Non-literal uses of proper names in XYZ constructions: A relevance theory perspective

Ewa Wałaszewska
Abstract

The paper focuses on non-literal uses of proper names in XYZ constructions, such as the use of the personal name Donald Trump in Boris Johnson is the Donald Trump of UK politics or ‘5G’ is the Donald Trump of telecom, and argues that such uses can be best accounted for by relevance theory. While in their primary use, proper names uniquely denote specific individuals and have no meaning on their own, in their secondary uses, they act as common nouns, capable of conveying non-literal meanings. In relevance theory, such non-literal uses can be explained in terms of lexical modulation or ad hoc concept formation. The analysis of selected examples shows that while some of the XYZ constructions can be seen as metaphors, others are better described as category extensions, and it substantiates the relevance-theoretic claim that there is no clear cut-off point between the two varieties of loose use.

Keywords:
Publication history
Table of contents

1.Introduction

Proper names as terms used to uniquely identify specific individuals have long attracted the interest of linguists and philosophers seeking answers to the questions concerning their meaning and reference. Much less attention has been given to so-called secondary uses of proper names as illustrated by He is no Shakespeare used to comment on the writer’s lack of genius.

The paper focuses on non-literal uses of proper names in XYZ constructions, which can be illustrated by the use of the personal name Donald Trump in Boris Johnson is the Donald Trump of UK politics. XYZ constructions are understood as structures with free slots to be filled with lexical content, and typically analysed within cognitive linguistics as cases of blending or as metaphors. These analyses do not explain in a comprehensive way how the meaning of proper names contributes to the interpretation of non-literal uses of proper names in such constructions, how such interpretations vary with respect to non-literalness and creativity. A new analysis is offered within relevance theory with a view to suggesting satisfactory solutions to these problems. Examples of non-literal uses of proper names in the XYZ construction are based on the pragmatic process of lexical modulation or ad hoc concept formation. More specifically, they are regarded as broadened ad hoc concepts, with varied degrees of creativity, depending on whether essential (category extension) or peripheral (metaphor) properties associated with the name bearer are projected onto the ad hoc concept. XYZ constructions are analysed as ‘pragmatic routines’, which explains why such novel and often creative uses should not be difficult to process. Above all, the analysis of such examples supports the relevance-theoretic hypothesis that there is a continuum between category extensions and metaphors within a larger continuum of loose uses.

2.Some issues concerning proper names

2.1Formal aspects of proper names

Proper names are terms conventionally used to identify specific individuals (or collections of entities, e.g. the Hebrides), typically people (e.g. William Shakespeare), and places (e.g. London), but also objects (e.g. Nautilius, the famous submarine named by Jules Verne), animals (e.g. Bucephalus, the horse of Alexander the Great), institutions (e.g. the Knesset), historical events (e.g. the Plague), and public holidays (e.g. Passover), etc. (Payne and Huddleston 2002Payne, John, and Rodney Huddleston 2002 “Nouns and Noun Phrases.” In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 515–516). Huddleston (1988Huddleston, Rodney 1988English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 96) defines a prototypical proper name as “the institutionalised name of some specific person, place, organisation, etc. – institutionalised by some formal act of naming and/or registration.” Of various categories of proper names, the most common are personal names (see also Hanks 2006Hanks, Patrick 2006 “Proper Names: Linguistic Status.” In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd Edition), ed. by Keith Brown, 134–137. Boston: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Lehrer 2006Lehrer, Adrienne 2006 “Proper Names: Semantic Aspects.” In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd Edition), ed. by Keith Brown, 141–145. Boston: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).

Since a proper name is used to refer to a specific entity (or a collection of entities) conventionally associated with that name, it is generally assumed that “a proper name is inherently definite” (Payne and Huddleston 2002Payne, John, and Rodney Huddleston 2002 “Nouns and Noun Phrases.” In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 517), which makes proper names in English incompatible with both indefinite and definite determiners. The former are excluded because of the clash between the inherent definiteness of proper names and indefiniteness marked by the presence of such determiners, while the inclusion of the latter in proper names will result in redundant marking of definiteness. With respect to definiteness marking, Payne and Huddleston (2002)Payne, John, and Rodney Huddleston 2002 “Nouns and Noun Phrases.” In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar distinguish between strong proper names such as William Shakespeare, in which there is no (extra) definiteness marker, and weak proper names like the Thames, which require the definite article.11.As mentioned by Bach (2002Bach, Kent 2002 “Giorgione Was So-Called Because of His Name.” Philosophical Perspectives 16: 73–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 96, fn. 12), in English, for example, names of rivers (the Ganges) or deserts (the Sahara) may be elliptical forms standing for “the name-containing definite descriptions” such as the Ganges River and the Sahara Desert.

2.2The semantics of proper names in relevance theory

The semantics of proper names is a much contested subject in linguistics and philosophy, and there seem to be two basic positions about the meaning of proper names: either it is limited to direct reference or it comes from a description of some kind. The first position can be traced back to John Stuart Mill (1974)Mill, John Stuart 1974 A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (Volume VII) . In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. by John M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar (for discussion, see e.g. Bunnin and Yu 2004Bunnin, Nicholas, and Jiyuan Yu 2004The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar; Lycan 2019Lycan, William G. 2019Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar; Schwartz 2014Schwartz, Stephen P. 2014 “Mill on Names.” In Mill’s “A System of Logic”: Critical Appraisals, ed. by Antis Loizides, 44–62. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Reimer 2006Reimer, Marga 2006 “Proper Names: Philosophical Aspects.” In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd Edition), ed. by Keith Brown, 137–141. Boston: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar); this group also comprises Kripke’s (1980)Kripke, Saul 1980Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar causal theory of reference (with variations of the theory proposed by Hilary Putnam, Keith Donnelan, and David Kaplan). The second position, according to which the meaning of a proper name is the descriptive (conceptual) content with which the name is associated, goes back to Frege (1892/1980)Frege, Gottlob 1892/1980 “On Sense and Reference.” In Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (3rd Edition), ed. by Peter Geach, and Max Black, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar and is also connected with Russell (1905Russell, Bertrand 1905 “On Denoting.” In Logic and Knowledge. Essays 1901–1950, ed. by Robert C. Marsh 1956, 41–56. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar, 1918 1918 “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.” In Logic and Knowledge. Essays 1901–1950, ed. by Robert C. Marsh 1956, 177–281. London: George Allen and Unwin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and Searle (1958)Searle, John R. 1958 “Proper Names.” Mind 67 (266): 166–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar (for discussion, see e.g. Audi 2015Audi, Robert ed. 2015The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (3rd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Lycan 2019Lycan, William G. 2019Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar; Taschek 2010Taschek, William 2010 “On Sense and Reference: A Critical Reception.” In The Cambridge Companion to Frege, ed. by Michael Potter, and Tom Ricketts, 293–341. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).

Interestingly, to account for the semantics of proper names, it is not necessary to adopt either of these positions. In relevance theory, it is generally assumed that meanings of proper names (and of most words22.The exception is words encoding procedural meaning, which constrains the pragmatic inference processes responsible for utterance interpretation (see e.g. Blakemore 1987Blakemore, Diane 1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar, 2002 2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). in general) come from associated mental concepts, and it is the design of these concepts that holds the answer to the question what kind of meaning proper names (and other words) have.

Lexical concepts (i.e. concepts encoded by words) are regarded as distinct mental structures with a relatively high degree of stability. Such a concept consists of an address in memory which provides access to different kinds of mentally represented information filed at that particular conceptual address via three types of entries: logical, encyclopaedic and lexical (Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar, 86). Only the logical entry for a concept makes any contribution to the content of an assumption which contains that concept, while its encyclopaedic entry, at least partly, determines the context in which that assumption is processed (Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar, 89). The logical entry for a concept provides access to computational information, understood as a set of deductive rules operating on assumptions in which that concept appears. The encyclopaedic entry gives access to representational information about the extension and/or denotation of the concept; it includes expert information, folk knowledge, cultural beliefs, and personal opinions and experiences, which may be stored in the form of propositional representations, assumption schemas, prototypes, scenarios or scripts and mental images (Carston 2002 2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 321; Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar, 88). The lexical entry contains representations with linguistic forms. It includes information about the phonetic structure and grammatical properties of a word used for encoding the associated concept (Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar, 90).

