Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte
Dennis Monbaliu
Acceptability of metonymy: a
comparative survey investigation among
Dutch and English native speakers
Masterproef voorgedragen tot het behalen van de graad van
Master in het Vertalen
2015
Promotor Prof. Dr. Sonia Vandepitte
VakgroepVertalenTolkenCommunicatie
2
FOREWORD
I want to express my gratitude towards Prof. Dr. Sonia Vandepitte because she always offered me
her help when I needed it and she gave me useful feedback on the progress that I had made. I
highly appreciate the time that she invested in me. This also motivated me to work even harder.
I also wish to thank everyone who helped or supported me this year with a good conversation or a
useful impetus. My family most of all offered me their moral support to persevere. Furthermore,
my fellow students, with whom I could identify because they were in the same boat, encouraged
me to reach my goal.
In addition, I would like to thank the respondents of my surveys for participating. Without them,
the present dissertation would not have been possible.
Thank you all.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8
2
Metonymy .............................................................................................................................. 10
3
2.1
Definition ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.2
Types of metonymy ......................................................................................................... 12
2.3
The concept of acceptability ............................................................................................ 14
2.4
State-of-the-art on the acceptability of metonymic expressions ..................................... 14
2.5
Research questions .......................................................................................................... 15
2.6
Relevance for translation industry ................................................................................... 17
Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 19
3.1
3.1.1
Surveys ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.2
Closed-ended questions ............................................................................................ 20
3.1.3
Omission of middle option in surveys ...................................................................... 21
3.1.4
Respondents’ details ................................................................................................. 22
3.1.5
Distribution of the surveys ....................................................................................... 22
3.1.6
Data process ............................................................................................................. 23
3.2
4
Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 19
Material ............................................................................................................................ 24
3.2.1
Google Forms ........................................................................................................... 24
3.2.2
Adaptations to survey sentences .............................................................................. 24
Results .................................................................................................................................... 26
4.1
Classification of respondents ........................................................................................... 26
4.2
Findings per sentence ...................................................................................................... 29
4.3
Comparison between native speakers of Dutch and English ........................................... 40
4.4
Comparison between Britons and Americans ................................................................. 43
4
4.5
Comparison between Belgians and Dutch ....................................................................... 44
4.6
Comparison between Dutch-speaking younger generation and older generations .......... 45
4.7
Comparison between Dutch-speaking male and female respondents ............................. 47
4.8
Development since 2011 ................................................................................................. 48
5
Discussion and conclusion ..................................................................................................... 51
References ...................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 56
A.
Taxonomy of metonymy types and their examples ......................................................... 56
B.
Sentences in context ........................................................................................................ 59
C.
Overview ratings Dutch and English respondents ........................................................... 61
Enclosed with the printed version: CD-ROM with all the data of both surveys
5
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Nationalities (both surveys) ........................................................................................... 27
Figure 2: Age groups (both surveys) ............................................................................................. 27
Figure 3: Gender distribution (both surveys) ................................................................................ 28
Figure 4: Language sector (both surveys) ..................................................................................... 28
Figure 5: Education (both surveys) ............................................................................................... 29
Figure 6: Comparison between British and American ratings ...................................................... 44
Figure 7: Comparison between Dutch and Belgian ratings ........................................................... 45
Figure 8: Age groups (Dutch survey) ............................................................................................ 46
Figure 9: Comparison between ratings of three age groups (Dutch survey) ................................. 47
Figure 10: Comparison between ratings of male and female respondents (Dutch survey) ........... 48
Table 1: Dutch and English sentences with ICMs ........................................................................ 41
Table 2: Comparison of average ratings of 2011 and 2016 .......................................................... 49
6
Abstract
This dissertation seeks to make a contribution to the still developing theory on metonymy by
investigating the acceptability of metonymic language use among native speakers of Dutch and
English. Moreover, the present study may be useful to raise awareness about metonymy with
professional translators. A previous survey investigation from Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011)
pointed out that native speakers of Dutch showed a low acceptability for the metonymic use of
abstract nouns in subject position with a predicate that usually requires an animate agent. As these
constructions were expected to be more acceptable in English because there the subject does not
need to be able to generate its own energy (Wolff et al, 2009), the present study conducted two
equivalent surveys in Dutch and English among 273 native speakers of both languages. Therefore,
the present study adopted the same set of Dutch sentences as Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011)
together with their English equivalents. The results of the surveys confirm that native speakers of
English show a higher acceptability for metonymy (20 of 25 metonymic sentences were accepted)
than native speakers of Dutch (12 of 25). However, the acceptability of the Dutch respondents for
metonymy is increasing, as 22 of 25 Dutch metonymic sentences received higher average ratings
in this survey compared to the survey of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011). In conclusion, metonymy
is perceived differently in English and Dutch, and its acceptability among native speakers of Dutch
has increased over the past five years.
