Cover not available
Article published In:
Living Metaphors and Metonymies
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1] 2022
► pp. 130–155

Attribute transfer

The figurative interpretation of shifted modifiers

 | University of Hamburg
The rhetorical trope hypallage, here called Attribute Transfer (AT), has been exploited artistically and creatively since antiquity in poetic and narrative discourse, but it is also used in ordinary language. This study focuses on modifier-noun constructions in which the prenominal modifier (attribute) is “shifted” from one position to another – a “transfer” that triggers metonymic interpretations. AT constitutes a violation of the iconically motivated proximity principle (Givón 2001) according to which the conceptual and functional closeness of linguistic units is mirrored in their morphosyntactic structure. The principle of proximity competes with metonymic motivation – the latter prevailing at the expense of the former. An interesting structural parallelism exists between AT and the shift of the negator not from its “logical” position to another syntactic slot (‘neg-transportation’), which again exhibits a violation of the proximity principle. The article concludes with some suggestions for further research, especially cross-linguistic and typological investigations.
Keywords: iconicity, hypallage, metonymy, modifier-noun constructions, neg-transportation, structural parallelism, violations of proximity principle
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some literary examples of Attribute Transfer
  • 3.Attribute Transfer in ordinary language
    • 3.1Introduction
    • 3.2Compositional vs. metonymically interpreted ModN constructions
      • 3.2.1Healthy person vs. healthy diet
      • 3.2.2Fasting person vs. fasting test
      • 3.2.3Drunken soldier vs. drunken spree: Assigning human attributes to events
      • 3.2.4Quiet and relaxed cups of coffee
      • 3.2.5Is a foreign correspondent a foreigner?
  • 4.A conflict between two cognitive parameters: Iconicity vs. metonymy
  • 5.Functions of hypallage
  • 6.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00104.pan
References (47)
References
Barcelona, A. (2003). The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113) (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The conceptual motivation of bahuvrihi compounds in English and Spanish. In M. Brdrar, S. Th. Gries & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and expansion (Human Cognitive Processing 32) (pp. 151–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Metonymy. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 143–167). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R. (2006). Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations (Human Cognitive Processing 19). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Branka-Rosoff, S., & Zinsmaier, T. (1998). Hypallage. In G. Ueding (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Vol. 41. (pp.107–109). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C., & Postal, P. M. (2014). Classical NEG raising: An essay in the syntax of negation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at: [URL]
Dingemanse, M., Perlman, M., & Perniss, P. (2020). Construals of iconicity: Experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition, 121, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupriez, B. (1991). A dictionary of literary devices (A. Halsall, Trans.). New York: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eliot, T. S. (2005). The Waste Land and other poems. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Feist, J. (2012). Premodifiers in English: Their structure and significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1972). Figures III. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction. Vol. 21. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 561, 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (1985). Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). In defense of iconicity. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 35–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2006). Implicature. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Neg-raising. In V. Déprez & M. T. Espinal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of negation (pp. 199–215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H. (1990). Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Metonymy. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 407–422). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A., & Moravcsik, E. (Eds.) (2014). Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNally, L. (2016). Modification. In M. Aloni & P. Dekker (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics (pp. 442–464). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2013). Goals and methods of generative syntax. In M. den Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax (pp. 61–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2022). Introduction to cognitive pragmatics (Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 4). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (Human Cognitive Processing 60) (pp. 121–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. (1986). Iconicity in syntax: The natural order of attributes. In P. Bouissac, M. Herzfeld, & R. Posner (Eds.), Iconicity: Essays on the nature of culture. Festschrift for Thomas A. Sebeok on his 65th birthday (pp. 305–337). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1976). The syntax and semantics of neg-raising, with evidence from French. Language 52 (2), 404–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proust, M. (2005). In search of lost time. Vol. II: Within a budding grove. (C. K. S. Moncrieff, T. Kilmartin, & D. J. Enright. Trans.). London: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
(1920). À l’ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs. Paris: Éditions de la Nouvelle Revue Française.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2021). Iconicity. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 268–296). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (2007). Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. (2008). Descriptive and discourse-referential modifiers in a layered model of the noun phrase. Linguistics 46 (4), 789–829. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romoli, J. (2013). A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising. Linguistics and Philosophy, 361, 291–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2020). Figurative language: Relations and constraints. In J. Barnden & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (Figurative Language and Thought 10) (pp. 469–510). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Conceptual metonymy theory revisited: Some definitional and taxonomic issues. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 204–227). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L. L., & Panther, K.-U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1957). Style in the French novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Virgil (1995). The Aeneid (E. McCrorie, Trans.). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2003). A multifactorial corpus analysis of adjective order in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (2), 245–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2023. Hypallage is a rare bird. Not.. Lingua 289 ► pp. 103511 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.