Different types of words can be associated with different types of concepts, or as observed by Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar, 90), “different words may have meanings of different formats”. Hence, Sperber and Wilson suggest that, unlike common nouns, proper names are associated with concepts which provide access only to lexical and encyclopaedic information; there is no logical information. This naturally follows from their assumption that the extent to which concepts are logically specified may vary: some logical entries may amount to a full definition of a concept, some may “provide some logical specification of the concept without fully defining it” (Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar, 92), and some may be empty. Because of such a design of concepts, the relevance-theoretic framework is well-suited to accommodate varied approaches to lexical semantics. For example, to subscribe to the causal theory of meaning, according to which both proper names and natural kind terms are treated alike, it would be enough for relevance theorists to postulate that all these terms are associated with concepts with empty logical entries and appropriately modified encyclopaedic entries.

More recent relevance-theoretic work shows that it is also possible to reconcile the referentialist view and the descriptivist position by restating meaning in terms of mental representations and arguing that the meaning of proper names may vary depending on the nature of each name and its use in context. This is what Powell (2010Powell, George 2010Language, Thought and Reference. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 76) does, offering what he calls “a mixed referential-descriptive account”. Admitting that proper names most frequently contribute just their referents to truth conditions, Powell also allows for descriptive content to enter the propositional content in some contexts. According to him, proper names serve the purpose of communicating individual concepts, which he views as subjective cognitive entities or “dossiers containing information all of which is taken by the holder of the concept to be satisfied by the same individual” (Powell 2010Powell, George 2010Language, Thought and Reference. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 14). To understand a proper name used by the speaker, it is necessary for the hearer to “entertain some individual concept” (Powell 2010Powell, George 2010Language, Thought and Reference. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 55, original italics) which has the same denotation as the speaker’s concept and which is associated with the name used. On his view, the meaning of a proper name is not only its referent; its meaning is also determined by the internal dimension of the individual concept. Importantly, there are no constraints on how similar the internal dimensions of the speaker’s and the hearer’s concepts must be, so the speaker and the hearer may associate different descriptions with the proper name’s referent. Thus, Powell’s relevance-theoretic approach does not postulate any uniform meaning for proper names, arguing instead that individual concepts expressed by them may be used to refer directly or through some descriptive content according to the speaker’s intention.

2.3Secondary uses of proper names

Even though, undoubtedly, the primary function of proper names is to identify a certain individual in a unique unambiguous way, it is also possible to use a proper name to show that an entity is not a sole bearer of that name or to make a comment on an entity which is not really a bearer of that proper name. While, in their primary use, proper names in English are assumed to be inherently singular and definite, which typically precludes the presence of determiners; in their secondary use, the loss of the inherent definiteness motivates the selection of determiners or pluralization. In their insightful discussion of the grammar of English proper names and proper nouns, Payne and Huddleston (2002Payne, John, and Rodney Huddleston 2002 “Nouns and Noun Phrases.” In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 520–522) suggest several secondary uses of proper names, the most important of which are illustrated in the examples below:

(1)
  1. I’ve never met [an Ophelia] before.

  2. We need [another Einstein].

  3. She’s [no Florence Nightingale].

  4. [The young Isaac Newton] showed no signs of genius.

  5. Let’s listen to [some Beethoven] tonight.

Example (1a) illustrates how proper names can be used to denote a set of bearers of the proper name. Since there may be a number of people called Ophelia, the name Ophelia denotes the set of people having this name. The sentence will thus be interpreted as meaning that the speaker has never before met a person with the name Ophelia.33.Example (1a) may also be interpreted in the same way as (1b) and (1c) if the noun phrase an Ophelia is not interpreted as ‘bearer of the name Ophelia’, but as a kind referred to as Ophelia, in that there are properties that all people called Ophelia share. (This reading is more accessible if, in place of an Ophelia, a phrase like a typical Ophelia is used.) Examples (1b) and (1c) show how proper names can be used to denote a set of entities that have relevant properties of the name bearer. In particular, another Einstein is understood as ‘another person with such-and-such properties commonly associated with Alfred Einstein’, while the expression no Florence Nightingale suggests that the person thus described does not have the properties that would qualify her as a member of the set of people having the properties associated with Florence Nightingale (i.e. compassion, diligence, commitment to patient care, etc.). Example (1d) illustrates the use of proper names to denote a set of manifestations of the name bearer. Guided by the presence of the adjective young, the addressee will restrict the reference of the proper name to one of the manifestations of Isaac Newton, namely, that of Isaac Newton as a young person, and not, say, that of Isaac Newton as a recognised scientist. Finally, Example (1e) is an illustration of how proper names are used to denote a set of products created by the name bearer. The expression some Beethoven is shorthand for ‘some music by Beethoven’.

The above examples of secondary uses of proper names do not fall into one category. In the remainder of the paper, I focus only on cases where proper names are used to denote a set of entities having properties associated with the name bearer, as illustrated in Examples (1b) and (1c) above, elsewhere referred to as ‘resemblance examples’ (see e.g. Fara 2015Fara, Delia G. 2015 “ ‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 251–279. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Jeshion 2015aJeshion, Robin 2015a “A Rejoinder to Fara’s “‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names”.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 280–294. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2015b 2015b “Names Not Predicates.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 225–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2015c 2015c “Referentialism and Predicativism about Proper Names.” Erkenntnis 80: 363–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), and I treat them as non-literal uses of proper names. In the literature, these uses have come to be known as ‘non-referential’ (e.g. Bach 2002Bach, Kent 2002 “Giorgione Was So-Called Because of His Name.” Philosophical Perspectives 16: 73–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Powell 2010Powell, George 2010Language, Thought and Reference. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), ‘deviant’ (e.g. Geurtz 1997Geurtz, Bart 1997 “Good News about the Description Theory of Names.” Journal of Semantics 14 (4): 319–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Pang 2010Pang, Kam-yiu S. 2010 “Eponymy and Life-Narratives: The Effect of Foregrounding on Proper Names.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (5): 1321–1349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) or ‘appellative’ (e.g. Van Langendonck 2007Van Langendonck, Willy 2007Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). It is also possible to describe them as non-literal (e.g. Burge 1973Burge, Tyler 1973 “Reference and Proper Names.” The Journal of Philosophy 70 (14): 425–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Fara 2015Fara, Delia G. 2015 “ ‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 251–279. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar;44.Actually, Fara uses the term literal in scare quotes, which, as Jeshion argues, shows that she does not want to call them literal in the strict sense of the word. Jeshion 2015aJeshion, Robin 2015a “A Rejoinder to Fara’s “‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names”.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 280–294. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2015b 2015b “Names Not Predicates.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 225–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) or metaphorical (e.g. Boër 1975Boër, Steven E. 1975 “Proper Names as Predicates.” Philosophical Studies 27: 389–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).