7
Dutch:
Deze masterproef wenst een bijdrage te leveren aan de nog steeds in ontwikkeling zijnde theorie
rond metonymie door de aanvaardbaarheid van metonymisch taalgebruik bij moedertaalsprekers
van het Nederlands en het Engels te onderzoeken. Deze studie kan bovendien nuttig zijn om de
kennis en het bewustzijn van professionele vertalers voor metonymie te vergroten. Uit een
surveyonderzoek van Delsoir en Vandepitte (2011) bleek dat moedertaalsprekers van het
Nederlands een lage aanvaardbaarheid vertoonden voor het metonymische gebruik van abstracte
substantieven die fungeren als onderwerp in combinatie met een predicaat dat normaal een levend
agens heeft. Aangezien zulke constructies volgens Wolff et al (2009) in het Engels aanvaardbaarder
zouden moeten zijn omdat het onderwerp daar zelf geen energie hoeft te kunnen genereren, stelde
deze studie twee equivalente enquêtes in het Nederlands en het Engels in bij 273
moedertaalsprekers van beide talen. Daarvoor werden dezelfde reeks Nederlandse zinnen gebruikt
als bij Delsoir en Vandepitte (2011) en hun Engelse equivalenten. De resultaten van de enquêtes
bevestigen dat moedertaalsprekers van het Engels een hogere aanvaardbaarheid (20 van de 25
metonymische zinnen aanvaardbaar) voor metonymie vertonen dan moedertaalsprekers van het
Nederlands (12 van de 25). Toch is er een toename van de aanvaardbaarheid bij de Nederlandstalige
respondenten vast te stellen, want 22 van de 25 metonymische zinnen kregen een betere
gemiddelde beoordeling in deze enquête dan in die van Delsoir en Vandepitte (2011). De conclusie
van deze studie is dat metonymie anders wordt waargenomen in het Engels dan in het Nederlands
en dat de aanvaardbaarheid voor metonymie van moedertaalsprekers van het Nederlands is
toegenomen over de laatste vijf jaar.
8
1
INTRODUCTION
A speaker of a modern language uses metonymic language every day (Rundblad and Annaz, 2010).
Presumably, most of them use or read such linguistic instances unconsciously. Suppose a sports
newspaper writes “The Bianconeri totally dominated the game”. Most people who are familiar with
football will understand that the writer of the article refers to Juventus, a traditional Italian football
team of which the players wear shirts that are striped in white and black (Bianconeri literally
signifies white and black in Italian). This is an example of metonymic language use: the term
Bianconeri lies in the conceptual field of ‘Juventus’ in that it describes the design of Juventus’s
shirts. It is the reader who makes the link to this conceptual field through his cognitive abilities.
According to Handl (2011), the reason why metonyms are so ubiquitous in our lives is human
perception. He carried out an experiment which suggests that people tend to underspecify when
describing everyday events. This underspecification is typical of metonymy. Radden and Kövecses
(1999, paraphrased in Brdar, 2009) detailed the pragmatic function of metonymy as a very efficient
way of communicating two things by only naming one. Moreover, Panther and Radden (1999, also
paraphrased in Brdar, 2009) observed that metonymy adds information to an actual utterance. It
would also serve as a kind of “mental shortcut”.
However, metonymy is not always as straightforward as in the example above. The recognition of
metonymy sometimes poses a challenge to researchers. Moreover, there are other problems that
arise concerning the identification and comprehension of metonymic language. For example,
problems of misunderstanding may occur when people of a different discourse community
communicate with one another, even though they speak the same language (Deignan et al., 2013;
Stvan, 2012; both paraphrased in Littlemore, 2015). Comparable problems may arise when two
individuals with different cultural and/or linguistic backgrounds interact. Similarly, professional
translators are often confronted with cross-linguistic metonymic differences, which tend to be
challenging as well (Littlemore, 2015).
