a d j e c t i v a l

p r e d i c a t i o n of the extended

sense of star a p p l i e s . No n o r m a l r e a d i n g o b t a i n s w i t h e l o q u e n t and our m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n r u l e s y i e l d m e t a p h o r i c a l r e a d i n g s of the same type as in the f i r s t cycle. However, t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence c l e a r l y lies far below t h a t of the m e t a p h o r i c a l r e a d i n g s r e s u l t i n g f r o m the f i r s t cycle. (For a survey of possible r e a d i n g s of eloquent s t a r , see f i g .

3.7,

p. 2 2 6 . )

In the m a j o r i t y of t r e a t m e n t s of m e t a p h o r , phrases such as sad tree and eloquent s t a r , when taken out of c o n t e x t , are unam( 1) C l e a r l y , each such

b i g u o u s l y i n t e r p r e t e d as ' p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s ' .

phrase is p o t e n t i a l l y ambiguous: it may be d i s a r n b i g u a t e d w i t h i n the wider context, but it

does not have to be. As we saw in chapter

2 (p. 1 2 8 ) , the a m b i g u i t y of a two-term m e t a p h o r i c a l phrase may be consciously e x p l o i t e d by the poet, as is the case in D r y d e n ' s

(1) Cp. Landon (1969:172, T a b l e 1) , who c l a s s i f i e s sad dawn and brave drum as " p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s " ; also P e r r i n e (1971:127), who concludes about Robert M o n t g o m e r y 1 s verse "Ye quenchless stars! so e l o q u e n t l y b r i g h t " t h a t "here ' e l o q u e n t l y ' makes t h e stars i n t o persons". ( C f . chapter 2 , p p . 1 2 7 f . ) Notice also t h a t the MR-Α readings of sad tree ( 3 . 5 8 . 3 ) and eloquent star ( 3 . 5 9 . 3 ) are not real " p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s ' ( c f . section 3.3.2 below); for the same reason, the MR-Α reading of savoury d e i t y (3.60.2 below) is not a ' r e i f i c a t i o n 1 .

190

Absalom and A c h i t o p h e l : ( D Such s a v ' r y d e i t i e s must needs be good As served at once for w o r s h i p and for

food.

Our m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n r u l e s would produce the f o l l o w i n g metaphorical r e a d i n g s for savoury d e i t y (see also section 3.3.2 (3.60.1)

below):

Semantic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the lexical items: savoury

deity

letaste!

I+Hl

PR1 -le f o o d l E+

(3.60.2)

Adjective-as-head reading: te taste]

(efood)

PR1 - l e f o o d l -

E+ MR-Α:

[+H] P R l ( i e food/+H ] , [ £ t a s t e / E + ] )

"Some ' f o o d 1 has 'savour 1 as a temporary or permanent property, and the speaker's a t t i t u d e towards t h a t ' f o o d ' is the same as towards a ' d e i t y ' ( i n some respect)."

(1) A similar example is savoury books. Cp. Bacon's saying, which Leech (1969:91) b r i e f l y discusses: Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. He comments t h a t "the verbs tasted, swallowed, etc., are meant to be understood in a mental sense." The literal interpretation, he says, is rejected "since eating books is... an i m p l a u s i b l e . . . physical activity." Our model, however, would recognize two metaphorical readings, so t h a t if Leech's reading were selected, the other metaphorical r e a d i n g ( w i t h books interpreted as ' f o o d ' and swallow in its ' l i t e r a l ' sense) would not be rejected, but backgrounded to the connotative level.

191

(3.6O.3)

Noun-as-head reading: 1+STA,-PH,Ev+] PR2

[+H]

(etastel

...

PRl - l e f o o d l MR-N:

P R 2 ( [ +H ],[ +STA,-PH,Ev+/

PR-Hie, f o o d ] ,(€ t a s t e ] ) ] ) "The ' d e i t y 1 experiences a p o s i t i v e l y e v a l u a t e d m e n t a l state, and the speaker a t t r i b u t e s the experiencing of t h i s state to the ' d e i t y ' in the same way that he ,,,, a t t r i b u t e s the property of ' s a v o u r 1 to ' f o o d ' . "

3.2.2

Survey of metaphorical readings

We shall f i r s t reconsider some of the r e a d i n g s discussed in the survey of normal r e a d i n g s (3.1.2 above) and examine the r e l a t i o n ship between extended normal r e a d i n g s and metaphorical readings ( 3 . 2 . 2 . 1 ) . T h i s comparison w i l l lead to some i n s i g h t into the r e l a t i v e likelihood of occurrence of the various r e a d i n g s obtained for each adjective-noun c o m b i n a t i o n . A f t e r t h i s , we s h a l l review the various types of m e t a p h o r i c a l readings f r o m the point of view of levels of m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n and the degree of ' e x p l i c i t n e s s 1 these readings e x h i b i t ( 3 . 2 . 2 . 2 ) . A discussion of m e t a p h o r i c a l readings w i t h I - t r a n s f e r and Ev-assignment ( 3 . 2 . 2 . 3 ) concludes t h i s section.

(1) In t h i s case, a PRl-reading ("X has the property Y") appears to be p r e f e r a b l e to a PR2-reading. It must be pointed out t h a t the automatic s e l e c t i o n of typical P R ' s and t y p i c a l CONT r e s t r i c t i o n s h a s n o t been worked o u t Γ η d e t a i l . F u r t h e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s , e.g. in terms of the classes of a d j e c t i v e s t h e P R ' s a r e associated w i t h ( c f . t h e f i r s t column i n t h e tables of P R ' s , pp. 9 7 f f . ) , are obviously needed.