I have decided to use the term “non-literal” even though it may be rejected by those for whom proper names do not have any sense and as such cannot be used “literally” or “non-literally”. But if we admit, after Powell (2010)Powell, George 2010Language, Thought and Reference. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, that proper names may have some descriptive meaning, it is possible to use them literally or not. Furthermore, the terms “literal” and “non-literal” have been used in the debate about proper names between referentialists and predicativists (cf. Fara 2015Fara, Delia G. 2015 “ ‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 251–279. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar vs. Jeshion 2015aJeshion, Robin 2015a “A Rejoinder to Fara’s “‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names”.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 280–294. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2015b 2015b “Names Not Predicates.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 225–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). But most importantly, the terms are useful to distinguish between two kinds of “secondary” uses. Literal uses of proper names may be illustrated with so called ‘family examples’ such as He is a Romanov, meaning that he is a member of the Romanov family (to which Example [1a] could be added). On the other hand, non-literal uses of proper names include so-called ‘resemblance examples’ such as George Wallace is a Napoleon (Burge 1973Burge, Tyler 1973 “Reference and Proper Names.” The Journal of Philosophy 70 (14): 425–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 429), where George Wallace is not among those whose name is Napoleon, but rather that his behaviour resembles that of Napoleon Bonaparte in a particular contextually salient way (see also Boër 1975Boër, Steven E. 1975 “Proper Names as Predicates.” Philosophical Studies 27: 389–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Interestingly, the literal and non-literal uses may be combined with a punning effect, as shown by the following example from Zabeeh (1968Zabeeh, Farhang 1968What Is in a Name? An Inquiry into the Semantics and Pragmatics of Proper Names. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar, 64): “Here is another Hitler”, “But there cannot be another Hitler”.

In the literature, non-literal uses of proper names are often described in terms of conversion, one of the word-formation processes by which lexical items change grammatical category without any formal modification (e.g. Allerton 1987Allerton, David J. 1987 “The Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Status of Proper Names: What Are They, and Who Do They Belong To?Journal of Pragmatics 11 (1): 61–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Anderson 2007Anderson, John M. 2007The Grammar of Names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Accordingly, proper names are converted into common nouns (or noun phrases).

While discussing examples of appellativizations of proper names, Van Langendonck (2007)Van Langendonck, Willy 2007Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar sees metaphor and metonymy as basic processes underlying the change of proper names into common nouns. Based on his explanation, in examples involving non-literal uses of proper names, the appellativization is possible because a metaphor is involved:55.Metonymy seems to be involved in Examples (1d) and (1e). In (1d), The young Isaac Newton showed no signs of genius, the referent Isaac Newton is divided into two different manifestations (or images): the young Isaac Newton and the (implied) old Isaac Newton, which makes it appear as if there were two referents involved (see Van Langendonck 2007Van Langendonck, Willy 2007Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 175). In (1e), the name of a well-known composer stands for his music. it is used to compare other persons to Einstein (Example [1b]) and to Florence Nightingale (Example [1c]). Hence, the meanings of another Einstein and no Florence Nightingale could be paraphrased as ‘a person comparable to Einstein’ and ‘a person sharing no common properties with Florence Nightingale’, respectively.

Matushansky (2008)Matushansky, Ora 2008 “On the Linguistic Complexity of Proper Names.” Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 573–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar sees uses of proper names such as those in Examples (1b) and (1c) as cases of coercion, where the proper name Einstein or Florence Nightingale acquires the meaning of ‘an individual having the typical properties associated with the unique individual that is called Einstein or Florence Nightingale’.

The above analyses invariably focus on finding a mechanism transforming proper names into common nouns, be it ellipsis, conversion, coercion, metaphor, metonymy, without attempting to offer sufficient explanation. In particular, the process of conversion could be used to generate the sense of plurality (with a proper name referring to more than one name bearer) but can hardly be invoked to account for meanings derived from characteristics of original referents of proper names. On the other hand, the analyses in terms of metaphor, metonymy or simile are based on comparisons without specifying the criteria used to evaluate resemblance. It will be shown in the remainder of the paper that relevance theory may provide a comprehensive description and explanation of such uses.

3.Non-literal uses of proper names in relevance theory

3.1Lexical modulation

In relevance theory non-literal uses of proper names, just as non-literal uses of any other words, are treated as loose uses of language which result from pragmatic processes of lexical modulation or lexical adjustment. There is no presumption of literalness, so practically every linguistically encoded word meaning is fine-tuned in the process of lexical modulation, with the help of available contextual information (Carston 2002 2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, Chapter 5; Sperber and Wilson 2008 2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Wilson and Carston 2007Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston 2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). As a result of this pragmatic process, the adjusted meaning contributed by a particular word to the utterance meaning will differ from the stable lexically encoded meaning of that word (Allott 2010Allott, Nicholas 2010Key Terms in Pragmatics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar, 109). Lexical modulation is also known as ad hoc concept formation since, in relevance theory, (in most cases) word meanings come from the associated concepts, and pragmatically modulated meanings require the construction of unlexicalised ad hoc concepts. These occasion-specific concepts are constructed in the process of utterance interpretation in response to expectations of relevance and are derived from the interaction of information stored in the logical and encyclopaedic entries for lexicalised concepts with the context (both linguistic and extralinguistic) and the principles of relevance (Carston 1997Carston, Robyn 1997 “Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed?Linguistische Berichte 8: 103–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2002 2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Wilson and Carston (2019 2019 “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 145: 31–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 36) add that “[such] concepts are capable of capturing fine-grained differences in perception, action or emotion in a way that encoded word meanings cannot”.

As mentioned above, a given lexicalised concept activated by the use of the encoding word may serve as the input for the construction of a non-lexicalised concept. When an ad hoc concept is constructed via the process of narrowing, it picks out only “a subset of the items that fall under the encoded concept,” which means that the encoding word is used “with a more restricted denotation” (Wilson and Carston 2007Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston 2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 232). For example, in (2a) below, the verb drink is used to communicate ‘drink alcohol’, which is more specific (narrower) than the verb’s encoded meaning ‘to take in and swallow a liquid through the mouth’. If an ad hoc concept is yielded on the basis of broadening, it involves the extension of the set of items that fall under the encoded concept. Hence, the word is used “with a consequent expansion of the linguistically-specified denotation” (Wilson and Carston 2007Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston 2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 234; see also Wałaszewska 2015Wałaszewska, Ewa 2015Relevance-Theoretic Lexical Pragmatics: Theory and Applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar), as illustrated by (2b), where the verb will be interpreted as communicating a less specific (looser) meaning than the encoded one, something along the lines of ‘take in a liquid’, without the specification of how it is done.

(2)
  1. Some women drink to cope with work pressures.

  2. This plant drinks a lot of water.

Unlike narrowing, broadening involves the suspension of literalness since in the construction of an ad hoc concept some of the logical information associated with the lexically-encoded concept may be dropped and the resulting ad hoc concept may traverse the boundaries of the lexicalised concept. Such non-literal uses are not treated as a deviation from the norm since, as mentioned above, there is no presumption of literalness.

In relevance theory, approximation, hyperbole, and metaphor are not assumed to be natural kinds; on the contrary, they involve the same interpretive mechanisms, and as such may be hypothesised to form a continuum, with no easily identifiable cut-off points between them (Sperber and Wilson 2008 2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Wilson 2014 2014 “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 26: 1–20.Google Scholar; Wilson and Carston 2007Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston 2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Wilson and Sperber 2012Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber 2012 “Introduction: Pragmatics.” In Meaning and Relevance, 1–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). This hypothesis is deeply rooted in the long defended relevance-theoretic view that “there is a continuum between literal, loose, and metaphorical uses rather than a set of clearly definable theoretical categories which play distinct roles in communication and comprehension” (Wilson 2017 2017 “Relevance Theory.” In Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar, 94). Approximation, hyperbole, and metaphor “merely occupy different points on a continuum of degrees of broadening” (Carston 2012 2012 “Metaphor and the Literal/Non-Literal Distinction.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Keith Allan, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 469–492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 479), and differ only with respect to the amount of looseness involved. The amount of broadening of the linguistically encoded concept is slight, almost imperceptible in the case of approximation, more substantial in the case of hyperbole, and metaphor is based on a greater departure from the lexicalised meaning than hyperbole.

Let us illustrate these three cases of broadening with the following example:

(3)

Peter is blind.