In most of the studies that have been conducted on metonymy, researchers have tried to provide a
theoretical framework of the concept by giving definitions that explain the differences between
metaphor and metonymy (e.g. Littlemore, 2015, Panther & Thornburg, 2007, and Radden, 2002)
9
or constructing taxonomies that list different types of metonymy (e.g. Radden & Kövecses, 1999,
and Peirsman & Geeraerts, 2006). Instead, the present study seeks to investigate the use of
metonymy by involving language users in the discussion on metonymy because there has been
little focus on this aspect before. More specifically, the present study wishes to find out what native
speakers make of metonymy and whether they accept the use of various types of metonymy in their
language. In a rare study on the acceptability of metonymy, Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011) already
pointed out that the acceptability of metonymic expressions among Belgian and Dutch native
speakers was considerably low. Moreover, they noted that in English, unlike in Dutch, these kind
of expressions are common.
Therefore, the present study will examine whether these findings can be confirmed or whether there
has been a development in the acceptability of metonymy among Dutch native speakers since the
study of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011). The present dissertation specifically investigates national
and linguistic differences between Dutch native speakers from Belgium and the Netherlands, and
English native speakers from the United Kingdom, the United States and other English-speaking
nations by gauging their attitude towards various types of metonymy. In addition, Dutch-speaking
respondents will be separated in different groups based on age, nationality, and gender in order to
assess whether these parameters have an influence on their acceptability of metonymy.
10
2
METONYMY
Firstly, this section will discuss various definitions of metonymy from both dictionaries and
scholars, after which a definition will be given that will be applicable throughout the present
dissertation. Secondly, the main types of metonymy will be enumerated according to the taxonomy
of Radden and Kövecses (1999) in order to get a structured overview of the criteria that they
applied. The complete version with all subtypes and examples is to be found in Appendix A.
Thirdly, the general concept of acceptability will be discussed, after which a brief overview of
previous research on the acceptability of metonymy will be given. Then the research questions of
the present study will be presented. To conclude, the final section will explain why the present
study may be useful for translation professionals.
2.1
Definition
Online dictionaries, such as Merriam Webster (2015), Oxford Dictionaries (2015), and Literary
Devices (2015), define metonymy in a very similar and simple way. In essence, they explain it as
a figure of speech whereby one refers to something by naming something else that has a connection
with or refers to the original concept. Oxford Dictionaries (2015) presents the example of “the
White House”, a term which is often used to refer to the president of the United States, who resides
in the White House. The definitions offered by dictionaries focus on the lexical association of two
objects, ideas or persons. Over the past decades, many scientific researchers have tried to compose
a more comprehensive definition of metonymy by laying emphasis on cognitive processes. The
paragraph below will expand upon the most seminal researchers and their ideas.
Radden and Kövecses (1999) are very influential in this research field. Although they conducted
their research at the end of the previous century, it is still relevant today. They define metonymy
as “a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to
another conceptual entity, the target, within the same idealized cognitive model” (Radden and
Kövecses, 1999, p. 21). This definition is based on three principles. Firstly, metonymy, like
metaphor, is conceptual, which means that we derive the meaning of a given reference based on
our experiences and thoughts (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). This already differs from the definitions
11
given by dictionaries, in which the lexical character is highlighted. Secondly, it is a cognitive
process, whereby an individual gains mental access to a conceptual entity via another entity
(Langacker, 1993). Langacker distinguishes a reference-point and a desired target. The two are
conceptual entities that are linked to one another by mental processes. This is what Radden and
Kövecses (1999, p. 21) referred to in their definition of metonymy: “the vehicle” stands for the
reference-point and the desired target is “the target”. Thirdly, they believe that Lakoff’s (1987)
framework of “idealized cognitive models” (ICMs) is the best way to describe metonymic
processes. In the concept of ICMs, which will also be used in the present study to divide metonymy
into different types (cf. §2.2), Lakoff does not only take into account the domain-specific
knowledge of an individual, but also the “cultural models” he is part of (Radden and Kövecses,
1999, pp. 17-23).
More recently however, Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006) criticise the vague description of a domain
or cognitive structure, which is not explained in Radden and Kövecses’ (1999) work. Peirsman and
Geeraerts (2006) return to the principle of contiguity, which was considered as the defining factor
of metonymy before domains. They suggest the use of three different types of contiguity, of which
one is called “domain”. The two other types that they introduce depend on “strength of contact”
and “boundedness” (Peirsman and Geeraerts, 2006, p.270). With these descriptions they essentially
determine metonymy by zeroing in on the conceptual associations of metonyms, which is still
connected to the ideas of Radden and Kövecses (1999).