192

3.2.2.1

Extended non-metaphorical readings vs. metaphorical readings

We have seen t h a t the f i r s t application of the m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n r u l e s to an adjective-noun c o m b i n a t i o n takes place in the f i r s t m a t c h i n g cycle, t h a t is,

when the combination of the basic sense

of the noun w i t h the senses of the a d j e c t i v e does not y i e l d a normal r e a d i n g . In t h i s m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n process,

it

is either the

noun or the a d j e c t i v e which is assigned a new sense in the r e a d i n g In the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e , where the a d j e c t i v e is the head of the metaphor ( M R - Α ) , the new sense of the noun resembles what 1

is

1

called a ' p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n or a ' r e i f i c a t i o n in the l i t e r a t u r e . ι T h u s , for example, in the adjective-as-head r e a d i n g of eloquent 1(1) star ( 3 . 5 9 . 3 ) , the new r e f e r e n c e class of star is " p e r s o n s ' , and in the adjective-as-head r e a d i n g of savoury d e i t y ( 3 . 6 0 . 2 ) , the new r e f e r e n c e class of d e i t y is ' f o o d ' .

In the second

a l t e r n a t i v e , where the noun is the head of the metaphor ( M R - N ) , the o r i g i n a l

' m e n t a l - s t a t e ' sense of the a d j e c t i v e is turned i n t o

a ' p h y s i c a l - s t a t e ' sense and the o r i g i n a l is turned i n t o a ' m e n t a l - s t a t e

1

' p h y s i c a l - s t a t e 1 sense

sense. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , the new

sense of sad in the noun-as-head m e t a p h o r i c a l reading of sad tree ( 3 . 5 8 . 5 ) is a 'physical s t a t e ' , and the new sense of savoury in the noun-as-head metaphorical r e a d i n g of savoury deity ( 3 . 6 O . 3 ) is a ' m e n t a l s t a t e ' . F u r t h e r m o r e , in the m a j o r i t y of cases the m e t a p h o r i c a l e x t e n s i o n s of the a d j e c t i v e s are made more ' e x p l i c i t ' through a t r a n s f e r of an I-

or an Ε-value. We s h a l l r e t u r n to the

f u n c t i o n of these t r a n s f e r s below. The general m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n process j u s t o u t l i n e d does either not take place or is relegated to a lower level of p r o b a b i l i t y

if

the a d j e c t i v e or the noun has an extended sense in the lexicon

(1) The superscribed numbers r e f e r to the senses of the a d j e c t i v e or noun producing the r e a d i n g . When the a d j e c t i v e or the noun only have one sense, no superscript is used. (2)

As we shall see below ( s e c t i o n 3 . 3 ) , a d i s t i n c t i o n has to be made between MR-Α r e a d i n g s on the one h a n d , and ' p e r s o n i f i cation' or ' r e i f i c a t i o n ' on the other. The latter r e a d i n g s are typical of the f i c t i o n a l world of f a i r y - t a l e s and dreams.

193

which allows for a normal reading. We s h a l l now reexamine these integrated e x t e n s i o n s , c o n t r a s t i n g them w i t h the corresponding metaphorical extensions and comparing the r e a d i n g s they produce. (For a survey of possible extensions in the lexicon, cf. f i g u r e 2.12, p. 109.) Extended senses of the a d j e c t i v e are of the type 1 > S E C . . . J , [< SEC.. . ], I < I . . . 1, o r l < L P R I M ] , which all represent an integrated metaphorical extension. Whenever such metaphorical extensions are considered to be lexically i n t e g r a t e d , the m a t c h i n g may r e s u l t in an extended normal reading ( E N R ) w i t h t h a t integrated m e t a p h o r i c a l 2 . l extension of the a d j e c t i v e . Examples are iron d e t e r m i n a t i o n ( 3 . 2 0 ) , b r i l l i a n t 2 student 1 ( 3 . 5 1 ) , a n d deep 3 thought 1 ( 3 . 5 6 ) , where the f i r s t m a t c h i n g cycle y i e l d s an extended normal r e a d i n g . However, we know that there is no clear-cut boundary between integrated and non-integrated e x t e n s i o n s , and t h a t the decision whether to consider a metaphorical sense of an a d j e c t i v e as integrated or not is sometimes hard to make. A comparison of the lexical description of adjectives in the E n g l i s h d i c t i o n a r i e s q u i c k l y reveals the inconsistency and lack of agreement on the part of lexicographers in d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s problem.

T h i s can

(1) A close e x a m i n a t i o n of the lexical description of the adjectives deep, h i g h , and hot in Webster, the OED, the COD, and .the ALP reveals important d i f f e r e n c e s in the evaluation of the degree of integration and g e n e r a l i t y of the senses involved. T h i s appears most c l e a r l y , (1) in the d i f f e r e n t groupings of senses or sub-senses: in some cases, the grouping is ( a t least semantically) t o t a l l y unmotivated (cp. sense 1 of high in the COD); o f t e n , the motivation is o n l y implied (cp. senses 2 a n d 3 ~ o f hot in Webster, where the number of the sense is the only i n d i c a t i o n - and e x p l a n a t i o n - of the g r o u p i n g ) ; in few cases, the grouping of senses is e x p l a i n e d by a paraphrase of the sense applying to it ( e . g . , sense 3 of deep in Webster is headed by the paraphrase "marked by c o m p l e x i t y , i n t e n s i t y , or a high degree of development of p e r t i n e n t qualities: as a...; b..."; e t c . ) ; ( 2 ) i n the generality of senses listed (cp. the paraphrase of sense 3 of deep in Webster, which is an attempt at a general f o r m u l a t i o n , w i t h the l i s t i n g s of i n d i v i d u a l senses of deep, h i g h , and hot in the OED, which are much more s p e c i f i c ) ; a n d (3) in the attribution of senses to s t y l i s t i c v a r i e t i e s ( e . g . , through the use of labels such as ' f i g ' ) : t h u s , in the O E D , h i g h II and deep II are labelled " f i g . senses"; for h o t , however, no ' f i g 1 sense is m e n t i o n e d , a l t h o u g h some of the senses are c l e a r l y f i g u r a t i v e ; and in

