1 / 35

Complexities of Pragmatic Effects in Blended Figures: The Case of Metaphtonymy

Complexities of Pragmatic Effects in Blended Figures: The Case of Metaphtonymy. Herbert L. Colston , University of Alberta 1 st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language Thessaloniki, Greece, April 26, 2014.

rico
Download Presentation

Complexities of Pragmatic Effects in Blended Figures: The Case of Metaphtonymy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Complexities of Pragmatic Effects in Blended Figures: The Case of Metaphtonymy Herbert L. Colston, University of Alberta 1st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language Thessaloniki, Greece, April 26, 2014

  2. Leonard: Just because people appreciate comic books doesn't make them weirdos. Stuart's a terrific artist. He went to the Rhode Island School of Design. Penny: Okay, what about the guy over there in the superhero T-shirt tucked into his sweatpants? Leonard: Ah, yeah, that's Captain Sweatpants. He doesn't really help the point I'm trying to make. (Big Bang Theory, 2009)

  3. “Captain Sweatpants” Blends metaphor, synecdoche and irony(and possibly oxymora), & achieves, among other pragmatic effects, derision. Irony has known mechanisms for affecting derision such as contrast effects (see Gibbs & Colston, 2012). What about metaphor/synecdoche alone & derision? a) how do they achieve it? b) what happens when they’re blended?

  4. How are Metaphors Derisive? (some, in isolation) • Borrowing – Association • Sharing – Similarity Enhancement • Blending – Mutual Highlighting • Emergence – Mutual Highlighting Plus X • Simulation – Re-experience

  5. Borrowing - Association: TARGET is SOURCE & source is negative

  6. “Clive Jr. is a fart blossom.” (Russo, 1994) [derived]

  7. Sharing – Similarity Enhancement: TARGET is SOURCE & both are negative

  8. “I was faced with that terrible thing, when somebody shows you their work and everything about it is shit.” (Banksy, 2010)

  9. Blending – Mutual Highlighting: TARGET is SOURCE & mutually revealed negativity

  10. “He’s such a noodle.” (colleague, 1999)

  11. Emergence – Mutual Highlighting Plus X: TARGET is SOURCE & mutually revealed negativity and…

  12. “They’re zipperheads.” (colleague, 1992)

  13. Simulation – Re-Experience: TARGET is SOURCE & source conjures embodied negativity

  14. “Christmas was vomited all over the house.” (student, 2010)

  15. How are Synecdoches Derisive? (some, in isolation) • Diminishment – For Human Targets & Synecdoche • Outing – In-group/Out-group Categorization • Iconic Minimalism – Akin to Asyndeton • Attitude Demonstration – Embellishment Reluctance

  16. Colston & Brooks (2008), Colston (2014): Compared Direct Reference Proximal Metonymy Normal Synecdoche Unusual Synecdoche

  17. Colston & Brooks (2008), Colston (2014): Ratings Collected On Derision (Experiment 1) Humor (Experiment 2) Identification (Experiment 3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Less X More X

  18. Blends: Metaphor/Metonymy Metaphor/Synecdoche • Examples (derived from overheard comments): • Synecdoche with Metaphorical Characteristics • Metaphor with Synecdochal Characteristics • Metonymy with Metaphorical Characteristics • Metaphors with Metonymic Characteristics • Resemblance-Metonymy with Metaphorical Characteristics • Metaphors with Resemblance-Metonymic Characteristics

  19. “We better go, Crewcut told us to leave.”

  20. “That guy is such a crewcut.”

  21. “I have no idea, go ask Encyclopedia overthere.”

  22. “That woman is a total encyclopedia.”

  23. “Here comes Weeble.”

  24. “Rob Ford is a weeble.”

  25. Blends & Derision • Source Mechanism(s) Becomes Less Clear • Enhancement vs. Diminishment, Open Empirical Question • Blends & Combination Effects • Admiration, Persuasion, Ingratiation, etc. • Enhancement vs. Diminishment, Also an Open Empirical Question

  26. Conclusions • Metaphor achieves derision via fore-fronting negativity from source and/or target domains • Synecdoche & Metonymy achieve derision via schematic diminishment (with human targets) • Blends of Metaphor and Synedoche/Metonymy: Muddle the individual derision mechanisms, May achieve enhanced derision, May achieve figurative density effects (e.g., ingratiation)

  27. With Sincere Gratitude Recent Collaborators: Elizabeth Brooks Raymond Gibbs, Jr. Supporters: Chair’s Research Grant, Faculty of Arts, University of Alberta Faculty and Staff Professional Opportunities Fund, University of Wisconsin-Parkside College of Arts & Sciences Undergraduate Apprenticeship Program, University of Wisconsin-Parkside Association for Psychological Science Cambridge University Press

  28. References Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. C. (2012).Using figurative language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Colston, H. C., & Brooks, E. N. (2008, May).Pragmatic effects of metonymy. Poster session presented at the meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Chicago, IL. Colston, H. C. (2014).Derision in referencing: Pragmatic effects of synecdoche and metonymy. Manuscript in preparation. Russo, R. (1994).Nobody’s fool. New York: Knopf Doubleday. Cushing, H., D’Cruz, J., & Gay-Rees, J. (Producers), & Banksy(Director). (2010).Exit through the gift shop. United Kingdom: Paranoid Pictures. Lorre, C. (Writer), & Cendrowski, M. (Director). (2009). The Hofstadter Isotope [Television series episode]. In C. Lorre, B. Prady, & S. Molaro (Executive Producers), The Big bang theory, City: CBS Broadcasting Inc.

More Related