Sweep (2009) introduces another factor that is at the basis of several examples of metonymy:
polysemy. One word with multiple meanings can undergo a metonymic shift in meaning. She refers
to the word “rabbit”, which can be used for the animal, the animal’s meat or its fur (Sweep, 2009,
p. 4). This definition relies on the semantic level, which is more closely related to the lexical
definitions that are given in dictionaries.
In addition, metonymy in general is not always clearly distinguishable from metaphor. In the
example below, “Washington” and “Tehran” could be interpreted as metonymic instances standing
for the employees of the national governments of the US and Iran, but also as personification
metaphors in which both capitals take on human characteristics (Littlemore, 2015, p. 132).
12
“Noting that Washington is willing to improve relations with Tehran.” (Littlemore, 2015, p. 132)
Other researchers investigated the differences between metonymy and metaphor too. According to
Panther and Thornburg (2007), they are different in that metaphors involve a conceptual
comparison between two distinctive domains. By contrast, metonyms are based on a contiguous
link in real life. Conversely, Barnden (2010) claims that he has new evidence which states that the
differences between the two concepts will always be controversial. It just goes to show that the
boundaries between the two remain fuzzy despite many researchers having investigated the subject.
As defining metonymy seems to depend partly on interpretation, the present dissertation will adopt
a combination of the previous scientific definitions and characteristics, which results in the
following operational definition:
Metonymy is a cognitive process that is inherent in our daily communication and typically occurs
when either an individual refers to an object, a person or state by naming a term or phrase that
lies within the same conceptual field as the intended object, person or state, or when the receiver
of this message makes a cognitive link between the intended object and the object mentioned.
2.2
Types of metonymy
There are numerous types of metonymy. However, there is no comprehensive list that is largely
recognised by researchers. Rather, different enumerations of types of metonymy exist. Radden and
Kövecses (1999) composed a taxonomy consisting of seventeen main categories of metonymy.
These were further divided into a total of 64 types. More recently, Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006)
combined five lists of metonymy types from previous researchers which resulted in a list of 23
types. They did note that their enumeration was not exhaustive. Although there is overlap between
these two classifications, they differ quite significantly. This implies that metonymy is, in some
cases, subject to interpretation.
13
We chose to adopt the classification of metonymy types composed by Radden and Kövecses (1999,
pp. 30-43) as this taxonomy has been of great significance for the research on metonymy and
continues to be a referential work for present-day scholars such as Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006)
or Littlemore (2015). The latter summarised their classification in a unique book that is solely
devoted to metonymy. After an initial divide, Radden and Kövecses (1999) designed a clearly
structured overview consisting of two main types: whole for part metonymies and part for part
metonymies. The former category includes metonymical phrases in which a whole is referred to by
naming part of it (e.g. Holland, which is actually an area consisting of two provinces in the
Netherlands, usually stands for the whole country) or reversely (e.g. Europe sometimes stands for
all member states of the European Union). The latter links two parts of a whole ICM (idealized
cognitive model, cf. §2.1) and is typically based on the interaction between a relation and
something that is related to it, e.g. “to marry money” refers to a partner who possesses a lot of
money (Radden and Kövecses, 1999).
A further divide is made for both categories. According to Radden and Kövecses (1999,
paraphrased in Littlemore, 2015), there are seven whole for part metonymies: the Thing-and-Part
ICM (one part refers to a whole or opposite), the Scale ICM (a whole scale stands for the upper
end or opposite), the Constitution ICM (the material of an object stands for the object or opposite),
the Event ICM (a part of an event can represent a whole event or opposite), the Category-andMember ICM (a member of a category stands for the whole category or opposite), the Categoryand-Property ICM (a characteristic stands for the whole category or opposite), and the Reduction
ICM (an abbreviated form stands for the whole form).
A further ten categories belong to the part for part metonymies: the Action ICM (involves an action
and its participants), the Perception ICM (a situation or something stands for how it is perceived),
the Causation ICM (a cause refers to its effect or opposite), the Production ICM (producer of a
product represents the product itself), the Control ICM (a controller stands for the object or person
he or she controls or opposite), the Possession ICM (possessor stands for possessed or opposite),
the Containment ICM (the container stands for its contents or opposite), the Location ICM
(locations stand for people, institutions, events and goods that are located there or opposite), the
Sign and Reference ICMs (words stand for the concepts they express), and the Modification ICM
14
(a modified form of a word stands for the original word) (Radden and Kövecses, 1999, paraphrased
in Littlemore, 2015). An overview of all the subtypes with examples for each is shown in Appendix
A.