194

be partly a t t r i b u t e d to the f a c t that it

is not always possible to

establish w i t h c e r t a i n t y whether the language user, when producing or i n t e r p r e t i n g a certain p h r a s e , is a c t u a l l y applying special r u l e s in order to extend the m e a n i n g of the lexical items, or whether he is simply u s i n g r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e lexical i n f o r m a t i o n . This can be i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h the phrase deep t h o u g h t ( e x a m p l e 3.56 above). Obviously, deep has an extended [ < I , £ s o u n d , £ m u s ] sense besides its

basic l £ d i m ] sense. However, in order to i n t e r p r e t the combi-

nation of deep w i t h t h o u g h t , we either need a n o t h e r , m e t a p h o r i c a l , extension in the lexical description of deep ( v i z . , [

•H

10

Ό C

_

0) 01 SH

0) MH MH (U

-Ρ

2

10

-P

4J

73 Φ

m

Φ SH 3

cn •H

1 1

SH -P

•

c

1

W M C rti

f-

to

1

n

0

1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

U 01

α ·.

1

1

3

o

JJ

0)

U >n Φ 11 Q. SH

σ

0 rH

Φ

0)

i-i α Ο

ω SH (0

w ·.

a ·

tn —

01

-P

l

i it

^* ^^ • >I-P

>i-

-P

c

73 Φ

01 0) M 3 •D C D" O I—1

Φ

C φ 0) 10

JJ

.-H -P cnx: c σ>

•M τΗ Λί S-l •Η Χ3 SH

υι

D ο Η

·Η ti Λί Λ ·Η SH

-Ρ.

01

ω

ι l ι

u c

•rH

(D

cn ω

j

Λ

- 1 Φ 01 / >>

•H tlJ / 1 -P r-l/

α er ο

rH

ι l ι

cn c

•Η Λ 73 ΓΟ

α ^,

O (0 /(U 0)2 C -P / D ΜΗ U I κ (U / > ο > SI •σ / -P

«-. ΓΟ

· ΜΗ

·~-

< I

ι »

Ο)

(1)

ί-Η

ΓΗ

01

Φ

ι

JJ C

3 σο

^ ·

· -^

i-i · CT>JJ

C Ο

^xDii^-m

1

—

α α : S

ι .

α)

a: S

io-PEos-ι C

K-H

2 ^-*

0) 4J C O

0) 4J C O

^

0)

aa

2 "^

C tO 0)

(0 JJ

c φ

0)

-H JJ

Sj

JJ

O - 0) £ 0) X) Q-i-H

»ο χι c

JJ 3 O 0) O -H

JJ U 0)

JJ

·Η

c to υ

Ό Ή

(Ο

O

r-H

ε EH wία

O SH σ*

(0

tn

W n)

3 Φ

O S-i

£ 4J

73 0) IH SH 0) ΜΗ tO C (O U 4-1

Λ

U

SH

rO

c

•H

DI

rO

ε

JJ

•H

SH

α 73 c ro

0)

JJ

υ

0

ε Φ JJ SH

rH

C Ο

0) tn

c

Λ

to

to

73

rH SH

o

3

•Η

•Η

SH

·Η

XI

D

υ Φ χ:

> φ

73 •H

C

>

ίο

φ SH

0

-P

C

0 3

•Η 73

c

3 ΜΗ C rH 10 01 73 «1

0)

l-l

c

σ o

£ -P

73 XT

rH

σ

rH

3

U U

-

·Η

ro

1

1

c (0 ro ο JJ 01 to -HJJ SH • jj c U φ ΜΗ φ φ c 31 Ο χ: c

0)

.c

73

E 73 JJ ··-I r H - (0 73 ro

10 > DI ·Η C -P

ο

χ: to

0)

n) •Η > 73 ·Η 0)

U

οι

CO

χ:

m

rH

ιΟ JJ

C

U -H ΜΗ

•H ε 3

I

c

0 03

•H 3 1 (β JJ

D •H SH O

rH rH

to

c

JJ O E rH

o to

SH U ΜΗ Ή SH SH O

ο οι ·Η (0 c ω >, ω •Η jj χ: D O JJ ij C JJ c 3 σ •Η Χ Φ χ: 0) JJ φ ΜΗ Ο. -P O (0 -H 0) -H υ (0 tn ro JJ O -P •H 0) X tO υ 73 C JJ

-p >, D. υ 73i.C 01 -H -P rH Q. rH C rH (0 C 10 ΜΗ ro JJ 0) 3 •Ή " JJ Ο U 0) 0)

C O -H -P Π) U C "H 0) MH -P ·Η MH r-H Ο Ό 3

οι

c

C O) 3

73 (U 73 C i) JJ C -H

Ο) JC -P

m

SH 01

·· C

to

•Ό

-P

to τ; υ ·. •Η (D C φ x: c o i • SH u jj >,jj j_ JJ Ο (0 •H ΓΗ r: c c χ: rH 3 c cn -H οι α a