In interpreting (3), when uttered in different contexts, it is possible to use the lexically encoded concept BLIND (‘lacking the sense of sight’) to construct different context-sensitive ad hoc concepts such as BLIND*, BLIND**, BLIND***. On the assumption that Peter is so visually impaired that he can see only blurred shapes and colours, BLIND* will be interpreted as an approximation, and its denotation will include both people who are totally blind and people who are nearly blind. If Peter’s eyesight is poorer than expected by the speaker (e.g. he can’t see well from a distance), BLIND** will be interpreted as a hyperbole, and its denotation will be broader than that of BLIND*: it will include people who are both totally and nearly blind as well as people who may be simply near-sighted. Undoubtedly, BLIND** is more radically broadened than BLIND*. Finally, if Peter does not realize that Mary loves him, BLIND*** will be interpreted as a metaphor, with its denotation even more radically broadened to include people who are unable to perceive something, be it by means of the eyes or by means of the mind. Importantly, in the metaphorical use, the information about visual perception associated with the concept BLIND is not accessed. To sum up, all of the ad hoc concepts share some of the encyclopaedic information associated with BLIND, have successively broader denotations, and contribute to the relevance of Example (3) in different ways.

3.2Category extension

In relevance theory, category extension is defined by Sperber and Wilson (2008 2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 91) as involving the application of “a word with a relatively precise sense to a range of items that clearly fall outside its linguistically specified denotation”. As observed by Wilson and Carston (2007Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston 2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 236), not only common nouns but also personal names lend themselves to being used as category extensions, as can be seen in their examples below:

(4)
  1. Ironing is the new yoga.

  2. I don’t believe it – they’ve appointed another Chomsky.

According to Wilson and Carston (2007Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston 2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 236), in (4a), yoga may be understood as conveying an ad hoc concept YOGA* “representing the category of fashionable pastimes for relieving stress”, while the ad hoc concept CHOMSKY* communicated by the use of the proper name in (4b) stands for “a broader category of forceful exponents of a particular approach to linguistics”.

It is suggested in relevance theory that category extension and metaphor form a continuum of cases between less radical and more radical broadenings. In the earlier approach (e.g. Wilson 2003Wilson, Deirdre 2003 “Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics.” Rivista di Linguistica 12 (2): 273–291.Google Scholar), metaphor was even described as a more radical variety of category extension. The problem with an accurate description of the relationship between category extension and metaphor is not associated with the lack of distinguishing criteria, but primarily with the fact that the two varieties of loose use may imperceptibly merge into each other, and the distinction between them is blurred. In theory, the difference between category extension and metaphor can be teased out by analysing what properties of the encoded concept are projected onto a broader category: in the case of category extension, it is “defining, or at least characteristic, properties of the encoded concept”, while, in the case of metaphor, it is “relatively peripheral or, at least, contingent properties of the encoded concept” (Sperber and Wilson 2008 2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 94). Additionally, unlike category extensions, metaphors may involve both broadening and narrowing, but such a combination is by no means their defining feature (Sperber and Wilson 2008 2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 95).

As I have argued elsewhere (Wałaszewska 2020 2020 “Category Extension as a Variety of Loose Use.” In Relevance Theory, Figuration and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 25–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), category extension may easily combine with other varieties of loose use such as approximation and hyperbole, which shows that the relevance-theoretic continuum of loose uses may have a complex, non-linear, multi-dimensional structure. For example, in (5):

(5)

I swam a marathon.

the ad hoc concept MARATHON* represents a broader category of racing over a distance of 26.2 miles in a variety of ways such as running or swimming. One of the characteristic properties of the lexically encoded concept MARATHON, namely running, is not projected onto the broader category. It is still associated with the ad hoc concept, but as one of a number of properties specifying possible ways of moving over a distance, which makes the ad hoc concept include in its denotation both running and swimming. On the other hand, the properties of physical distance and activity of racing, which seem to be defining, or at least characteristic, properties of MARATHON are projected onto the broader category. What is more, this case of category extension, in an appropriate context, could be interpreted as involving approximation (the speaker raced over a slightly shorter swimming distance than 26.2 miles) or hyperbole. To arrive at a hyperbolic interpretation, it is possible to imagine a newbie swimmer marvelling at their achievement of covering just a few miles in a competition.

On the face of it, the process of ad hoc concept formation may seem problematic in the case of proper names. The most widely accepted view is that proper names only identify the individuals they name and as such have no meaning on their own: this raises doubts as to the applicability of processes of lexical modulation in such cases. In other words, the question is whether the use of a proper name can trigger ad hoc concept formation.

As discussed earlier, in their non-referential uses, proper names in English are accompanied by determiners (or pluralised), which indicates that a given proper name is treated as a common noun (noun phrase). Since common nouns are associated with concepts which have three kinds of entries, it seems plausible to claim that, in the case of such occasion specific noun phrases, some items of encyclopaedic information associated with the referent of the proper name used non-referentially are treated as logical information. Such a move seems motivated since Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar, 89) do not exclude the possibility that the same item of information is stored as encyclopaedic or logical information, or in both forms simultaneously.

Let us analyse the following examples to see how ad hoc concepts can be formed in the case of non-literal uses of proper names:

(6)
  1. Putin is the new Hitler. (Wałaszewska 2015Wałaszewska, Ewa 2015Relevance-Theoretic Lexical Pragmatics: Theory and Applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar, 119)

  2. Putin is a Hitler.

In the case of proper names, “a relatively precise sense” can be understood as characteristic properties typically stored in the encyclopaedic entry for the concept associated with the unique individual picked out by the proper name, and possibly acquiring the status of defining or logical information in the process of lexical modulation. Such an extension is possible if the individual inside and individuals outside the proper name’s denotation share a number of contextually relevant properties (Wałaszewska 2015Wałaszewska, Ewa 2015Relevance-Theoretic Lexical Pragmatics: Theory and Applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar). In both (6a) and (6b), the proper name Hitler, uniquely identifying Adolf Hitler, is used to represent a broader category of dictators and sociopaths, craving for world domination, of which the individual named Hitler is a salient member and whose name denotes it. Interestingly, there is a difference between (6a) and (6b): in (6a), Putin is suggested as the most salient member (he has replaced Hitler), whereas in (6b), Putin is just one of the members of the broader category, whose most salient example is still Hitler.

4.Non-literal uses of proper names in XYZ constructions

4.1The XYZ construction

One of the most interesting contexts for secondary uses of proper names is the so-called XYZ construction. The term ‘XYZ construction’ was originally used by Mark Turner (1991)Turner, Mark 1991Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar to label the structure schematically described as ‘X is the Y of Z’, which can be illustrated by some of Turner’s examples given below:

(7)
  1. Money is the source of all evil.

  2. Death is the mother of beauty. (Evans and Green 2006Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green 2006Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar, 412–413)

Turner (1991)Turner, Mark 1991Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar describes the construction as consisting of three elements, all of which are noun phrases labelled as X, Y, Z. Its purpose is to show the speaker’s perspective of how the element X should be viewed.