2.3
The concept of acceptability
In order to comprehend the criterion of acceptability in the present study, the view of this
dissertation that metonymy is not a lexical phenomenon, but a cognitive process, is essential. Van
Dijk (1977) attempts to clarify the concept of acceptability by contrasting it to grammaticalness.
The grammaticalness of sentences is “relative” to the structure of verbal context, whereas
acceptability is connected with non-verbal context. In other words, it is easier to make grammar
rules for lexical phenomena than for cognitive processes. Metonymy is a cognitive process and
consequently has a limited theoretical basis in linguistics. Therefore, there is still room for the
debate on the status of metonymic language use, which is why the concept of acceptability arises
in the present study.
According to Van Dijk (1977), linguistic intuitions are part of our linguistic abilities. In the surveys
conducted for the present study, native speakers will resort to their linguistic intuitions and their
cognitive abilities to judge the metonymic sentences that they will be given.
2.4
State-of-the-art on the acceptability of metonymic expressions
Specific research on the subject of acceptability of metonymy is very rare. One of the few studies
dates back to the early 1990s, when Kamei and Wakao (1992) conducted a comparative survey in
which they compared the acceptability ratings of native speakers of English, Chinese, and Japanese
for 25 metonymic expressions in their respective mother tongue. In an attempt to deal with
metonymy in machine translation, the two researchers discovered that the acceptability ratings
depended on which pattern there was in the sentence. They distinguished four main patterns:
“Location”, “Emphasis of one aspect”, “Abstract and collective entity for its consisting concrete
items”, and “Information conveyer for information giver”. For example, a sentence with a Location
pattern (more specifically, Producer for Product) received low acceptability scores from Chinese
15
native speakers whereas English and Japanese respondents rated the sentence as fully acceptable.
This shows that the acceptability of a metonymy type may differ significantly for one language as
opposed to another.
Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011) also contributed to the research on the acceptability of metonymy
among native speakers. They investigated the acceptability of ‘npaparp’ constructions, which are
common in English, but not so much in Dutch. These constructions can be explained from a
metonymic point of view (cf. §3.1.1). Their respondents rated only 5 out of a total 28 sentences as
acceptable, while they rated 9 as completely unacceptable. As many as 14 sentences were not
allocated to one of both categories as they belonged to a kind of continuum between a status of
acceptability and unacceptability.
In summary, one could argue that this field of research is still at an early stage. For this reason, the
present study is quite exceptional and it will be equally interesting to be able to compare the results
with those of a previous study (cf. Delsoir and Vandepitte, 2011).
2.5
Research questions
The results of the study of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011) pointed out that the acceptability of
metonymic expressions with abstract nouns in subject position among Belgian and Dutch native
speakers was considerably low. Also in this dissertation, they noted that in English, unlike in Dutch,
these kind of expressions are common. Moreover, according to Wolff et al (2009, summarised in
Delsoir and Vandepitte, 2011), English is a language that does not necessarily require an agent that
can generate its own energy. Inanimate and abstract nouns are therefore usually accepted in
English, whereas in Dutch they usually are not. Furthermore, Kamei and Wakao (1992) discovered
that the same metonymic expression may be acceptable in one language while it may be
unacceptable in another. Since the sentences in the surveys contain abstract nouns (cf. §3.1.1), the
first hypothesis holds that the ratings in the present study will be higher for the English sentences
that will be rated by native speakers of English than for the Dutch sentences that will be rated by
native speakers of Dutch.
16
However, their research with Dutch respondents dates back to 2011. Meanwhile, changes may have
taken place, possibly as a consequence of the contact between English and Dutch. Sometimes
language changes are very obvious. For example, loan words obviously originate from a specific
language. Many language changes are taking place at this very moment, but these have not
sufficiently been investigated (Van der Sijs, 1996; Backus et al., 2011; paraphrased in Kiers,
2014). By consequence, Kiers (2014) studied the use of the periphrastic forms ‘more’ and ‘most’
in Dutch comparatives and superlatives. If the Dutch grammar rules are taken into account, the
periphrastic forms ‘meer’ and ‘meest’ should not be used very frequently. Rather, most adjectives
in Dutch get the morphological endings ‘-er’ for the comparative and ‘-st’ for the superlative.
