La metonimia logica è un fenomeno puramente linguistico?

Alla luce delle ultime teorie, sempre più ricercatori sostengono la necessità di studiare il linguaggio in connessione alle altre facoltà cognitive. Gli studi che hanno indagato le basi neurali della metonimia logica hanno messo in evidenza proprio l’imprescindibilità di giungere a delle conclusioni esaustive senza considerare gli altri fattori che giocano comunque un ruolo fondamentale nell’intero processo di comprensione (ed elaborazione) del linguaggio, quali la memoria, la cognizione sociale, ecc. Le stesse regioni cerebrali che hanno mostrano maggiore attivazione alle espressioni metonimiche non appartengono a quelle generalmente considerate “aree della parola” (non tutte almeno). Inoltre, la letteratura ci fornisce dati a sufficienza per poter dire che, per esempio, così come i linguisti si sono focalizzati sulla conoscenza computata dai verbi, le teorie della memoria autobiografica spesso si sono concentrate sull’attività come principio di organizzazione primaria di rappresentazione dell’evento. Quindi in parallelo con l’enfasi sui verbi nelle ricerche psicolinguistiche, molti studi sull’organizzazione della memoria autobiografica hanno enfatizzato la centralità degli eventi, che spesso sono realizzati linguisticamente come verbi. Di qui la domanda: la metonimia logica è un fenomeno puramente linguistico? Già Bloomfield scriveva: “la scienza linguistica è un passo avanti per l’uomo che acquista crescente consapevolezza di sé”. Il linguaggio dà voce a ogni azione umana in modi complessi e ingegnosi. Esso si è sviluppato in un’associazione così intricata con la personalità, la famiglia, la nazione, l’umanità e la vita stessa, che a volte si può avere la tentazione di chiedersi se la lingua sia soltanto un riflesso, o se non sia piuttosto essa stessa tutte queste cose. Tali sono le ragioni che spingono cultori diversi a provare fascino e interesse per questa straordinaria capacità cognitiva. La linguistica continua ad evolvere, così come le lingue che studia. E questo è dovuto non solo alle nuove scoperte, ma anche agli scambi sociali, agli interessi, alle priorità che determinano il corso delle indagini sul linguaggio.

Il presente lavoro è il frutto di un lungo percorso molto travagliato. Ringrazio tutti coloro che ne hanno fatto parte e hanno creduto in me, più di quanto facessi io.

Un grazie particolare va al Professore Alessandro Lenci per la pazienza.

Dedico invece un ringraziamento speciale alla mia famiglia, che mi ha sempre sostenuto e incoraggiato.

 Asher, N., & Pustejovsky, J. (2006). A Type Composition Logic for Generative Lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, pp. 1-38.

 Baggio, G., Choma, T., van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2010). Coercion and compositionality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2131–2140.

 Copestake, A. (2001). The semi-generative lexicon: Limits on lexical productivity. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, Geneva.

 De Almeida, R. G., & Dwivedi, V. D. (2008). Coercion without lexical decomposition: Type-shifting effects revisited. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 53, 301–328.

 De Almeida, R. G., & Dwivedi, V. D., (2008). Coercion without lexical decomposition: Type-shifting effects revisited. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 53(2/3): 301–326.

 Dronkers, N. F., Wilkins, D. P., Van Valin, R. D., Redfern, B. B., & Jaeger, J. J. (2004). Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension. Cognition, 92, 145–177.

 Elman, J. L., (2011). Lexical knowledge without a lexicon? The Mental Lexicon, 6(1): 1–33.

 Fodor, J. A., & Lepore, E. (1998). The emptiness of the lexicon: reflections on James Pustejovsky’s The Generative Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, pp. 269-288.  Frisson, S. & McElree, B. (2008). Complement coercion Is not modulated by competition: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 34(1), 1-11.

 Frisson, S., Rayner, K., and Pickering, M. J. (2005). Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5): 862–877.

 Gagnepain, P., Chetelat, G., Landeau, B., Dayan, J., Eustache, F., & Lebreton, K. (2008). Spoken word memory traces within the human auditory cortex revealed by repetition priming and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 5281–5289.

