A property of human language which makes it stand out among the ways living creatures communicate is its reflexive capacity. This capacity manifests itself as what is called metalanguage, i.e. reference to general regularities of language, reports or explicit descriptions of linguistic action, indexical forms varying with the actual event of speaking, or prosodic variation forming illocutions.
Why a seemingly marginal object for this paper? As Vanparys points out, “various linguistic action verbials (eg scream, shout, whisper, yell, …) pick out the acoustic quality of the reported speech event as their major meaning component“, and among these linguistic action verbials specifying the acoustic quality of a particular reported speech event “two donor domains stand out for their prominence: animal sounds and music. Indeed, a whole range of verbials expressing the production of sounds by animals can be applied to human communication.”
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION: A SHORT SURVEY OF METALINGUISTICS
2. FAUNA-BASED EXPRESSIONS
2.1 FAUNA-BASED EXPRESSIONS WITHIN METALINGUISTICS
2.2 EFFECTS OF FAUNA-BASED EXPRESSIONS
3. OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTATIONS
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 PREVIOUS WORK FOR THE SEMINAR HOME ASSIGNMENT
4.2 ONLINE RESOURCES FOR BESTIAL EXPRESSIONS
4.3 A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NATIVE SPEAKERS
5. ANALYSES OF FAUNA-BASED EXPRESSIONS’ USAGE
5.1 PRELIMINARIES
5.2 THE EXPRESSIONS IN QUESTION
5.3 ANALYSIS BY NOVELTY (ACCORDING TO FIRST APPEARANCES)
5.4 ANALYSIS BY PRODUCTIVITY (ACCORDING TO TOTAL NUMBER)
6. CASES OF DOUBT
6.1 CASES OF SIMULTANEITY
6.2 CASES OF FORESTALLING
7. SUMMARY
8. CONCLUDING REMARKS
9. REFERENCES
Research Objectives and Thematic Focus
This paper aims to investigate the diachronic development and usage of metalinguistic expressions that utilize the animal kingdom as their primary donor domain. It seeks to determine how different classes of animals have influenced these metaphorical expressions over time, specifically analyzing the connotations of "bestial" sounds when applied to human speech.
- Diachronic analysis of animal-based sound verbials in English.
- Evaluation of value judgements (positive vs. negative) associated with animal metaphors.
- Distinction between "common" (indigenous) and "exotic" animal domains.
- Comparison of productivity across different centuries (14th to 20th).
- Correlation of linguistic features like loudness, pitch, speed, and duration with animal-based metaphors.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Fauna-Based Expressions Within Metalinguistics
The introduction proved metalinguistics a diversified field worth exploring, especially its imagistic branch involving metaphoricality. In 1995, Paul Pauwels and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, starting from the premise that the purpose of metaphoricality is “to structure abstract domains by means of projections from more concrete domains“ (ibid.: 35), ventured out and explored body parts as a structured concrete domain of metalinguistic expressions. Yet, of course, this is but one donor domain available for the creation of metaphorical expressions, and metalinguistics draws heavily from other domains as aggression, sounds, visual perception, etc. (cf. Vanparys: pass.)
The scope of this paper will be rather narrowly set, as it focuses on but one particular donor domain for metaphorical metalinguistic expressions: the animal kingdom. Why this seemingly marginal object? As Vanparys (32) points out, “various linguistic action verbials (eg scream, shout, whisper, yell, …) pick out the acoustic quality of the reported speech event as their major meaning component“, and among these linguistic action verbials specifying the acoustic quality of a particular reported speech event “two donor domains stand out for their prominence: animal sounds and music. Indeed, a whole range of verbials expressing the production of sounds by animals can be applied to human communication.” (ibid.).
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: A SHORT SURVEY OF METALINGUISTICS: Introduces the reflexive capacity of human language and the concept of metalanguage as the framework for the study.
2. FAUNA-BASED EXPRESSIONS: Examines the theoretical role of animal sounds as a donor domain for metaphorical expressions and their generally negative connotations.
3. OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTATIONS: Outlines the research intent to analyze the diachronic development of these expressions and the differences between various animal classes.
4. METHODOLOGY: Describes the data collection process, including the use of the OED, online linguistic resources, and a survey conducted with native speakers.
5. ANALYSES OF FAUNA-BASED EXPRESSIONS’ USAGE: Provides a comprehensive analysis of 65 verbials based on first appearance and total productivity throughout different historical periods.
6. CASES OF DOUBT: Discusses ambiguous expressions where the origin is unclear due to simultaneous usage in other domains or the existence of human-based precedents.
7. SUMMARY: Consolidates the findings regarding the predominance of negative connotations and the historical productivity of mammal-based vs. bird-based metaphors.
8. CONCLUDING REMARKS: Reaffirms the paper's findings that the animal kingdom serves as a predominantly depreciative donor domain for reports of linguistic action.
9. REFERENCES: Lists the academic literature and digital resources utilized for the study.
Key Terms
Metalinguistics, Animal-based expressions, Donor domain, Metaphoricality, Diachronic analysis, Linguistic action, Verbials, Bestial sounds, Semantic connotation, Oxford English Dictionary, Prototypical, Semantic change, Metaphor, Acoustic quality, Discourse analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on metalinguistic expressions derived from animal sounds, analyzing how these terms are used to characterize human speech patterns and what psychological or cultural frames they reveal.
Which animal domains are most prominent in the study?
The study highlights mammals and birds as the most significant donor domains, with mammals often linked to early, negative, and aggressive connotations, while bird-based metaphors appear later and sometimes carry positive evaluations.
What is the primary objective of the diachronic analysis?
The goal is to determine at which period of time different animal classes influenced the formation of metaphorical expressions and how the productivity of these terms has evolved from the 14th to the 20th century.
What research methodology was employed by the author?
The author combined lexicographical research using the Oxford English Dictionary with an online questionnaire distributed to native speakers to gather contemporary insights into animal-sound verbials.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body covers a quantitative and qualitative analysis of 65 specific verbials, their historical first appearances, their usage frequency, and their association with phonetic features like pitch, volume, and speed.
How would you summarize the linguistic conclusions?
The paper concludes that animal-based metaphors primarily function as a depreciative tool for reporting speech, often highlighting loudness, aggression, or lack of clarity (haste/unintelligibility).
Why did the author encounter "cases of doubt"?
Cases of doubt occurred when terms had simultaneous origins in human or musical contexts, making it difficult to definitively claim that the animal domain was the sole original source of the metaphor.
How did native speakers perceive the questionnaire?
Despite being presented as straightforward, the questionnaire was described by participants as quite exigent and difficult, revealing that native speakers are often uncertain about specific animal sounds, which in turn influences the use of these terms in metaphors.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Volker Lorenz (Autor:in), 2007, The Animal Kingdom as a Donor Domain for Metalinguistic Expressions , München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/125548