However, the use of the periphrastic form in Dutch would be on the rise. This hypothesis was
confirmed in Kiers’ corpus study: in many cases, the periphrastic form was used when the
morphological form should have been used according to the language rules. Moreover, her results
demonstrated the influence of English on Dutch grammar, as this development can be linked to
how English comparatives and superlatives are built. English comparative and superlative adverbs,
and adjectives consisting of three or more syllables are usually made with the periphrastic forms
‘more’ and ‘most’ (Swan, 2005).
Landsbergen (2006) drew similar conclusions from a comparative study on the shifts in meaning
of the verbs ‘to get’ in English, ‘krijgen’ in Dutch and ‘kriegen’ in German. Over the years, all
three verbs underwent changes in meaning and grammatical usage, not by chance in the same
period. Consequently, Landsbergen suggested that, based on the theory of Heine and Kuteva
(2006), this makes a strong case for contact between languages. In this case, German and Dutch
mutually influenced one another more than English did.
Possibly, metonymy is one of those linguistic phenomena that is currently undergoing a change.
Therefore, the present study will examine whether there is a development in the acceptability of
native speakers of Dutch for metonymic expressions compared to 2011. Hence, the present
dissertation partly serves as a sequel to Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011). By consequence, the second
hypothesis is that the general acceptability for metonymic constructions in Dutch will have
increased compared to 2011, possibly as a result of the influence that English and American media,
films, and series have in Belgium and the Netherlands.
17
Besides the two main hypotheses, the present study will investigate whether metonymy types have
an impact on the acceptability of a sentence. In addition, the results of the surveys will be examined
in detail as the acceptability ratings of Britons and Americans, and Belgian and Dutch respondents
will be compared. Furthermore, the Dutch-speaking respondents will be thoroughly examined by
focusing on their gender, nationality, and age.
2.6
Relevance for translation industry
Metonymy poses a challenge for both professional translators and language learners, although most
of them are confronted with metonymic problems without any knowledge of the subject.
Consequently, it may be useful for translation students and language learners in general to learn
how to cope with these problems (Littlemore, 2015). Barcelona (2010, paraphrased in Littlemore,
2015) believes that discussing metonymic examples could be a useful method in that it “raises
learners’ awareness of the ubiquity of metonymy”. Littlemore (2015) notes that the efficacy of this
method has not been tested yet and that this would be very difficult too.
In general, Littlemore (2015) distinguishes two methods of dealing with metonymy in translation.
On the one hand, the translator can choose to keep the metonymic expression and translate it
literally into the target language. On the other hand, the translator can opt to seek an equivalent
expression in the target language that does not necessarily need to be metonymic. Conversely,
Denroche (2012, paraphrased in Littlemore, 2015) suggests that metonymy is a means to solve
translation problems. He considers it a skill to “think metonymically” (2012, cited in Littlemore,
2015, p. 188). With this ability, translators can grasp the idea of an expression and render this in
the target language rather than trying to find a (metonymic) expression that is a one hundred per
cent match with the original form.
The study that will be discussed in this paragraph focused specifically on the translation of
metonymy. A translation experiment from Vandepitte and Hartsuiker (2011) made students
translate a set of metonymic sentences from English into Dutch. The translations pointed out that
both untrained (first bachelor year) and trained (master year) translators mostly copied the
18
metonymic structures from the source text in the target text, which results in unidiomatic structures
in the target language in some cases. This was the result of priming: the participators tended to
reproduce the metonymic structures of the source language in the target language. The present
dissertation will be able to point out exactly which translated structures are acceptable according
to native speakers as the present surveys adopted the same set of sentences, both the original
English sentences and the sentences translated into Dutch (cf. §3.1.1).
In other words, this research could be useful for the translation industry because metonymy is
presumably perceived differently by English native speakers than Dutch native speakers (cf. §2.5).
If the results of the surveys confirm this presumption, the present research may be helpful for
translators. They may be able to adapt a target text based on the readers’ mother tongue. For
example, if a certain type of metonymy is consistently rated as unacceptable by a majority of
English native speaker respondents and the equivalent in Dutch is rated as perfectly acceptable by
most Dutch-speaking respondents, the translator of a Dutch text containing a similar type of
metonymy may have to change the conceptual idea of it so that the target audience, consisting of
English readers, would comprehend what is meant. Conversely, if the attitude of English and Dutch
native speakers toward metonymy appears to be very similar, translators can benefit from these
results as well. In that case they know that they better not make certain metonymic instances more
explicit when translating in order to maintain the style of the source text.