The XYZ construction is an example of what has been called ‘patterns of coining’ (Kay 2002Kay, Paul 2002 “Patterns of Coining.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar, 2013 2013 “The Limits of (Construction) Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; see also Veale 2014Veale, Tony 2014 “The ABCs of XYZs: Creativity and Conservativity in Humorous Epithets.” In Cognition, Experience, and Creativity, ed. by Jaison A. Manjaly, and Bipin Indurkhya, 135–154. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.Google Scholar), schemata (Van Lancker Sidtis 2004Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana 2004 “When Novel Sentences Spoken or Heard for the First Time in the History of the Universe Are Not Enough: Toward a Dual-Process Model of Language.” International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 39 (1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Van Lancker Sidtis et al. 2015Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana, Krista Cameron, Kelly Bridges, and John J. Sidtis 2015 “The Formulaic Schema in the Minds of Two Generations of Native Speakers.” Ampersand 2: 39–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) or ‘snowclones’ (Pullum 2003Pullum, George 2003 “Phrases for Lazy Writers in Kit Form.” Language Log, October 27. http://​itre​.cis​.upenn​.edu​/~myl​/languagelog​/archives​/000061​.html (15 May 2021)).66.The term snowclone apparently comes from the formula If Eskimos have N words for snow, X surely have Y words for Z, which can be frequently found in journalistic writing even though the basic assumption about the number of words for snow in the language of the Inuit is at least suspicious (Pullum 2003Pullum, George 2003 “Phrases for Lazy Writers in Kit Form.” Language Log, October 27. http://​itre​.cis​.upenn​.edu​/~myl​/languagelog​/archives​/000061​.html (15 May 2021)). Patterns of coining are not classified as a grammatical construction; they are used for coining descriptions in a clear, pleasing way. As a result, such reusable descriptions sound novel and familiar at the same time: the content may be creative and original, but the schematic structure of each coinage makes it easy to understand. Schemata resemble formulaic expressions (e.g. idioms, proverbs) in that they contain elements easily identifiable by language users; for example, they have a fixed order of lexical elements or may trigger certain connotations. However, unlike formulaic expressions, they are highly versatile because they contain open free slots which can be creatively filled with lexical content (Van Lancker Sidtis 2004Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana 2004 “When Novel Sentences Spoken or Heard for the First Time in the History of the Universe Are Not Enough: Toward a Dual-Process Model of Language.” International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 39 (1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Van Lancker Sidtis et al. 2015Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana, Krista Cameron, Kelly Bridges, and John J. Sidtis 2015 “The Formulaic Schema in the Minds of Two Generations of Native Speakers.” Ampersand 2: 39–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Finally, a snowclone is understood as an extremely flexible phrasal template, which was originally described by Pullum (2003)Pullum, George 2003 “Phrases for Lazy Writers in Kit Form.” Language Log, October 27. http://​itre​.cis​.upenn​.edu​/~myl​/languagelog​/archives​/000061​.html (15 May 2021) as “a multi-use, customizable, instantly recognizable, time-worn, quoted or misquoted phrase or sentence that can be used in an entirely open array of different jokey variants by lazy journalists or writers”. In other words, to become a snowclone, a specific fixed expression becomes less fixed as a result of introducing some variables (e.g. X, Y, Z), while the original meaning of the construction generalizes. The increase in schematicity is associated with increased productivity, at least for a certain period (Traugott 2014Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2014 “Toward a Constructional Framework for Research on Language Change.” In Grammaticalization – Theory and Data, ed. by Sylvie Hancil, and Ekkehard König, 87–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 97–99; see also Traugott and Trousdale 2013)Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale 2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar.

In relevance theory, XYZ constructions can be analysed in terms of pragmatic routines, which has already been suggested for the ‘X is the new Y’ snowclone (Wałaszewska 2020 2020 “Category Extension as a Variety of Loose Use.” In Relevance Theory, Figuration and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 25–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), and which seems to be working for different varieties of snowclones. The development of a pragmatic routine, which is a special kind of cognitive procedure, is based on “repeated derivation of the same sort of implications in processing a familiar stimulus” (Vega Moreno 2007Vega Moreno, Rosa E. 2007Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 3). In the case of snowclones, the familiar stimulus is the construction itself, which guides the reader/hearer along a certain inferential route to process the lexically encoded concepts and assumptions activated by them. Since the processing effort needed to interpret such structures may be (greatly) reduced by their schematicity, they are frequently used to convey novel and creative meanings.

4.2Proper names in XYZ constructions

XYZ constructions in which the Y variable is a proper name, specifically a personal name of a famous person, are very common, as can be seen from the collection of the ‘X is the Y of Z’ snowclones available on the blog significantly called “The Rosa Parks of Blogs”, created by Mark Peters and dedicated to this single structure.77. http://​rosaparksofblogs​.blogspot​.com Several imaginative examples taken from the blog are listed below:

(8)
  1. [The guy next to me at the post office]X is the [Mozart]Y of [wrapping a box]Z.

  2. [I]X am the [Ted Bundy]Y of [work pass maintenance]Z. In my working life I have murdered dozens of them. They have been abandoned in cabs, bars, washing machines, dryers, trains, boyfriends, buses, lift wells, bins …

  3. After a few days, [I]X was the [Jackie Chan]Y of [beetle murder]Z. Swift. Using anything as a weapon: shoes, bars of soap, Kindles, condiment bottles. I grew familiar with the satisfying crunch of exoskeleton that meant that it was dead.

  4. The chipotle hummus was possibly the best I have ever had. Smokey and sexy, [it (= the chipotle hummus)]X was the [Greta Garbo]Y of [hummus]Z.

The XYZ constructions where Y is a proper name of a person differ with respect to creativity: some are felt to be more creative, while others are perceived as less creative (Veale 2014Veale, Tony 2014 “The ABCs of XYZs: Creativity and Conservativity in Humorous Epithets.” In Cognition, Experience, and Creativity, ed. by Jaison A. Manjaly, and Bipin Indurkhya, 135–154. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.Google Scholar). Creativity is a challenging concept to define as can be seen from the number of perspectives taken and definitions offered; it has undergone numerous revisions and reformulations. My understanding of creativity is based on Sternberg’s (1999Sternberg, Robert J. 1999Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 3) classic definition, according to which creativity is viewed as “the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e. original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. adaptive concerning task constraint)” since the qualities of novelty and appropriateness seem apt for the description of XYZ constructions. I believe that the examples discussed here fall under ‘little-c’ creativity as they illustrate everyday language use as opposed to ‘Big-C’ (eminent) Creativity of such world-changing geniuses as Einstein, Picasso or Shakespeare. Associations between ideas may be formed for a variety of reasons (functional or acoustic relatedness); remote associations tend to be original unlike those obvious ones (Hidalgo-Downing 2016Hidalgo-Downing, Laura 2016 “Metaphor and Metonymy.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, ed. by Rodney H. Jones, 107–128. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar; cf. Jones 2016Jones, Rodney H. ed. 2016The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar).

As observed by Veale (2014)Veale, Tony 2014 “The ABCs of XYZs: Creativity and Conservativity in Humorous Epithets.” In Cognition, Experience, and Creativity, ed. by Jaison A. Manjaly, and Bipin Indurkhya, 135–154. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.Google Scholar, least creative are examples where both X and Y are filled with names of people from the same area of activity, e.g. two political leaders, two writers or two artists related to painting or drawing, etc.

(9)
  1. [David Cameron]X is the [Tony Blair]Y of [the conservative party]Z.

  2. [Nicholas Sparks]X is the [Stephen King]Y of [the mush-brained romantic novel]Z.

  3. [Milton Caniff]X is the [Rembrandt]Y of [the comics]Z.

To achieve more creativity (and possibly produce more humour and evoke more pleasing effects), such constructions exploit an individual person Y to describe a non-human X (Veale 2014Veale, Tony 2014 “The ABCs of XYZs: Creativity and Conservativity in Humorous Epithets.” In Cognition, Experience, and Creativity, ed. by Jaison A. Manjaly, and Bipin Indurkhya, 135–154. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.Google Scholar). For example, as illustrated by the sentences in (10), people’s names (here, names of famous leaders and actors) are used to attribute certain characteristics to machines, food, plants, animals, etc.

(10)
  1. [Toyota Prius]X is the [Che Guevara]Y of [the eco-friendly car movement]Z.

  2. [Red meat]X is the [Donald Trump]Y of [cancer]Z.

  3. [The potato]X is the [Tom Hanks]Y of [the vegetable world]Z.

  4. [The Northern Pintail]X is the [Audrey Hepburn]Y of [the duck world]Z.