Ή C

a ε o) ·Η r

•i-,

\H

«wr

to Sj

f-H

-P υ a)

^^

χ: JJ

ο) ε Λ:

»

•H

(0 -P W

(0

01 C SH 0) 0) ΜΗ Ο > Λ -C ΜΗ JJ • 4) •H r-H SH > SH JJ Λ 73 ι-Η (0 IT) C MH to T3 C £> M O 3 D 0) •H O 0) O "D X! SH 01 C c

• K)

•D Φ Φ SH

u

rH

0

u

c

W

-C

0)

JJ

SH

1

(0

• -P C

CM %-*

73

4J

C O H

C

JC 0)

jj jj

MH 3 SH C O MH D. 73 o

73 0) C -P tO ·Η X SH Ε 0) (0 SH -P -P 0) C CO -P O 0) U C 73 D 0) O - £ C • · -P 0) 0) O) • · C £. •H ·Η Η EH

SH •Η (t 73 JJ φ tn SH

c u α σι rH C φ ro x: ( 0 3 φ JJ X) JJ 73 O χ: c O 0 C

C JJ

·Η

c

O

c ro

rH

cn W

~JJ ·Η

-H οι υ ο) ... φ to αϊ αϊ χ: JJ χ: φ (0 CXrH JJ C JJ χ: cn φ υ χ χι JJ C φ -Η •H SH Φ tn to φ Φ υ φ 73

•Η φ «1 SH ΜΗ Χ! XI Ο 0) φ jj jj α ι SH

x-x

«—v

*-^

f~^

^^

^^

^x

%-^

V-'

·*

ro φ SH E JJ 1

0) 10

^x

v-i CNJ m

φ

JJ (0 SH

in

C

U ro

·Η tfl

C φ O SH

,—, ΙΌ ^^

,—,

r-

*^

227

APPENDIX

l P R ' S , TYPICAL CONT FEATURES, TYPICAL P R ' S

On p. 184 it

was said t h a t each PR has associated w i t h it a

typical CCNT f e a t u r e as well as a class of a d j e c t i v e s of which PR

is the typical PR. The table below gives a survey of the

v a r i o u s P R ' s ( f i r s t c o l u m n ) , their typical CONT f e a t u r e s (second c o l u m n ) and the class of a d j e c t i v e s of which they are the typical PR ( t h i r d c o l u m n ) . It

is not possible to associate one s i n g l e class

of a d j e c t i v e s w i t h P R ' s 4 to 7; a f t e r these P R ' s , t h e r e f o r e , the most general a d j e c t i v a l f e a t u r e ,

[+STA],

has been entered in the

t h i r d c o l u m n . PR12 and 13 are not given because they belong to verbs rather than a d j e c t i v e s .

PRl :

HAVE

-t+CONC]-

[ + S T A , +PH ]

PR2 :

EXPERIENCE

-[+Hl-

[ + S T A , -PH ]

PR3 :

MANIFEST

- [Gcomm]-

[+STA, -PH]

PR4 :

TIME-WHEN

- I £ period ]-

[ + STA ]

PR5 :

PLACE-WHERE

- [ E l o c a t i o n ]-

[ +STA ]

PR6 :

CAUSE

-I+PERC]-

[+STA ]

PR7 :

MANNER-IN-WHICH

-I+ACT]-

1 +STA J

PR8 :

DEGREE-OF

-l+STA]-

( Cdegree ]

PR9 :

FREQUENCY-OF

- [-STA]-

I Gfrequency]

PR10:

TEMPORAL-SEQUENCE-OF

-[-STAJ-

I Etemp.ord ]

PRll:

FACTUALITY-OF

-I-STA]-

[ £ modality ]

ε

228 dl

-p ε

-P J

ro

rO M •H CK

in M C

rO 4n dl

EH -P -P O

2

Ό

c ε 3IH 3 H -P

dl

d) >

•H .P

•rH

rO

rO -P O

>

Ζ J

-P

^ ω

C dJ

O

»

'

»

tn

ο:

d)

ix ω

J IX

d) SH

0

ro

χ— · rO

X

ro ε

d) O

-P

-P

0

0

C dl Ό

•Ό

C

d)

0

in

• r-H

in c •H

3

o

- c

— (0 ro d) IH ^ ΜΗ Ο

ro

4H

r

r

| 1 . .

d) J> •H -P

dl

f—1

Ό

c .„ in

-En

W) IH < •H 3 +

C

— J

rH

υ

··—ι in •o -H

αΛ

01 Ό *+Η —· Q; rO ex

ε

U ro r d)

W

H ry r—i

— 3 Q -P _ (0

dl

dl rr.