Moreover, this dissertation could be useful in that it renders the linguistic intuitions of native
speakers. There is a thin line between which forms of metonymy are acceptable and which ones
are not. There is no authoritative voice which says that a metonymic instance is acceptable or not.
There are no grammar rules that define its correctness because the underlying meaning of
metonyms are connected via a conceptual link (cf. §2.1 and §2.3). Consequently, the present study
will be able to collect and present useful information on the attitude of language users towards
metonymy.
19
3
METHODOLOGY
This section will detail the procedure of the surveys from start to finish, expanding upon the type
of questions, the rating scale, the distribution, and the data of the respondents. The second part of
this chapter will explain the use of Google Forms and indicate the differences between the materials
used here and in Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011).
3.1
Procedure
3.1.1 Surveys
Since the present dissertation seeks to compare the attitude of native speakers of Dutch and English
towards metonymy, two equivalent surveys in both languages were composed. Both surveys had
equivalent introductions and explanations on how to interpret the rating system. The respondents
were asked to rate a set of 32 sentences on an ordinal scale from 1 to 4, whereby 1 = totally
unacceptable, 2 = difficult to accept, 3 = only just acceptable and 4 = totally acceptable. 25 out of
32 sentences contained a metonymic expression and 7 did not. 2 of the 7 sentences were originally
filler sentences from Vandepitte and Hartsuiker (2011) and 5 more were added so as to avoid that
the respondents would be able to guess the study design. Obviously, the two sets of 32 sentences
were equivalents of one another in both languages. They were listed in the same random order for
both surveys, since it was not important in what sequence it was done.
The two sets of 25 metonymic sentences were retrieved from a translation experiment from
Vandepitte and Hartsuiker (2011). Originally, they constructed a set of 38 English sentences
containing non-prototypical agents with prototypical agent requiring predicates (in short
‘npaparp’). According to Vandepitte and Hartsuiker (2011, p. 2), an npaparp construction is “the
combination of an abstract or non-human noun that typically refers to a person or object that causes
or helps cause the action expressed by the predicate, with a predicate that usually requires a human
agent”. In other words, all of the 38 sentences contained a verb that usually requires an animate
agent, but in this case had an inanimate or abstract agent. Vandepitte and Hartsuiker (2011) made
sure that none of the abstract nouns in the npaparp constructions referred to companies or other
groups of people, that very frequent English words were used, and that these words were not
difficult to translate into Dutch. A group consisting of untrained translation students (first bachelor
20
year) and a group of trained translation students (master year) translated the sentences from English
into Dutch (Vandepitte and Hartsuiker, 2011). Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011) extracted the Dutch
translations of these English npaparp constructions and adopted them in a Dutch survey. For this,
they applied a selection procedure by which they selected the most questionable translations based
on their frequency of the translations within each group: npaparp constructions that were translated
more than 40 % by trained translation students were included in the survey. If the translation of an
npaparp construction by untrained translation students, who were considered poorer translators
than their trained peers, appeared more than 30 %, the sentence was added to the survey as well.
This procedure eventually yielded a set of 25 questionable Dutch sentences.
These sentences can be understood from a metonymic point of view (cf. §4.2) and were therefore
adopted in the present Dutch survey. In order to be able to compare the results of the Dutch survey
with the one of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011), it was required to adopt the same set of sentences
(with the inclusion of 2 filler sentences) in large part. In large part because a few minor changes
were made to a few sentences. Since this study is twofold, the English equivalents of the 27 selected
sentences, originally composed by Vandepitte and Hartsuiker (2011), were adopted in the English
survey.
It has to be noted that the respondents were not informed about the metonymic character of the
sentences. Neither did they obtain any clarification on the signification of the term ‘acceptability’,
i.e. to avoid that the respondents would focus on one specific aspect of language. In other words,
they were encouraged to merely render their linguistic intuitions. Furthermore, the terms
‘acceptability’ and ‘aanvaardbaarheid’ were used because they are assumed to be basic vocabulary
of native speakers, in contrast with the terms ‘idiomaticity’ and ‘idiomaticiteit’, which are typical
of language experts’ language use.