It is worth noting that XYZ constructions just as other snowclones may stay “close to their original source at first, but if they catch on, the examples get wilder and woolier” (Zimmer 2009Zimmer, Ben 2009 “The Cadillac of Snowclones.” Language Log, November 9. https://​languagelog​.ldc​.upenn​.edu​/nll​/?p​=1877 (15 May 2021)), possibly because the associated ideas become more remote. As noted by Zimmer, ‘X is the Cadillac of Y’, as a version of the generic ‘X is the Y of Z’ snowclone, has proved really successful, and hence very productive. It has gone a long way from predictable and not-so-exciting ‘X is the Cadillac of trucks’, through more creative ‘X is the Cadillac of lawnmowers’, to totally wild ‘X is the Cadillac of clot inhibitors’, and acquired the sense of something of excellent quality and superior to everything else in its category.

4.3An overview of approaches to the XYZ construction

Veale (2014)Veale, Tony 2014 “The ABCs of XYZs: Creativity and Conservativity in Humorous Epithets.” In Cognition, Experience, and Creativity, ed. by Jaison A. Manjaly, and Bipin Indurkhya, 135–154. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.Google Scholar argues that such examples of XYZ constructions are more like similes than analogies88.An interesting analogy approach to the ‘X is the Y of Z’ construction can be found in Hofstadter et al. (1995)Hofstadter, Douglas, and Fluid Analogies Research Group 1995Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar, where they discuss so called “Ob-Platte puzzles”, which are basically geographical analogy questions such as the classic What is the Ob of Nebraska? since they are built around one highly salient property stereotypically associated with the person whose proper name is used in place of the Y variable. In Veale’s examples in (10) above, Che Guevara is ‘revolutionary’, Donald Trump is ‘aggressive’, Tom Hanks is ‘versatile’, and Audrey Hepburn is ‘elegant’. This single property is shared by both X and Y (even though it is understood differently for X and Y) and hence serves as the basis for building a comparison between X and Y. Veale observes that comparisons constructed around one property, involving totally different concepts, tend to be perceived as “flimsy and gratuitous”, and precisely because of their flimsiness they are likely to produce humour.

Within the Cognitive Linguistics paradigm, Turner (1991)Turner, Mark 1991Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar originally analysed his examples of the XYZ construction (see the examples in [7] above) as metaphors, but later his analysis was recast in terms of blending. A more recent view is to see “the XYZ construction [as] a grammatical construction specialised for prompting for conceptual integration” (Evans and Green 2006Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green 2006Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar, 412). The purpose of this construction is to provide a certain perspective (specified as the Z variable) from which a certain X should be presented.

Dancygier and Sweetser (2014)Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser 2014Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar analyse such constructions in terms of blending processes which are evoked not only via lexical choices, but also via grammatical form. They (Dancygier and Sweetser 2014Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser 2014Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 156) explain the abundance of proper names used as fillers of the Y slot in XYZ constructions by the ability of proper names to evoke rich framing rather than simply referring to individuals; for example, the name Shakespeare, which uniquely refers to the English playwright, is primarily thought of in terms of the plays authored by Shakespeare, Shakespearean characters, the concept of genius, etc. (Dancygier and Sweetser 2014Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser 2014Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 101).

Rita Brdar-Szabó and Mario Brdar (2020Brdar-Szabó, Rita, and Mario Brdar 2020 “The Bruce Willis of Sandwiches: The Y of X Is Y of Z Construction on Its Journey towards a Paragon Model, as One Way of Achieving Intersubjectivity.” Diadorim 22 (2): 277–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 298) argue that XYZ constructions are not cases of genuine blending and could be better explained “as metaphors based on metonymic paragon models”. A paragon is defined by Lakoff (1987Lakoff, George 1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 87) as an individual member of a category that “represent[s] either an ideal or its opposite” (see also Lakoff 1999 1999 “Cognitive Models and Prototype Theory.” In Concepts: Core Readings, ed. by Eric Margolis, and Stephen Laurence, 391–421. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar, 404). Barcelona (2003Barcelona, Antonio 2003 “Names: A Metonymic ‘Return Ticket’ in Five Languages.” Jezikoslovlje 4 (1): 11–41.Google Scholar, 38) modifies Lakoff’s analysis by postulating a chain of two metonymies: the first assigns a characteristic property to a particular famous name bearer, which paves the way for the creation of a figurative class of individuals sharing that property, and the second one activates that class from its ideal member. It is the latter metonymy that directly motivates the use of Shakespeare’s name as a common noun (Barcelona 2003Barcelona, Antonio 2003 “Names: A Metonymic ‘Return Ticket’ in Five Languages.” Jezikoslovlje 4 (1): 11–41.Google Scholar, 38). Brdar-Szabó and Brdar (2020)Brdar-Szabó, Rita, and Mario Brdar 2020 “The Bruce Willis of Sandwiches: The Y of X Is Y of Z Construction on Its Journey towards a Paragon Model, as One Way of Achieving Intersubjectivity.” Diadorim 22 (2): 277–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar insightfully notice that a number of the figurative XYZ constructions are used with explications, whose function is to guide addressees towards the right interpretation. Such explications justify the pairing of X and Y, as shown below:

(11)

[Coriander]X is the [Gwyneth Paltrow]Y of [the herb world]Z – some people love it, some people don’t!

The appended explication indicates what kind of relation there is between X (coriander) and Y (Gwyneth Paltrow). It seems that giving reasons for the pairing may trigger an ad hoc creation of novel paragons or at least a modification of existing paragons. XYZ constructions referring to existing paragons do not need any explications.

Undoubtedly, all of the cognitive linguistics accounts offer interesting insights into the nature of non-literal uses of proper names in XYZ constructions. It is significant that there is no agreement among cognitive linguists about how to explain the discussed examples in conceptual terms. All these approaches focus on metaphors and metonymies construed as products of conceptual mappings or other conceptual operations; however, they fail to show how varied interpretations by individual hearers may be viewed as category extensions or metaphors, with no clear cut-off point between the two.

4.4Category extension or metaphor? A relevance-theoretic analysis of non-literal uses of proper names in the XYZ construction

The time has come to pull together all the threads of relevance theory discussed above in order to provide a comprehensive explanation of how non-literal uses of proper names in the XYZ construction are interpreted. In particular, the following analysis is intended to show that even though such uses of proper names are best accounted for as cases of category extension, there are also examples that could qualify as metaphors. Significantly, there are also cases that cannot be easily classified as either category extensions or metaphors, which further supports the relevance-theoretic claim that there is a continuum of loose uses.

As mentioned above in Section 4.1, in relevance theory, XYZ constructions can be analysed in terms of pragmatic routines as constructions that guide the reader/listener through the interpretation process and hence facilitate it. In particular, it is the presence of the definite article that guides the reader/hearer towards the interpretation that a proper name used in the Y slot denotes a set of entities having certain properties associated with the name’s bearer. This suggestion finds its mirror reflection in the recent relevance-theoretic proposal “that the need for ad hoc-concept construction may be overtly indicated by certain types of linguistic elements that accompany, or are added to, content words” (Padilla Cruz 2022Padilla Cruz, Manuel 2022 “Is Free Enrichment Always Free? Revisiting Ad Hoc-Concept Construction.” Journal of Pragmatics 187: 130–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 131). Among expressions that can serve as lexical triggers of ad hoc concept constructions are determiners, for example articles (Padilla Cruz 2022Padilla Cruz, Manuel 2022 “Is Free Enrichment Always Free? Revisiting Ad Hoc-Concept Construction.” Journal of Pragmatics 187: 130–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 134). Additionally, the construction shows that with respect to context Z, X has replaced Y as the most salient member of the category named after Y.

In the set of examples below, the Y variable is the proper name Donald Trump, which is used to communicate different ad hoc concepts. Examples (12a), (12b), (13b), and (14) come from the time when Donald Trump served as the 45th president of the United States (from 2017 to 2021). Examples (13a) and (13c) come from the time when Donald Trump was the 2016 Republican presidential nominee and his presidential campaign was in full swing.

