COGNITIVE-FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF FOCUS SHIFT IN INDIRECT NAMES: SEMANTIC ASPECTS
Author:
Maria I. Kiose
Affiliation:
Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Abstract:
The article deals with semantic aspects of focus shift in indirect nominations which is viewed as a basic cognitive mechanism of changing the function of nomination from direct into indirect and vise versa. Two basic types of foci – characterizing and identifying – are detected. The cognitive models with prevailing characterizing focus represent the metaphoric shift, whereas the ones with prevailing identi-fying focus signal the activation of metonymic shift. Metaphtonymic shifts receive particular attention being described in terms of compound focus, activating both characterizing and identifying elements.
The author analyses the transference from direct identifying nomination through indirect nomi-nation (indirect identifying – indirect with compound focus – indirect characterizing) to direct charac-terizing nomination.
The examples that demonstrate the activation of focus shift in indirect nominal units, hybrid units and nominal complexes show that compound focus can be activated by one lexical item (indirect nominal unit or the nucleus of a nominal complex) or can be spread within the components of a nominal complex.
Subsidiary cognitive mechanisms among which analogy / disanalogy, entrenchment / occasionali-zation realize the shift from direct to indirect nomination. Thus nomination is represented as a function defined by various parameters (communicative, pragmatic, textual) which guide the choice of semantic focus in conceptualizing the referent.
Keywords:
indirect nomination, focus and focus shift, identifying and characterizing foci, nomination entrenchment
References:
Arutyunova, N.D. Tipy yazykovykh znacheniy: otsenka, sobytie, fakt. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.
Arutyunova, N.D. Metafora i diskurs (vstupitel'naya stat'ya). Teoriya metafory: sbornik. Eds. N.D. Arutyunova i M.A. Zhurinskaya. Moscow: Progress, 1990, pp. 5-43.
Iriskhanova, O.K. O lingvokreativnoy deyatel'nosti cheloveka: otglagol'nye imena. Moscow: VTII, 2004.
Iriskhanova, O.K. Defokusirovanie i kategorizatsiya v kompleksnykh leksicheskikh edinitsakh. Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka. Vyp. VII. Tipy kategoriy v yazyke: sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Moscow: In-t yazykoznaniya RAN; Tambov: Izdatel'skiy dom TGU im. G.R. Derzhavina, 2010, pp.78-93.
Kant, I. Kritika chistogo razuma. In I. Kant, Sochineniya: 3 vols. Moscow: Mysl', 1964. V. 3.
Kubryakova, E.S. Teoriya nominatsii i slovoobrazovanie. Yazykovaya nominatsiya: Vidy naimenovaniy. Moscow: Nauka, 1977, pp. 222-303.
Kubryakova, E.S. Evolyutsiya lingvisticheskikh idey vo vtoroy polovine 20 veka (opyt paradigmal'nogo analiza). Yazyk i nauka kontsa 20 veka. Moscow: RGGU, 1995, pp. 144-238.
Kubryakova, E.S. Yazyk i znanie. Na puti polucheniya znaniy o yazyke: chasti rechi s kognitivnoy tochki zreniya. Rol' yazyka v poznanii mira. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kul'tury, 2004.
Potebnya, A.A. Mysl' i yazyk. Kiev: SINTO, 1993.
Stepanov, Yu.S. V trekhmernom prostranstve yazyka (Semioticheskie problemy lingvistiki, filosofii, iskusstva). Moscow: Nauka, 1985.
Stepanov, Yu.S. Esse «Novyy realizm». Sistema i tekst. In Yazyk i metod. K sovremennoy filosofii yazyka. Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul'tury, 1998.
Ufimtseva, A.A. Tipy slovesnykh znakov. Moscow: Nauka, 1974.
Yanko, T.E. Intonatsiya kontrasta, ili minimal'nye pary frazovoy prosodii. V prostranstve yazyka i kul'tury: Zvuk, znak, smysl: sbornik statey v chest' 70-letiya V.A. Vinogradova. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur, 2010, pp. 136-148.
Bartsch, R. (2003). Generating polysemy: Metaphor and metonymy. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 49-74). Berlin; N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (2003). Metonymy and metaphor: Different strategies of conceptualization. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75-111). Berlin; N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Donnellan, K.S. (1970). Proper names and identifying descriptions. Śynthese, 21, 335-358.
Fauconnier, G. (2001). Conceptual blending and analogy. In D. Gentner, K.J. Holyoak, & B.N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 254-285). Bradford Books.
Geeraerts, D. (2003). The interaction between metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75435-465). Berlin, N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goossens, L. (1995). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323-340.
Kripke, S.A. (1980). Naming and necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Merrel, F. (2009). Sign, mind, time, space. Semiotica, 177-1/4, 29-116.
Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and Object. USA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Steen, G.J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. A methodological analysis of theory and research. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamin's.
Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations, 4th ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pages:
25-33