> rx •H J -p

ε ·Η

M

rO d) SH

•

in

.- M 4J

IH *""

o

H

0)

>H

2

2

2

;>,

SH (0

•σ c o u d) tn

ω

in

229 APPENDIX 3 SURVEY OF READINGS -integrated ( I L R ) r - l i n k i n g reading — ^-non-integrated ( L R )

ι-non-extended ( N R ) — normal reading Readings— Lextended ( E N R )

non-linking 'reading (NLR)~

— t r a n s f e r reading ( T R R )

with adjective 'head ( M R - A ) metaphorical 'reading ( M R ) ' w i t h noun as 'head ( M R - N )

as

230 APPENDIX 4 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

A ACT AN ART

att ATT R bodypt C COLL comm CONC CONT corp.cond corp.func

DIM diml dim2 dim3 E emot EN R Εν EVAL eval expr G GEN H horiz HPRIM I ILR Intel instr LIV loc LPRIM lumin M

adjective action animal artifact attitude _attribute part of the body case collective communicative concrete contextual corporeal condition corporeal function dimensional one-dimensional two-dimensional three-dimensional emotional value emotion extended normal reading evaluation evaluative evaluative expressive goal generative human horizontal higher-level primary i n t e n s i t y value integrated l i n k i n g reading intellect instrument living location lower-level primary luminosity male

ment.func MR MR-Α MR-N mus N NLR NR per PH PR PRIM prof PROG pt SEC SH STA subst temp temp.ord TR TRR veh veloc vert w writ [ ] £ >

< a/b

a:b

mental f u n c t i o n metaphorical reading metaphorical r e a d i n g with a d j e c t i v e as head metaphorical r e a d i n g w i t h noun as head musical noun n o n - l i n k i n g reading normal reading period physical predicational relator primary professional progressive part secondary shape state substance temperature temporal order transfer transfer reading vehicle velocity vertical whole writing enclose f e a t u r e s "is included in the class of" "has developed into" "has originated from" negative operator a belongs to the denotative level, b to the connotative level of a sense merger of senses a and b

231

REFERENCES CITED A a r t s , Jan M.G. (1971). "A note on the interpretation of "he danced his d i d ' " . In J o u r n a l of L i n g u i s t i c s 7, 71-73. A a r t s , Jan M . G . and Joseph P. Calbert (1976). "Metaphorical and Non-metaphorical E x t e n s i o n s of Meaning". In Kern (1976: 237-249). Anderson, Tommy R. (1968). "On the Transparency of Begin; Some Uses of Semantic Theory". In F o u n d a t i o n s of Language 4, 394-421. Bach, Emmon and Robert T. H a r m s , eds. (1968). U n i v e r s a l s in L i n g u i s t i c Theory, H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , New York. Bierwisch, M a n f r e d (1967). "Some Semantic Universals of German A d j e c t i v a l s " . In Foundations of Language 3,

1-36.

Bierwisch, Manfred (1970). "Semantics". In J. Lyons (1970:166-184). Bierwisch, Manfred and K. H e i d o l p h , eds.

(1970). Progress in

L i n g u i s t i c s , Mouton, The Hague. B e n d i x , Edward H. (1966). Componential A n a l y s i s of General Vocabulary: The Semantic Structure of a Set of Verbs in E n g l i s h , H i n d i , and Japanese, I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y , Bloomington, Ind.;

Mouton, The Hague.

Bickerton, Derek (1969). "Prolegomena to a L i n g u i s t i c Theory of Metaphor". In Foundations of Language 5, 34-52. B l a c k , Max (1962). "Metaphor". In Max B l a c k , Models and Metaphors, Cornell U n i v e r s i t y Press, I t h a c a , 25-47. Bolinger, Dwight (1967). "Adjectives in E n g l i s h : A t t r i b u t i o n and Predication". In Lingua 18, 1-34. Brekle, Herbert E. (197O). Generative Satzsemantik und t r a n s f o r m a t i o n e l l e Syntax im System der englischen Nominalkomposition, F i n k , München. Bunge, Mario ( 1 9 7 4 ) . Semantics I: Sense and Reference (Treatise on Basic P h i l o s o p h y , vol. 1), D. Reidel P u b l i s h i n g Company, Dordrecht-Boston.

232

Calbert, Joseph P. (1974). Dimensions of Style and Meaning in the Language of T r a k l and R i l k e . C o n t r i b u t i o n s to a Semantics of Style, L i n g u i s t i s c h e Arbeiten 17, Niemeyer, Tübingen. C h a f e , Wallace L. (1970). Meaning and the Structure of Language, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, Chicago-London. Chomsky, Noam (1970). "Remarks on N o m i n a l i z a t i o n " . In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (1970:184-221). Chomsky, Noam ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, Mouton, The Hague-Paris. Coates, J e n n i f e r (1971). "Denominal A d j e c t i v e s : A Study in Syntactic R e l a t i o n s h i p s between M o d i f i e r and Head". In L i n g u a 27, 160-169. Dik,

Simon C. (1969). Relatieve Termen, Noord-Hollandsche U i t g e v e r s m a a t s c h a p p i j , Amsterdam.

Dik,

Simon C. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . Inductive G e n e r a l i z a t i o n s in Semantic Change ( P u b l i k a t i e s van net I n s t i t u u t voor Algemene Taalwetenschap 7 ) , U n i v e r s i t y of A m s t e r d a m , Amsterdam.

D i x o n , Robert M. W. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . "Where Have all In Studies in Language 1, 19-81.

the A d j e c t i v e s Gone?".

D o h e r t y , Paul C. and A. Schwartz (1968). "The Syntax of the Compared A d j e c t i v e in E n g l i s h " . In Language 43, 903-936. D o l e z e l , Lubomir and R. B a i l e y , eds. (1969). Statistics and Style, American Elsevier, New York. F i l l m o r e , Charles J. (1968). "The Case for Case". In Bach and Harms (1968:1-88). Fillmore, Charles J. (1971). "Types of Lexical I n f o r m a t i o n " . In Steinberg and Jakobovits (1971:370-392). Fodor, Jerry A. (1970). "Three Reasons for Not Deriving ' K i l l ' from 'Cause to D i e ' " . In L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y 1, 429-438. Fowler, Roger, ed. (1966). Essays on Style and Language. L i n g u i s t i c and Critical Approaches to Literary Style, Routledge and Kegan P a u l , London.