The concept communicated by the use of Donald Trump in (12a) and (12b) seems to involve the projection of characteristic properties associated with the name bearer such as being a controversial state leader with nationalist and Islamophobic views onto the created broader category of which the most salient member is US President Donald Trump. However, in the context of the United Kingdom, it is Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson who is the most salient member, and, when restricted to the context of India, the most salient member of this category is Narendra Modi, the country’s prime minister. The use of Donald Trump in these examples seems to be a category extension: there is no radical broadening.

On the other hand, the ad hoc concepts communicated by the use of Donald Trump in the examples below seem to be cases of metaphor: all of them involve the radical broadening based on the relatively peripheral properties associated with Donald Trump as the President of the United States, or with Donald Trump as the 2016 Republican presidential nominee.

(13)
  1. ‘5G’ is the Donald Trump of telecom.1111.Example taken from https://​www​.rcrwireless​.com​/20160818​/opinion​/analyst​-5g​-is​-the​-donald​-trump​-of​-telecom​-tag17

  2. This place [the nightclub called LIV] is the Donald trump [sic!] of clubs, it lies, lies, lies. It’s supposed to be the biggest and best club but it’s actually the biggest and worst.1212.Example taken from https://​www​.google​.com​/maps​/contrib​/111739399601782079419​/place​/ChIJoWHkOGqz2YgRFI7KBOyVT80​/@32​.6159489,​-99​.7334427,4z​/data​=!4m6!1m5!8m4!1e1!2s111739399601782079419!3m1!1e1

  3. “The Revenant” is the Donald Trump of the trio [= three movies nominated for the Oscars in 2016: “The Revenant,” “Spotlight,” and “The Big Short”] – it’s vain, crude, and blustery.1313.Example taken from https://​www​.newyorker​.com​/culture​/richard​-brody​/my​-2016​-oscar​-predictions

In (13a), Donald Trump is used to communicate the concept of, say, all hype and publicity, but little substance, based on the peripheral properties of the presidential candidate. In the context of telecommunications, the presidential candidate Donald Trump, regarded as the central member of the broadened category which contains entities that are all show and no substance has been replaced by the fifth generation of mobile internet connection, which is widely advertised and discussed with no hard facts. The ad hoc concept communicated in (13b) is so broadened as to include in its denotation entities definable by shameless deceitfulness used for manipulative purposes. The most salient member of this category is Donald Trump, who is associated with thousands of lies that he told or misleading claims that he made during his White House tenure. With respect to nightclubs, LIV has replaced Donald Trump to become the most salient member of the category. In (13c), the appended sentence somewhat indicates what properties associated with the presidential nominee are to be projected onto the broadened category of which Donald Trump is the most salient member, the category of, say, out-of-the-mainstream nominees of various kind (not only human beings but also movies) whose most characteristic, or defining, properties are vanity, crudeness, and a tendency to browbeat others. In the context of the three Oscar nominees, the movie “The Revenant” is the most salient member of this category: it is not a mainstream Hollywood entertainment, and it is definitely different from the other two films in both tone and affect.

In (14), the denotation of the ad hoc concept communicated by the use of Donald Trump is broadened so as to include not only presidents of countries but also presidents of football clubs, all of whom share the property of having the urge to restore their ‘organizations’ to their former glory.

(14)

De Carvalho is the Donald Trump of Portuguese football, the president of Sporting Lisbon who is trying to make his club great again.

On the one hand, the use of the proper name in (14) may be interpreted as a category extension since it involves the projection of characteristic properties associated with the name bearer such as being an outspoken, confrontational, unpredictable, and populist president of a certain ‘organization’ who is preoccupied with restoring greatness to his organization. On the other hand, the broadening may be viewed as more radical since being involved in politics is different from being involved in football, and hence the use of the proper name may be interpreted as a metaphor. The inability to classify this use of the proper name in a clear and unambiguous way seems to follow from the assumption, well-grounded in relevance theory, that varieties of loose use form a continuum and that they may merge into each other, with the distinction between them being thus obliterated.

5.Concluding remarks

Proper names are traditionally regarded as uniquely identifying individuals and hence they are inherently definite. Their meaning can be argued to be limited to reference or to come from a description of a certain kind. These two views – referentialist and descriptivist – may be reconciled, which has already been done within relevance theory by George Powell, by arguing that individual concepts expressed by proper names may be used to refer directly or through some descriptive content on different occasions. Apart from picking out its sole bearer, a proper name can be used to denote a set of persons sharing the same name, properties or products associated with the name bearer and some manifestations of the name bearer. Such secondary uses of proper names seem to be deviant, which grammatically manifests itself in the loss of definiteness, and at least some of them can be treated as non-literal. An interesting type of non-literal use of proper names can be found in the so-called ‘XYZ construction’, which can be treated as an example of ‘patterns of coining’, schemata or ‘snowclones’, understood as structures with open free slots that can be filled with lexical content in a creative way. In general, such uses of proper names are the more creative, the more they depart from their original reference. Creativity is understood in accordance with Sternberg’s (1999Sternberg, Robert J. 1999Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 3) definition in terms of novelty and appropriateness within ‘little-c’ creativity of everyday language use.

In relevance theory, non-literal uses of proper names in XYZ constructions can be analysed in terms of ad hoc concept formation. Ad hoc concepts are generated from lexicalised concepts as a result of the pragmatic processes of narrowing or broadening, whereby their denotations become more restricted or expanded, respectively. Such unlexicalised concepts are constructed in response to the expectations of relevance and derived from the information stored in the logical and encyclopaedic entries for lexicalised concepts. On the relevance-theoretic view, proper names in their referential use have no logical entries; non-referential uses of proper names, however, may cause some items of encyclopaedic information to be treated as logical information. Non-literal uses of proper names are discussed in relevance theory as cases of broadening: category extension or metaphor. In the case of category extension, essential characteristic features associated with the name bearer are presumably moved to the logical entry and are projected onto the newly created broader category of which the most salient member is the name bearer. In the case of metaphor, more peripheral, contingent properties associated with the name bearer are used to create a broadened category, which not only results in a more radical broadening but also gives the impression of greater creativity.

In relevance theory, XYZ constructions can be analysed in terms of pragmatic routines as constructions specialised for conveying novel and creative meanings since the processing effort needed to interpret them may be reduced by the schematicity of the structure. XYZ constructions with the use of a proper name as variable Y communicate information that with respect to context Z, X has replaced Y as the most salient member of the category named after Y. An analysis of selected authentic examples of uses of the name Donald Trump in the XYZ construction shows that, depending on what kind of properties are exploited, essential or peripheral, such uses may be classified as category extensions or metaphors. Importantly, it also shows, what is emphasised in relevance theory, that metaphor is not a natural kind and that in some cases it is hard (if not impossible) to classify a particular non-literal use of a proper name as a metaphor or as a category extension. This can be seen as confirmation of the relevance-theoretic continuum of loose uses.

Acknowledgements

It is an honour to be able to offer this paper as a small token of my gratitude to Deirdre Wilson for her inspiration and support over the years. Her ideas about language and communication have shaped my academic research in significant ways. The present paper has been inspired by many of her ideas about lexical pragmatics.

I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions for revision.

