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.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Metonymy
2.1 Reference point construction
3 Telic and atelic verbs
3.1 What are telic verbs?
3.2 Examples
4 Conclusion
5 Selected Bibliography
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This academic paper aims to analyze the cognitive linguistic aspects of telic verbs by applying Ronald W. Langacker’s "Reference-point Construction" theory. The central research question explores whether the understanding of telic verbs can be fundamentally explained as a metonymic process, specifically identifying an "endpoint for terminating phase" metonymy.
- Cognitive linguistic analysis of metonymy and metaphor.
- Application of Langacker’s reference-point construction to verb semantics.
- Classification and linguistic characteristics of telic versus atelic verbs.
- Examination of the notion of interruptability in telic processes.
- Conceptualization of goal-oriented actions as metonymic phenomena.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 What are telic verbs?
In his book ”Linguistic Semantics”, William Frawley defines telic verbs as “resultative, which means that they have built in goals that they must reach in order to be successfully asserted” (Frawley, 1992, p.302). Conversely, atelic verbs do not have “such inherent consequences” (Frawley, 1992, p.302). Following from this definition is the conclusion that telic verbs possess an implied endpoint the visualization of which in the hearer´s mind is evoked by the speaker. Cases in point are the verbs “to bake” or “to construct” both of which imply an endpoint, which represents the assertion of a goal: e.g.: a baked bread or the construction of a house. The goal of a telic verb may be implied to an extent which makes it rather unlikely that it is not reached in the end but it is important to note that verbs which not simply imply but already describe the endpoint are – strictly speaking- not telic verbs. Examples of this kind would be the verbs “to cut” and “to hit”.
The question whether verbs are excluded from the group of telic verbs depends upon three criteria: Terminating phase and endpoint and the relation between the two. Whenever they mostly overlap (as they do with “to cut”, where terminating phase and endpoint happen simultaneously) the verb they refer to is not telic. In cognitive theory, examples of this kind are labelled “achievements” as opposed to accomplishments, which “require a certain duration for their completion” (Dirven, 2001, p.153). Telic verbs belong to the group of accomplishments.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter provides the theoretical foundation for the paper by situating metonymy as a cognitive phenomenon and outlining the application of Langacker's theory to the study of telic verbs.
2 Metonymy: This section explains the cognitive mechanism of reference-point construction, where one entity serves as a mental access point to a target entity within a conceptual domain.
3 Telic and atelic verbs: This chapter categorizes verbs based on linguistic criteria like changeability and duration, defining telic verbs as those that imply a natural completion or goal.
4 Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesizes the findings, proposing that telic verbs rely on a specific "endpoint for terminating phase" metonymy and reinforcing the cognitive nature of linguistic structures.
5 Selected Bibliography: This section lists the academic sources and linguistic research utilized to support the arguments presented in the paper.
Keywords
Metonymy, Cognitive Grammar, Telic Verbs, Reference-point Construction, Linguistic Semantics, Conceptualization, Accomplishments, Achievements, Interruptability, Cognitive Linguistics, Goal-oriented Verbs, Terminating Phase, Langacker, Verb Classes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on the cognitive linguistic analysis of telic verbs, investigating how we understand them through the lens of metonymy.
What are the central thematic areas?
The central themes include cognitive linguistic theories, the classification of verb types, the mechanism of reference-point construction, and the semantic nature of goal-oriented actions.
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to demonstrate that the understanding of telic verbs relies on a specific metonymic process—the "endpoint for terminating phase"—which serves as an access point to the implied goal of the action.
Which methodology is employed in this study?
The author uses a qualitative, theoretical approach, applying Ronald W. Langacker’s "Reference-point Construction" model to specific linguistic data (telic verbs) to validate the cognitive hypothesis.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body defines metonymy as a cognitive phenomenon, distinguishes between telic and atelic verbs using linguistic criteria, and provides examples of how the reference-point model explains the comprehension of such verbs.
What are the characterizing keywords?
Key terms include Metonymy, Cognitive Grammar, Telic Verbs, Reference-point Construction, and Conceptualization, among others.
How does the author define a "telic verb"?
Following William Frawley, the author defines telic verbs as "resultative," meaning they have built-in goals that must be reached, such as the verbs "to bake" or "to build."
Can telic verbs be interrupted?
Yes, the author argues that contrary to the assumption that telic verbs must be uninterruptible, they can be interrupted; in such cases, the process holds true, but the consequence or goal is nullified.
Why is the example "England were winning" significant to the study?
This example is used to illustrate how a conceptualizer utilizes the implied endpoint as a reference-point to access the terminating phase, providing a clear visual representation of the cognitive process proposed by Langacker.
- Quote paper
- Hanno Frey (Author), 2002, Metonymy and telic verbs, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/16389