233 Fries, C h a r l e s C. ( 1 9 5 2 ) . The S t r u c t u r e of E n g l i s h . An I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Construction of E n g l i s h Sentences, L o n g m a n s , Green and Company, London. G e a c h , Peter T. (1968). Reference and G e n e r a l i t y . An E x a m i n a t i o n of Some Medieval and Modern Theories, Emended E d i t i o n , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , I t h a c a , N e w York. G i v o n , Talmy (1970). "Notes on the Semantic S t r u c t u r e of E n g l i s h A d j e c t i v e s " . In Language 46, 816-837. H i n t i k k a , K . J . J . , J.

Moravcsik and P. Suppes, eds. ( 1 9 7 3 ) .

Approaches to N a t u r a l Language. Proceedings of the 197O S t a n f o r d Workshop on Grammar and Semantics,

Reidel

Publishing

C o m p a n y , Dordrecht-Boston. H u d d l e s t o n , Rodney (1967). "More on the E n g l i s h C o m p a r a t i v e " . In Journal of L i n g u i s t i c s 3, 91-102. Jacobs, Roderick A. and Peter S. Rosenbaum (1968). E n g l i s h Transformational Grammar, Blaisdell Publishing Company, W a l t h a m Mass., Toronto, London. Jacobs, Roderick and P. Rosenbaum, eds. (1970). R e a d i n g s in E n g l i s h Transformational Grammar, G i n n and C o . , W a l t h a m , Mass. J a k o b o v i t s , Leon A. and Murray S. M i r o n , eds. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . R e a d i n g s in the Psychology of Language, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , Englewood Cliffs,

N e w Jersey.

J a n s s e n , Theo A . J . M . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . H e b b e n - K o n s t r u k t i e s en I n d i r e c t Objectkonstrukties, dissertation, University of Nijmegen. K a s t o v s k y , Dieter ( 1 9 7 4 ) . "Word F o r m a t i o n , Case Grammar and D e n o m i n a l A d j e c t i v e s " . In A n g l i a 9 2 , 1-54. K a t z , Jerrold J.

( 1 9 7 2 ) . Semantic Theory, Harper & R o w , New York.

K a t z , Jerrold J.

and J.A. Fodor (1963). "The S t r u c t u r e of a

Semantic Theory". In Language 39, 17O-210. R e p r i n t e d

in

Jakobovits and Miron (1967:398-431). ( R e f e r e n c e s are to the latter edition.) Kempson, R u t h M. (1975). Presupposition and the D e l i m i t a t i o n

of

Semantics (Cambridge S t u d i e s in L i n g u i s t i c s , 15), Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, Cambridge.

234

K e r n , R u d o l f , ed. (1976). Löwen und Sprachtiger. Akten des VIII. Linguistischen

K o l l o q u i u m s Löwen, 19-22 Sept. 1973,

E d i t i o n s Peeters, Louvain. K ö n i g , E k k e h a r d (1971). A d j e c t i v a l C o n s t r u c t i o n s in E n g l i s h and German. A Comparative A n a l y s i s , J u l i u s Groos, Heidelberg. K o o i j , J o h a n n e s G. (1971). A m b i g u i t y in N a t u r a l Language. An investigation of certain problems in its l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n , N o r t h - H o l l a n d P u b l i s h i n g Company, AmsterdamLondon. L a k o f f , George (1965). On the N a t u r e of Syntactic I r r e g u l a r i t y in M a t h e m a t i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s and Automatic T r a n s l a t i o n , Report No. NSF-16, the C o m p u t a t i o n Laboratory of Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , Cambridge, Mass. Landon, George M. (1969). "The Q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of Metaphoric Language in the Verse of W. Owen". In Dolezel and Bailey (1969:170-177). Leech, G e o f f r e y N. (1966). "Linguistics and the Figures of Rhetoric". In R. Fowler (1966:135-156). Leech, G e o f f r e y N. (1969). Towards a Semantic Description of E n g l i s h , L o n g m a n s , London. Leech, G e o f f r e y N. (1974). Semantics, Penguin Books L t d . , Harmondsworth. Lees, Robert B. (1961). "Grammatical A n a l y s i s for the E n g l i s h Comparative Construction". In Word 17, 171-185. Lees, Robert B. (1970). "Problems in the Grammatical Analysis of E n g l i s h N o m i n a l Compounds". In Bierwisch and Heidolph (1970:174-186) . Levi, J u d i t h N. (1976). The Syntax and Semantics of Nonpredicating Adjectives in E n g l i s h ( P r e l i m i n a r y V e r s i o n ) . Reproduced by the I. U . L i n g u i s t i c s C l u b , Bloomington, I n d i a n a . L i p k a , Leonhard (1972). Semantic Structure and Word-Formation. Verb-Particle Constructions in Contemporary E n g l i s h , W i l h e l m F i n k , München.

235

L j u n g , Magnus (1970). E n g l i s h D e n o m i n a l A d j e c t i v e s . A Generative Study of the Semantics of a Group of High-Frequency Denominal A d j e c t i v e s in E n g l i s h ( G o t h e n b u r g Studies in English 21), Studentlitteratur, Lund. Lyons, John ( 1 9 6 6 ) . "Towards a ' n o t i o n a l ' theory of the ' p a r t s of speech 1 ". In Journal of L i n g u i s t i c s 2, 2O9-236. Lyons, John (1968). I n t r o d u c t i o n to Theoretical L i n g u i s t i c s , Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, Cambridge. Lyons, J o h n , ed. (1970). New H o r i z o n s in L i n g u i s t i c s ( P e l i c a n ) , Penguin Books, H a r m o n d s w o r t h . M a r c h a n d , Hans ( 1 9 6 6 ) . "On A t t r i b u t i v e and Predicative Derived A d j e c t i v e s and Some Problems R e l a t e d to the D i s t i n c t i o n " . In A n g l i a 84, 131-149. Matthews, Robert J.