Notes

1.As mentioned by Bach (2002Bach, Kent 2002 “Giorgione Was So-Called Because of His Name.” Philosophical Perspectives 16: 73–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 96, fn. 12), in English, for example, names of rivers (the Ganges) or deserts (the Sahara) may be elliptical forms standing for “the name-containing definite descriptions” such as the Ganges River and the Sahara Desert.
2.The exception is words encoding procedural meaning, which constrains the pragmatic inference processes responsible for utterance interpretation (see e.g. Blakemore 1987Blakemore, Diane 1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar, 2002 2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).
3.Example (1a) may also be interpreted in the same way as (1b) and (1c) if the noun phrase an Ophelia is not interpreted as ‘bearer of the name Ophelia’, but as a kind referred to as Ophelia, in that there are properties that all people called Ophelia share. (This reading is more accessible if, in place of an Ophelia, a phrase like a typical Ophelia is used.)
4.Actually, Fara uses the term literal in scare quotes, which, as Jeshion argues, shows that she does not want to call them literal in the strict sense of the word.
5.Metonymy seems to be involved in Examples (1d) and (1e). In (1d), The young Isaac Newton showed no signs of genius, the referent Isaac Newton is divided into two different manifestations (or images): the young Isaac Newton and the (implied) old Isaac Newton, which makes it appear as if there were two referents involved (see Van Langendonck 2007Van Langendonck, Willy 2007Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 175). In (1e), the name of a well-known composer stands for his music.
6.The term snowclone apparently comes from the formula If Eskimos have N words for snow, X surely have Y words for Z, which can be frequently found in journalistic writing even though the basic assumption about the number of words for snow in the language of the Inuit is at least suspicious (Pullum 2003Pullum, George 2003 “Phrases for Lazy Writers in Kit Form.” Language Log, October 27. http://​itre​.cis​.upenn​.edu​/~myl​/languagelog​/archives​/000061​.html (15 May 2021)).
8.An interesting analogy approach to the ‘X is the Y of Z’ construction can be found in Hofstadter et al. (1995)Hofstadter, Douglas, and Fluid Analogies Research Group 1995Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar, where they discuss so called “Ob-Platte puzzles”, which are basically geographical analogy questions such as the classic What is the Ob of Nebraska?

References

Allerton, David J.
1987 “The Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Status of Proper Names: What Are They, and Who Do They Belong To?Journal of Pragmatics 11 (1): 61–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allott, Nicholas
2010Key Terms in Pragmatics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M.
2007The Grammar of Names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audi, Robert
ed. 2015The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (3rd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent
2002 “Giorgione Was So-Called Because of His Name.” Philosophical Perspectives 16: 73–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, Antonio
2003 “Names: A Metonymic ‘Return Ticket’ in Five Languages.” Jezikoslovlje 4 (1): 11–41.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boër, Steven E.
1975 “Proper Names as Predicates.” Philosophical Studies 27: 389–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, Rita, and Mario Brdar
2020 “The Bruce Willis of Sandwiches: The Y of X Is Y of Z Construction on Its Journey towards a Paragon Model, as One Way of Achieving Intersubjectivity.” Diadorim 22 (2): 277–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bunnin, Nicholas, and Jiyuan Yu
2004The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler
1973 “Reference and Proper Names.” The Journal of Philosophy 70 (14): 425–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
1997 “Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed?Linguistische Berichte 8: 103–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Metaphor and the Literal/Non-Literal Distinction.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Keith Allan, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 469–492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser
2014Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green
2006Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fara, Delia G.
2015 “ ‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 251–279. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1892/1980 “On Sense and Reference.” In Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (3rd Edition), ed. by Peter Geach, and Max Black, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geurtz, Bart
1997 “Good News about the Description Theory of Names.” Journal of Semantics 14 (4): 319–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, Patrick
2006 “Proper Names: Linguistic Status.” In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd Edition), ed. by Keith Brown, 134–137. Boston: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo-Downing, Laura
2016 “Metaphor and Metonymy.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, ed. by Rodney H. Jones, 107–128. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas, and Fluid Analogies Research Group
1995Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney
1988English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeshion, Robin
2015a “A Rejoinder to Fara’s “‘Literal’ Uses of Proper Names”.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 280–294. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015b “Names Not Predicates.” In On Reference, ed. by Andrea Bianchi, 225–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015c “Referentialism and Predicativism about Proper Names.” Erkenntnis 80: 363–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rodney H.
ed. 2016The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul
2002 “Patterns of Coining.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
2013 “The Limits of (Construction) Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul
1980Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 “Cognitive Models and Prototype Theory.” In Concepts: Core Readings, ed. by Eric Margolis, and Stephen Laurence, 391–421. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne
2006 “Proper Names: Semantic Aspects.” In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd Edition), ed. by Keith Brown, 141–145. Boston: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lycan, William G.
2019Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora
2008 “On the Linguistic Complexity of Proper Names.” Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 573–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart
1974 A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (Volume VII) . In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. by John M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2022 “Is Free Enrichment Always Free? Revisiting Ad Hoc-Concept Construction.” Journal of Pragmatics 187: 130–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pang, Kam-yiu S.
2010 “Eponymy and Life-Narratives: The Effect of Foregrounding on Proper Names.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (5): 1321–1349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, John, and Rodney Huddleston
2002 “Nouns and Noun Phrases.” In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Powell, George
2010Language, Thought and Reference. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, George
2003 “Phrases for Lazy Writers in Kit Form.” Language Log, October 27. http://​itre​.cis​.upenn​.edu​/~myl​/languagelog​/archives​/000061​.html (15 May 2021)
Reimer, Marga
2006 “Proper Names: Philosophical Aspects.” In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd Edition), ed. by Keith Brown, 137–141. Boston: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand
1905 “On Denoting.” In Logic and Knowledge. Essays 1901–1950, ed. by Robert C. Marsh 1956, 41–56. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
1918 “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.” In Logic and Knowledge. Essays 1901–1950, ed. by Robert C. Marsh 1956, 177–281. London: George Allen and Unwin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Stephen P.
2014 “Mill on Names.” In Mill’s “A System of Logic”: Critical Appraisals, ed. by Antis Loizides, 44–62. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1958 “Proper Names.” Mind 67 (266): 166–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J.
1999Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taschek, William
2010 “On Sense and Reference: A Critical Reception.” In The Cambridge Companion to Frege, ed. by Michael Potter, and Tom Ricketts, 293–341. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2014 “Toward a Constructional Framework for Research on Language Change.” In Grammaticalization – Theory and Data, ed. by Sylvie Hancil, and Ekkehard König, 87–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale
2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark
1991Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana
2004 “When Novel Sentences Spoken or Heard for the First Time in the History of the Universe Are Not Enough: Toward a Dual-Process Model of Language.” International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 39 (1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana, Krista Cameron, Kelly Bridges, and John J. Sidtis
2015 “The Formulaic Schema in the Minds of Two Generations of Native Speakers.” Ampersand 2: 39–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy
2007Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, Tony
2014 “The ABCs of XYZs: Creativity and Conservativity in Humorous Epithets.” In Cognition, Experience, and Creativity, ed. by Jaison A. Manjaly, and Bipin Indurkhya, 135–154. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, Rosa E.
2007Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wałaszewska, Ewa
2015Relevance-Theoretic Lexical Pragmatics: Theory and Applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2020 “Category Extension as a Variety of Loose Use.” In Relevance Theory, Figuration and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 25–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2003 “Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics.” Rivista di Linguistica 12 (2): 273–291.Google Scholar
2014 “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 26: 1–20.Google Scholar
2017 “Relevance Theory.” In Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 145: 31–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
2012 “Introduction: Pragmatics.” In Meaning and Relevance, 1–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zabeeh, Farhang
1968What Is in a Name? An Inquiry into the Semantics and Pragmatics of Proper Names. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Ben
2009 “The Cadillac of Snowclones.” Language Log, November 9. https://​languagelog​.ldc​.upenn​.edu​/nll​/?p​=1877 (15 May 2021)

Address for correspondence

Ewa Wałaszewska

Institute of English Studies

University of Warsaw

ul. Dobra 55

00-312 Warszawa

Poland

[email protected]

Biographical notes

Ewa Wałaszewska (PhD in linguistics) works at the University of Warsaw, Poland, where she currently teaches and researches. Her principal interests lie within the fields of semantics and pragmatics, and focus on relevance theory and its applications to the analysis of non-literal uses of language and its theoretical implications for the investigation of human communication. She has authored and co-edited a number of publications on relevance-theoretic research, the most recent of which is the chapter “Category extension as a variety of loose use” in the volume Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics (2020, John Benjamins).