Metaphor in the Grammar of Argument Realization

207 Pages·2016·6.67 MB·English

UC Berkeley
Dissertations, Department of Linguistics
Title
Metaphor in the Grammar of Argument Realization
Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/07j56079
Author
David, Oana A.
Publication Date
2016-07-01
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library
University of California
Metaphor in the Grammar of Argument Realization

By

Oana Alexandra David

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

in

Linguistics

in the

Graduate Division
of the
University of California, Berkeley

Committee in charge:

Professor Eve E. Sweetser, Co-chair
Professor George Lakoff, Co-chair
Professor Yoko Hasegawa

Summer 2016
Metaphor in the Grammar of Argument Realization

Copyright © 2016

By

Oana Alexandra David
Abstract
Metaphor in the Grammar of Argument Realization

By
Oana A. David

Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics
University of California, Berkeley
Professor Eve E. Sweetser, Co-chair
Professor George Lakoff, Co-chair

Grammatical argument structure constructions (ASCs) in English interact with the verbs that act
as the lexical head of the clause. This interaction results in some arguments being instantiated
while others are omitted. One broad type of omission is known as null complement anaphora
(NCA), also commonly called null instantiation. In NCA, core semantic participants are not
instantiated as overt arguments, but are nevertheless understood in context. The omitted elements
may be the direct objects of verbs, or may even be other constituents such as clausal complements
and adjuncts. Some of the types of omissions examined are illustrated in (1) – (5).
(1) The hat doesn’t match ø .
[Goal, e.g. ‘my outfit’]
(2) They arrived ø safely.
[Goal, e.g. ‘in DC’]
(3) I joined ø yesterday.
[Group, e.g. ‘the society’]
(4) Did you apply ø ?
[Position, e.g. ‘to that job’]
(5) He wrote a great speech and delivered it ø last night.
[Goal, ‘to the audience’]

Using large semantically annotated and corpus data sets, primarily from the FrameNet
Annotation Database, this dissertation presents two important results with respect to lexical and
constructional regularities in omission patterns. One main finding is that the omissible element
usually qualifies, at an image schematic level, as the ground in a figure-ground relation. Some of
the physical verbs discussed include verbs of motion (move, arrive, approach, depart, chase, float),
object manipulation (give, implant, provide, join, manacle), perception (listen, glance, peer, gaze),
and those verbs that combine motion and object manipulation (splatter, spray, propel, throw,
transfer). In all of these cases, either the goal, or the source, or the location is omissible. These are
frame elements that tend to be construed as the ground in a figure-ground configuration. Omissions
in which the figure-ground rule is observed constitute 68% of a sample (n=2,005) of the annotated
sentence data. I provide a Construction Grammar model to account for these figure-ground
asymmetries, and show how they consistently result in the omission of elements that end up in the
ground. I claim that this generalization holds at a high image schematic level for all of these types
of verbs, and therefore this constitutes a lexical frame-based generalization.
The second observation from the data is that metaphor located in the grammar of the
argument structure construction itself plays a role in licensing NCA. So, where at first arrive and
cajole do not seem to share any commonalities with respect to their semantics more generally, we
1
can at least deduce why their core semantic roles are omissible in sentences such as We arrived ø
and He cajoled her ø. It is because in the former, the goal of arrival is the physical ground relative
to which the figure is moving, while in the latter the goal of cajoling is metaphorically construed
as the ground relative to which he is metaphorically propelling her. The Action frame element (that
which he is cajoling her to do) would be instantiated metaphorically via an into-PP: e.g., He cajoled
her into marrying him. I propose a model of grammar that incorporates metaphor as part of the
argument linking pattern of clausal argument structure constructions. I provide data showing how
metaphor is used to structure the domains of Communication, Thinking and Action, and propose
a classification of metaphoric argument structure constructions. The main dimension along which
metaphoric ASCs are classified is whether the verb in the clause is evoking the target domain or
the source domain of the metaphor (I arrived at the conclusion (verb evokes source) vs. He cajoled
her into marrying him (verb evokes target)).
I also provide a methodological innovation in the way argument omission is studied.
Namely, I suggest that to understand omission, we have to look at equivalent sentences in which
those same frame elements are in fact instantiated. We do this in order to gauge the syntactic
diversity with which the instantiation is possible. The same frame element could be instantiated
using any number of complement types, e.g., The Goal frame element in I arrived home (NP) vs.
I arrived at the airport (PP)). I assume that the range of syntactic strategies for instantiating the
same frame element can influence whether that frame element is able to be null instantiated at all.
Therefore, in order to understand why a particular frame element was candidate for omission in
the first place, we must understand the possible ways in which it could be syntactically overt. Most
saliently, I find that in many cases one or more of those syntactic strategies available to the
instantiation of a frame element are metaphoric in nature, construing that element by use of
prepositional phrases with in, into, out, out of, from, against, etc.