(1971). "Concerning a ' L i n g u i s t i c Theory' of

Metaphor". In Foundations of Language 7, 413-425. McCawley, James D. (1968a). "The Role of Semantics in a Grammar". In Bach and Harms (1968:124-169) and in McCawley (1973a: 59-98). ( R e f e r e n c e s are to the f i r s t p u b l i c a t i o n . ) McCawley, James D. (1968b). "Review of Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 31: Theoretical Foundations". In Language 44, 556-593 and in McCawley (1973a:167-205). ( R e f e r e n c e s are to the latter p u b l i c a t i o n . ) McCawley, James D. (1973a). Grammar and M e a n i n g . Papers on syntactic and semantic topics ( T a i s h u k a n Studies in Modern L i n g u i s t i c s ) , Taishukan P u b l i s h i n g Company, Tokyo. McCawley, James D. (1973b). "A Review of Noam A. Chomsky, Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar", IULC paper, Bloomington, Indiana. Michael, Ian (1970). E n g l i s h Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 180O, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, Cambridge. Partee, Barbara H a l l (1973). "The Semantics of Belief-Sentences". In H i n t i k k a , Moravcsik and Suppes (1973:309-336).

236

P e r r i n e , Laurence (1971). "Four Forms of Metaphor". In College E n g l i s h , Vol. 33, No. 2 (125-138). P h i l b r i c k , F. A. (1947). U n d e r s t a n d i n g E n g l i s h . An Introduction to Semantics. M a c m i l l a n , New York. P i l c h , Herbert (1965). "Comparative Constructions in English". In Language 41, 37-58. P o s t a l , Paul M. (1969). "Anaphoric Islands". In Papers from the F i f t h Regional Meeting, Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society, 2O5-239. R e d d y , Michael (1969). "A Semantic Approach to Metaphor". In Papers from the F i f t h Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic " Society, 24O-251. R e i b e l , David A. and Sanford A. Schane, eds. (1969). Modern Studies in E n g l i s h . R e a d i n g s in T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Grammar, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc.,

Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey.

R e n s k y , Miroslav (1964). " E n g l i s h Verbo-nominal Phrases". In Travaux L i n g u i s t i q u e s de Prague 1, 289-299. Ross, John Robert (1969). " A d j e c t i v e s as Noun Phrases". In Reibel and Schane (1969:352-360). S a n d m a n n , M a n f r e d (1975). "Das ' u n l o g i s c h e ' A d j e k t i v a t t r i b u t im Rahmen einer t r a n s f o r m a t i v e n Syntax". In Archiv 127, 1-29. Seuren, Pieter A . M . , ed. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . Semantic S y n t a x , Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, O x f o r d . Shibles, Warren A. (1971). Metaphor: An Annotated Bibliography and H i s t o r y , The Language Press, W h i t e w a t e r , Wisconsin. Shopen, Tim (1972). A Generative Theory of E l l i p s i s . A Consideration of the L i n g u i s t i c Use of Silence. Reproduced by the I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y L i n g u i s t i c s C l u b , Bloomington, I n d i a n a . S t a n l e y , Richard (1969). "The E n g l i s h Comparative Adjective Construction". In Papers from the F i f t h Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 287-292. Steinberg, D a n n y D. and Leon A. Jakobovits, eds. (1971). Semantics. An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Reader in P h i l o s o p h y , L i n g u i s t i c s and Psychology, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, Cambridge.

237

S t u t t e r h e i m , C o r n e l i u s F.P. (1968). "Metafoor". In Moderne Encyclopedie der W e r e l d l i t e r a t u u r , vol. 5, P a u l B r a n d , H i l v e r s u m , 450-451. U l l m a n n , Stephen (1957). The P r i n c i p l e s of Semantics, 2nd e d i t i o n , Blackwell, O x f o r d . W e i n r e i c h , U r i e l (1972). Explorations in Semantic Theory, Mouton, The Hague. E a r l i e r published in Thomas Sebeok, ed., Current Trends in L i n g u i s t i c s . Volume 3; Theoretical Foundations, Mouton, The H a g u e , 1966.

238

INDEX allegory, 2 2 3 f . a m b i g u i t y , 128-130, 157, 189f., 218 a t t i t u d i n a l m e a n i n g , see meaning

emotional value, 6 9 f . , 12Of., 178f., 184f.

background, see connotative level basic sense, see sense binary f e a t u r e , see feature

extended sense, see sense

b l i n d , 7 4 f . , 148f., 2 0 3 f f .

f a c t u a l b e l i e f , 6 f . , 114, 201f., 2 0 7 f . , 225

case-assignment, 171-174 case r e l a t i o n s , 4 7 f . , 93-95, 168-170 causal predication, 103,

161ff.

