Contents

1  Introduction  4

2  Metonymy  5

2.1  Reference point construction  5

3  Telic and atelic verbs  7

3.1  What are telic verbs?  8

3.2  Examples  9

4  Conclusion  11

5  Selected Bibliography  12

3

1 Introduction

For centuries, the study of metonymy and metaphor has been regarded purely a matter of style and rhetoric. In addition to that, research into metonymic relationship traditionally has been put only second to the phenomenon of metaphor. However, things have changed a little over the past decades. Especially after Lakoff/ Johnson had published their influential work on metaphor and conceptualization (“Metaphors we live by”, 1980) research into cognitive aspects of language gained more ground in linguistics. Deeper insight into the way we structure our perception of the world has led to the conclusion that both, metaphor and metonymy, must be regarded as cognitive phenomena. As such they illustrate the fact that “fundamental cognitive abilities and experientially derived cognitive models have direct and pervasive linguistic manifestations” (Langacker, 1993, p.1) and, conversely, that by ways of examining language we can analyse important aspects of the way our mind is structured. As for metonymy, the relationship between thought and language is characterised by the fact that “an expression that normally designs one entity is used instead to designate another, associated entity” (Langacker, 1993, p. 29). Crucial questions which spring from this assumption are: How and why do we understand metonymies? Which principles are involved in the process of creating and understanding metonymic expressions and why can we rely on them? 1

In the following, I will answer these questions on the basis of Ronald W. Langacker´s essay “Reference-point Construction” (Langacker, 1993). I will apply Langacker´s theoretical notions to a rather specific area of language: telic verbs. By way of referring to a selection of telic verbs I will argue that the understanding of telic verbs relies on metonymy- a metonymy that is not included in the lists of metonymies developed by some well-known linguists (cf.: Fass, 1997, 461-469). The contents of my term paper is structured in three parts: First of all, I am going to exemplify Langacker´s theory about metonymic expressions. In a second step I will point out important characteristics of telic verbs. Finally, I will exemplify how the process of understanding telic verbs can be explained in terms of Langacker´s theory.

¹ Given that language itself is basically a means to provide access to complex concepts in order to communicate them, it must be seen as a genuinely metonymic phenomenon.

4

2 Metonymy

As mentioned above, metonymy occurs when an expression that “normally designs one entity is used instead to designate another, associated entity. The requisite association is quite variable in nature” (Langacker, 1993, p.29) as the following examples ² illustrate:

1. Part for whole: “The coach is going to put some fresh legs in the game 3 ”+.

2. Whole for part: “My pencil broke”+. ( > only the lead point is broken)

3. Possession for owner: “The ship left the harbour”+.

4. Institution for person: “He phoned the hospital”+. (…) 4

Interesting about all these examples is the question why we understand what the speaker means. According to Langacker this is due to the fact that metonymy is a reference-point phenomenon: The entity that is designated by a metonymic expression serves as a reference point affording mental access to the desired target. Langacker´s approach to metonymy is illustrated under figure1:

2.1 Reference point construction 5

Figure 1: Reference-point construction C: Conceptualizer R: Reference Point

The circle labelled C represents the conceptualizer, i.e.: the person performing the mental process described in this figure. R is the reference point and T the target, i.e. the entity that the conceptualizer uses the reference point to establish mental contact with. The mental path the conceptualizer follows in reaching the target is indicated by the arrows. Finally, the ellipse labelled D represents an abstract entity that Langacker refers to as the dominion, which

² Most examples are taken from: Langacker, 1993, p.29 ff..

³ All speech samples of this term paper are taken from the BNC unless marked otherwise by “+”.

⁴ There are various other examples such as „producer for product”: „She bought Shakespeare for $2”.

⁵ Taken from: Langacker, 1993, p.6.

5