2
Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................1
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................i
Constructional Notation..................................................................................................................iv
List of Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................v
List of Figures................................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables..................................................................................................................................ix
List of Graphs..................................................................................................................................x
Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................xi

1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Approaches to Argument Omission ...................................................................................... 7
1.1.1 Range of phenomena...................................................................................................... 7
1.1.2 Transformational accounts of omission ......................................................................... 8
1.1.3 Pragmatic approaches .................................................................................................... 9
1.1.4 Lexical semantic approaches ....................................................................................... 10
1.1.5 Cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches ................................................................. 11
1.2 Arguments and participant semantics in Construction Grammar ....................................... 14
1.2.1 Argument omission across Construction Grammar(s) ................................................. 16
1.2.2 Remaining problems in argument (non-)realization .................................................... 18
1.2.2.1 What qualifies as ‘missing’? ................................................................................. 18
1.2.2.2 A note on definiteness and retrievability .............................................................. 19
1.2.2.3 Defining omission ................................................................................................. 25
1.3 Structure of the dissertation ................................................................................................ 27
2 The Architecture .................................................................................. 28

2.1 From Construction Grammar to Embodied Construction Grammar .................................. 28
2.2 The structure of frames ....................................................................................................... 34
2.3 Figure-ground relations from attention to language ........................................................... 35
2.4 Figure-ground relations in argument structure constructions ............................................. 38
2.5 Scenarios and perspectives ................................................................................................. 41
3 Frame-Based Generalizations in Argument Omission ........................ 45

3.1 Figure-ground relations in argument realization ................................................................. 45
3.2 Linking theory with empirics .............................................................................................. 48
3.2.1 Methodology and data .................................................................................................. 48
i
3.2.2 Structured frame role hierarchies ................................................................................. 55
3.2.2.1 Sources and goals of motion ................................................................................. 59
3.2.2.2 Givers and receivers .............................................................................................. 62
3.2.2.3 Part-Whole structure ............................................................................................. 63
3.2.3 Static and dynamic figure-ground relations in grammar ............................................. 64
3.2.3.1 Figure-ground in out, of, from, and out of phrases ............................................... 64
3.2.3.2 Figure-ground in in, to, and into phrases .............................................................. 69
3.2.4 Syntactic diversity in the instantiation of frame elements ........................................... 71
4 Metaphor in grammar .......................................................................... 78

4.1 Two sources of metaphor .................................................................................................... 78
4.1.1 Lexical sources of metaphor ........................................................................................ 80
4.1.2 Constructional sources of metaphor ............................................................................. 84
4.1.3 Combining lexical and constructional sources of metaphor ........................................ 87
4.1.4 Null instantiation of ground roles in metaphoric sentences ......................................... 93
4.2 Mapping argument realization in the domains of COMMUNICATION, THOUGHT, and ACTION
................................................................................................................................................... 98
4.2.1 Communication frames: A case study ....................................................................... 101
4.3 Constructional generalizations from the source domain ................................................... 105
4.3.1 Metaphoric uses of spatial prepositions ..................................................................... 105
4.3.1.1 Metaphoric sources and goals ............................................................................. 106
4.3.1.2 Other spatial prepositions used metaphorically .................................................. 111
4.3.2 Prepositions with non-transparent spatial meanings .................................................. 113
4.3.2.1 SIMILARITY IS CLOSENESS (as-PPs) ........................................................... 113
4.3.2.2 PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS/DESIRED OBJECTS (for-PPs) ............... 119
4.3.2.3 Part-Whole image schema (of-PP)...................................................................... 122
4.3.2.4 Instruments and co-actors (with-PP) ................................................................... 126
4.4 Non-metaphoric Content role omission ............................................................................ 130
4.4.1 Metonymic constraints in content role omissions ...................................................... 135
5 Constructional interdependencies ..................................................... 140

5.1 Constructional networks and multi-FE omissions ............................................................ 140
5.1.1 Metaphoric alternations with and onto, into phrases ................................................. 140
5.1.2 Metaphoric alternations with into and out of ............................................................. 143
5.1.3 Alternations with of, for and clausal complements .................................................... 146
5. 2 Omitting the figure ........................................................................................................... 150
ii
6 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 156

References ............................................................................................ 157

Appendices ........................................................................................... 172

iii
Constructional Notation

Symbol Name Description
Mapping An asymmetric role-to-role
binding, in which the source role
lends its inferences to the target
role; only applicable in
metaphor.
Binding Symmetric role-to-role binding,
in which inferences combine
from both frames. Typical of
complex frames and image
schemas.
Frame-to-frame or An asymmetric relation, whereby
cxn-to-cxn relation a frame is a subcase of another

frame, or a construction is a
subcase of a construction
Frame-to-cxn When a constructional slot is

relation responsible for evoking an entire
frame.
T Target Target domain of metaphor
S Source Source domain of metaphor

iv
List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Expanded Use/Origin
LU Lexical Unit FrameNet; refers to lexical units that
evoke frames
FE Frame Element FrameNet; refers to frame elements
associated with frames
NI Null Instantiation Fillmore (1986), FrameNet; the
omission of core frame elements
DNI Definite Null Instantiation Fillmore (1986); FEs with
contextually-retrievable referents
INI Indefinite Null Instantiation Fillmore (1986) FEs with non-
retrievable referents
CNI Constructional Null Instantiation FrameNet; FEs omitted for
constructional reasons, e.g., the Agent
by-phrase in Passives.
PT Phrase Type FrameNet; refers to the type of phrase
(NP, PP, etc.) used to instantiate an
FE
GF Grammatical Function FrameNet; refers to position in the
sentence of a particular argument
(Subject, Direct Object, etc.)
PF Perspectivized Frame Refers to frames that take one or
another perspective on a particular
scene.
S Scenario Refers to frames are non-
perspectivized scenarios.
ESM Event Structure Metaphor Lakoff & Johnson (1999), Grady
(1997).
IA Intersubjectively Accessible Dancygier & Sweetser (2014);
referring to motion, location, objects,
etc., usually the source domains of
metaphor.
IIA Intersubjectively Inaccessible Dancygier & Sweetser (2014);
referring to cognitive, social,
emotional, etc. states, usually the
target domains of metaphor.
v