comment, 137f. concept, lOf.; u n i f i e d , 11, 111 connotative level, 7, 14, 15, 6 9 f . , 119, 126-128, 178f., 184f . connotative value, see emotional value context, wider, 2 1 3 f f . contextual features, see feature c o n t e x t u a l l y associated w i t h , 5 9 f . , 117, 1 5 5 f f . , 202f. c o n t i g u i t y of senses, see sense contradictories, 36 contraries, 36-40 cycle, see m a t c h i n g cycle

evaluative f e a t u r e s , see feature e x p l i c i t n e s s , 133, 139 degrees of, 200ff., 212 extension of m e a n i n g , see extended sense 117,

fairy-tale, 223f. f e a t u r e , l O f . , 1O8-114, 228 b i n a r y , 17-20 contextual, 7, 14f., 40-43, 118f., typical, 227 evaluative, 71-73, elicitation of, 71f., 178f., 184f. generative, 49-59, 114-117 primary, 16f., 108-114, higherlevel, 17-24, lower-level, 25-40 secondary, 4 9 f . , 6 O f f . , 119f., e x p e r i e n t i a l , 61-76, symbolic, 61, 78f. t r a n s f e r , 49, 58-6O, 117, e l i c i t a t i o n o f , 49, 103, 105f., 117, 165 (see also t r a n s f e r reading) f o r e g r o u n d , see connotative level generative f e a t u r e s , see f e a t u r e ground ( w a r r a n t y ) for metaphor, see metaphor

d e n o t a t i v e l e v e l , 14, 124, 178f., 184f.

homonymy, 4 8 f . ,

deviance, 5-7, 124f.

hyponymy, 25-28

121f.

239

i n t e g r a t e d vs. n o n - i n t e g r . , see extended sense and extended reading i n t e n s i t y v a l u e , 37-39, 68-74, 178f . interpretive ( v s . g e n e r a t i v e ) model, 5 f . , 125f., 131f.

vs. n o n - m e t a p h o r , 7, 1 2 f . , 1 2 4 f . , 192-200 m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n , levels o f , 2 0 O f f . , r u l e s , see r u l e s m e t o n y m y , 49 modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , 2 1 4 f . , 224

8-10,

interpretive strategies, 214216 negative operator, 71-73, 179f., 2 0 3 f f .

74f.,

lexical e n t r y , 13f., 109 lexical integration (of senses), 4 9 f . , 6 3 f . , 69, 126, 132f. (see also extended senses) lexical item, 13 lexical r e a l i z a t i o n 6 3 f . , 91

(of s e n s e s ) ,

object, 11 p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n , 189, 192, 2 1 5 f . , 220, 2 2 3 f . polysemy, 4 8 f . , 121-123

l i n k i n g construction, 2 8 f . , 1O7, 114, 139-142,155

predicating (vs. n o n - p r e d . ) , see l i n k i n g construction

m a t c h , 14, 138f.

predicational r e l a t o r s , 227, typical, 227

m a t c h i n g , 14

p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , 58-60,

79ff., 131f.

primary f e a t u r e s , see f e a t u r e

cycle, 135-138 r u l e s , see rules member of,

14, 9 4 f .

m e a n i n g , 14, 111 attitudinal,

126, 186

extension of, sense

see extended

residue of, 44-46 merger of senses, see sense

met, 14, 41, 118, 184

135, 182-

metaphor, 12f., 14f., 6 O f . , 124-128, 178f., 1 8 2 f f . d o m i n a n t member in (or head o f ) , 1 2 7 f . , 183-185 ground ( w a r r a n t y ) f o r , 127, 139, 210, 2 1 2 f . , 222 referentially determined, 200, 216, 2 2 0 f f . semantically determined, 216ff.

r e a d i n g , 3, 8 extended non-metaphorical vs. metaphorical, 124ff., 131f., 192-200 goal-oriented, 173f. l i k e l y , 8-10, 128, 138, 183f., 197f., 210, 220 m e t a p h o r i c a l , 14, 119, 124128, 1 8 2 f f . , 2 O 9 f f . , 2 1 7 f f . , integrated, 2 2 4 f f . normal ( n o n - m e t a p h o r i c a l ) , 14, 119, 1 3 4 f f . p o s s i b l e , 9, 128 t r a n s f e r , 14, 155, 2 0 2 f . r e d u n d a n c y r u l e s , see r u l e s r e d u n d a n t l y associated w i t h , 96-107

240

reference ( c l a s s ) , 11, 12f., 128, 137f., 142, 197f., expected vs. intended r e f e r e n t , 137f., 2 1 4 f f . , 2 2 3 ( f n )

typically associated w i t h , 51 ( f n ) , 86-90, 114-117, 184, 227

r e f e r e n t i a l l y determined metaphor, see metaphor

, , , 0,_ verbo-nominal phrases, 91f.

residue of m e a n i n g , see meaning rules, matching, 133ff. m e t a p h o r i z a t i o n , 184f. r e d u n d a n c y , 2, 21, 4 2 , 83, 186 t r a n s f e r , 158, 165f., of Iv a l u e , 175, of Ε-value, 178f. scalable class, 3 9 f . , 174f., 2O9 scalar a d j e c t i v e s , 35-4O secondary f e a t u r e s , see f e a t u r e semantic background / f o r e g r o u n d , see connotative / denotative level sense, 11 basic, 14, 4 8 f . , 55 c o n t i g u i t y of, 7 3 f . , 116 extended, 14, 4 9 f f . , 114-119, 132f., 1 4 7 f f . , 181f., 193ff. merger of, 51, 115-117 suppressed, 14f., 50 ( f n ) synecdoche, 50 transfer, of Ε-value, 71f., 178f., 185, 209ff. of I-value, 6 7 f . , 70-74, 1 7 4 f f . , 178f., 185, 209f. rules, see rules readings, see reading t r a n s f e r features, see f e a t u r e typical f u n c t i o n ,

2O3ff.