 Godard, D., and Jayez, J. (1993). Towards a proper treatment of coercion phenomenon. Published in: Proceeding EACL '93 Proceedings of the sixth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics pages 168-177.

 Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., and Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304: 438–441.

 Hare, M., Jones, M., Thomson, C., Kelly, S., and McRae, K. (2009b). Activating event knowledge. Cognition, 111(2): 151–167.

 Humphries, C., Binder, J. R., Medler, D. A., & Liebenthal, E. (2006). Syntactic and semantic modulation of neural activity during auditory sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 665–679.

 Humphries, C., Binder, J. R., Medler, D. A., & Liebenthal, E. (2007). Time course of semantic processes during sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 36, 924–932.

 Husband, E.M., Kelly, L., & Zhu, D. (2011). Using complement coercion to understand the neural basis of semantic composition: Evidence from an fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23 (11), 3254-3266.

 Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

 Kandel, E. R., Perri, V., & Spidalieri, G. (2014). Principi di neuroscienze. Milano: Ambrosiana.

 Katsika, A., Braze, D., Deo, A. and Piñango, M.M. (2012). Mechanisms in complement coercion: distinguishing between type-shifting and pragmatic inferencing. The Mental Lexicon, 7.1, 58-76.

 Kemmerer, D., & Wright, S. K. (2002). Selective impairment of knowledge underlying un- prefixation: further evidence for the autonomy of grammatical semantics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15(3-5): 403-432.

 Kiehl, K. A., Laurens, K. R., & Liddle, P. F. (2002). Reading anomalous sentences: An event-related fMRI study of semantic processing. Neuroimage, 17, 842–850.  Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. Part of the Studies in Linguistics and

Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 70).

 Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2685–2701.

 Lai, Y., Lacadie, C., Constable, T., Deo, A., & Piñango, M. M. (2014). Complement coercion as the processing of aspectual verbs: evidence from self-paced reading and fMRI. In: Language, Cognition and Mind. Hampton, J. A., & Winter, Y. Editors.

 Lapata, M., Keller, F., and Scheepers, C. (2003). Intra-sentential context effects on the interpretation of logical metonymy. Cognitive Science, 27: 649–668.  Lapata, M., & Lascarides, A. (2003). A probabilistic account of logical metonymy.

 Lau, E. F., Almeida, D., Hines, P. C., & Poeppel, D. (2009). A lexical basis for N400 context effects: Evidence from MEG. Brain and Language, 111, 161–172.

 Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C., and McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4): 913–934.

 Matsuki, K. (2013). The Roles of Thematic Knowledge in Sentence Comprehension. PhD thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. Paper 1661. http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1661.

 McElree, B., Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Seely, R., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Reading time evidence for enriched composition. Cognition, 78, pp. 17-25.  McElree, B., Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2006a). Deferred Interpretations:

Whay Starting Dickens Is Taxing but Reading Dickens Isn’t. Cognitive Science, 30(1): 181–192.

 McElree, B., Pylkkänen, L., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2006b). The time course of enriched composition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, pp. 53-59.  McRae, K., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., and Ferretti, T. (2005). A basis for generating

expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory & Cognition, 33(7): 1174–1184.  McRae, K. and Matsuki, K. (2009). People use their knowledge of common events

to understand language, and do so as quickly as possible. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(6): 1417–1429.

 Pickering, M. J., Frisson, S., McElree, B., and Traxler, M. J. (2004). Eye movements and semantic composition. In Carreiras, M. and Clifton, C. E., editors, The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP, and beyond, pages 33–50. Psychology Press, New York, NY.

 Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & McElree, B. (2005). The difficulty of coercion: A response to De Almeida. Brain and Language, 93, pp. 1-9.

 Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., Frisson, S., Chen, L., & Traxler, M. J. (2006). Aspectual coercion and underspecification. Discourse Processes, 42, 131-155.  Piñango, M., Zurif, E., & Jackendoff, R. (1999). Real-time processing implications

of enriched composition at the syntax-semantics interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, pp. 395-414.

 Piñango, M. M., & Zurif, E. B. (2001). Semantic operations in aphasic comprehension: Implications for the cortical organization of language. Brain and Language, 79(2), 297–308.

