Conceptualizing humans as animals in English verb particle constructions

Main Article Content

Klaus-Uwe Panther
Linda L. Thornburg

Abstract

Author/s


Klaus-Uwe Panther
Nanjing Normal University, China, and University of Hamburg, Germany
Linda L. Thornburg
Nanjing Normal University, China


 


ABSTRACT


Verb particle constructions with animal names used as verbs (‘VPrt critter constructions’), such as horse around, clam up, and rat out, are interesting because of their (i) grammatical structure, (ii) pragmatic function, (iii) conceptual content, and (iv) the cultural knowledge they reflect. This chapter focuses on the latter two aspects of critter constructions. More specifically, we assume that an adequate analysis of critter constructions requires folk or cultural models of the animals in question, spatial schemas for the particle, metaphorical mappings and metonymic inferences, and aspectual categories in the sense of Vendler (1957). We place our findings in the larger context of the status of cultural and cognitive models in general. Such models (including animal folk models) are often outdated and reflect centuries-old beliefs that have left their traces in lexico-grammatical structure, in this case, critter constructions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Panther , K.-U. ., & Thornburg , L. L. . (2019). Conceptualizing humans as animals in English verb particle constructions. Language Value, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2012.4.4
Section
Articles

References

Barcelona, A. 2000. “On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor”. In Barcelona, A. (Ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 31–58.

Bridoux, A. (Ed.) 1953. Oeuvres et lettres de Descartes. Paris: Gallimard.

Brinton, L.J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Clark, E.V. and Clark, H.H. 1979. “When nouns surface as verbs”. Language 55, 767–811.

Deignan, A. 2006. “The grammar of linguistic metaphors”. In Stefanowitsch, A. and S.T. Gries (Eds.) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 106–122.

Dirven, R. 1999. “Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata”. In Panther, K.-U. and G. Radden (Eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 275–287.

Drabble, M. (Ed.) 2000. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Goatly, A. 2006. “Humans, animals, and metaphors”. Society and Animals 14 (1), 15–37.

Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Longman Dictionary of American English (LDAE). 1983. White Plains, NY: Longman.

New Oxford American Dictionary. 2010. Stevenson, A. and C.A. Lindberg (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol. 1: Prepositions & Particles.1975. Cowie A.P. and R. Mackin (Eds.). London: Oxford University Press.

Panther, K.-U. 2006. “Metonymy as a usage event”. In Kristiansen, G., M. Achard, R. Dirven, and F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 147–185.

Panther, K.-U. and Radden, G. 2011. “Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited”. In Panther, K.-U. and G. Radden (Eds.) Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–26.

Quinn, N. and Holland, D. 1987. “Culture and Cognition”. In Holland. D. and N. Quinn (Eds.) Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–40.

Radden, G. 2002. “How metonymic are metaphors?”. In Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (Eds.) Metaphor in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 407–434.

Ris-Eberle, S. 2004. “Tiere in der Religion Ägyptens: Tiere als Götter im Alten Ägypten?” UniPress 122. Bern: Universität Bern, Abteilung Kommunikation, 50–53.

Sweetser, E.E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thornburg, L.L. and Panther, K.-U. 2000. “Why we subject incorporate (in English): A post-Whorfian view”. In Pütz, M. and M.H. Verspoor (Eds.) Explorations in Linguistic Relativity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 319–343.

Vendler, Z. 1957. “Verbs and times”. The Philosophical Review 66, 143–160.