 Piñango, M. M., & Ashwini Deo (2012). Aspectual verbs and the “coercion” effect. Paper presented at SALT 22, May 18–20, Chicago, IL.

Semantics 33(2): 359-408.

 Pylkkänen, L., Llinas, R., & McElree, B. (2004). Distinct effects of semantic plausibility and semantic composition in MEG. In Halgren, E., Aulfors(?), S., Hämäläinen, M., & Cohen, D. (Chairs), Biomag 2004: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Biomagnetism. Biomag, Boston.

 Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In Traxler, M. and Gernsbacher, M. A., editors, Handbook of Psycholinguistics, pages 539–579. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2nd edition.

 Pylkkänen, L., Llinas, R., & McElree, B. (2007). An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

 Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 712–738.

 Pylkkänen, L., Oliveri, B., & Smart, A. (2009). Semantics vs. world knowledge in prefrontal cortex. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 1313–1334.

 Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41, pp. 47-81.  Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  Pustejovsky, J. and Bouillon, P. (1995). Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy.

Journal of Semantics, 12(2): 133–162.

 Pustejovsky, J. (1998). Generativity and explanation in semantics: a reply to Fodor and Lepore. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, pp. 289-311.

 Pustejovsky, J., & Ježek, E. (2008). Semantic Coercion in Language: Beyond Distributional Analysis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20, pp. 181-214.

 Rüd, S. and Zarcone, A. (2011). Covert events and qualia structures for German verbs. In Proceedings of the Metonymy 2011 Workshop, pages 17–22, Stuttgart, Germany.

 Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E., & Grimshaw, J. (1989). Verb processing during sentence comprehension: Contextual impenetrability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 223- 243.

 Sheepers, C., Keller, F., & Lapata, M. (2008). Evidence for serial coercion: A time course anlysis using the visual-word paradigm. Cognitive Psychology, 56(1): 1- 29.

 Shetreet, E., Palti, D., Friedmann, N., & Hadar, U. (2007). Cortical representation of verb processing in sentence comprehension: Number of complements, subcategorization, and thematic frames. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1958–1969.

 Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B. (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 530–547.

53, 1-25.

 Utt., J., Lenci, A., Pado, S., & Zarcone, A. (2013) The curious case of metonymic verbs: A distributional characterization. Towards a Formal Distributional Semantics-IWCS 2013 Workshop.

 Van Petten, C., & Luka, B. J. (2006). Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies. Brain and Language, 97, 279–293.

 Verspoor, C. M. (1997a). Conventionality-governed logical metonymy. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computational Semantics, pages 300–312, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

 Verspoor, C. M. (1997b). Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. College of Science and Engineering. School of Informatics.

 Zarcone, A. and Lenci, A. (2008). Computational models of event type classification in context. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 1232–1238, Marrakech, Morocco.  Zarcone, A. and Padó, S. (2010). "I like work: I can sit and look at it for hours" -

Type clash vs. plausibility in covert event recovery. In Proceedings of Verb 2010 - Interdisciplinary Workshop on Verbs, pages 209–214, Pisa, Italy.

 Zarcone, A. and Padó, S. (2011). Generalized event knowledge in logical metonymy resolution. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 944–949, Boston, MA.

 Zarcone, A., Padó, S., and Lenci, A. (2012b). Inferring covert events in logical metonymies: a probe recognition experiment. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 1215–1220, Sapporo, Japan.  Zarcone, A., Utt, J., and Lenci, A. (2012c). Logical metonymy from type clash to

thematic fit. Poster presented at the 18th Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Riva del Garda, Italy.

 Zarcone, A., Lenci, A., Padó, S., and Utt, J. (2013). Fitting, not clashing! a distributional semantic model of logical metonymy. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics, Potsdam, Germany.  Zarcone, A. and Padó, S. (2013). Logical metonymy: Disentangling object type

and thematic fit. Poster presented at the 19th Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Marseille, France.

 Zarcone, A., Padó, S., and Lenci, A. (2014). Logical metonymy resolution in a words-as-cues framework: evidence from self-paced reading and probe recognition. Cognitive Science, 38(5): 973–996.