3.1.2 Closed-ended questions
The questions in the surveys were closed-ended. Indeed, there was no room for comment, but that
was not what was desired. As the survey was conducted in two languages for multiple nationalities
and thus aimed at a reasonably high number of respondents, there was no possibility to comment
21
on the survey sentences in order to expedite the processing of the responses. A further argument
was that respondents were more likely to take part in the survey, since it was less time-consuming.
3.1.3 Omission of middle option in surveys
According to Garland (1991), rating scales are drawn up so that respondents can indicate the
direction and the strength of their opinion on a certain topic. However, the widespread use of
rating scales in market and social research has generated considerable debate over the optimal
number of scale points to use.
In his research, Garland (1991) compared the results of a five-point with a four-point (balanced)
Likert scale. His main question was whether the inclusion of a mid-point option would affect the
validity or reliability of the responses. Worcester and Burns (1975) found that a four-point scale
without an intermediate option appeared to force more respondents towards the positive side of
the scale. However, in Garland’s (1991) research the respondents of the four-point Likert scale
tended to answer more towards the negative end of the scale. Garland (1991) therefore suggests
that the responses of the respondents of balanced Likert scales without a mid-point differs
depending on the content of the research. Garland (1991) concluded that both the inclusion and
omission of a middle option on the Likert scale distort the results of a survey.
A more recent thesis from Dijkstra (2013) also claims that researchers can deploy Likert scales
with either an even or odd number of options. He concludes that there is no significant difference
in the results of a survey with a six-point or seven-point Likert scale.
In order to avoid social desirability bias, whereby respondents give a certain answer in order to
support or satisfy the researcher, or in order to avoid giving a socially unacceptable response, the
surveys of the present study contain four-point Likert scales (Garland, 1991). Although according
to Garland omitting the neutral option does not alter the respondents’ opinions, it can change the
intensity of their opinions. Hence, by using a four-point Likert scale, the respondents will be
forced to make a considered choice instead of resorting to the ‘escape route’ that is the middle
option. This way, the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable sentences has to become
22
clearer, which was not the case in Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011) because that study adopted a 5point Likert-scale (cf. §2.4).
3.1.4 Respondents’ details
Although the respondents remained anonymous, they were asked to share a few items of personal
information at the end of the surveys. Those details were needed in order to be able to draw
comparisons between different groups of respondents with specific characteristics. Only if two
groups each had at least thirty members, the results were compared as in that case they could be
representative for the larger group that they represented.
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they held a degree in higher education or not and
whether or not their profession or study programme belonged to the language sector. They were
also asked to give their gender, age group, and nationality. In the next question they had to
confirm that English or Dutch is their mother tongue. If that was not the case, their answers were
not valid nor useful for the present study. The last question gave the respondents the opportunity
to receive the results of the survey if they submitted their email address.
3.1.5 Distribution of the surveys
The surveys were mainly shared on Facebook, e.g. in ‘GentVertaalt’, a group that unites
professional translators based in and around Ghent (Belgium), and in ‘Vertalerskoffiehoek’, a
group that predominantly consists of professional translators from the Netherlands. The link to the
surveys was also shared across my personal network in order to reach many university students
who are not only based in Belgium, but also in the Netherlands, Great Britain, Canada, Australia
and the United States. Especially these foreign people were asked to forward the link to the survey
to friends and family so that enough respondents from abroad could be reached. Moreover, the link
was also spread in Facebook groups with English translators and interpreters, such as ‘Productive
& Successful Translators/Interpreters’ and ‘Interpreters and Translators Scotland’. Several
lecturers of Ghent University were also contacted to complete the survey. The surveys were open
23
from 21 February until 27 March 2016. The surveys were closed as soon as there were enough
useful data to discuss in the present dissertation.
3.1.6 Data process
The online spreadsheets from Google Forms were downloaded as Excel files, in which several
calculations were performed. For the Dutch sentences, the average ratings per sentence were
calculated and then divided by 4 and multiplied by 5 to bring them on the same scale as the results
of the 5-point Likert scale that was used in the survey of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011). This
allowed for a comparison between their results and the results of the present Dutch survey, which
is based on a 4-point Likert scale.
Although the average ratings tell something about the tendencies of the acceptability of the
sentences, the present study argues that it is useful to find out how many respondents rated each
sentence as ‘acceptable’, too. Therefore, the percentage of respondents who ticked option 3 or 4
was counted for each sentence, both for the English and the Dutch survey. This way the acceptable
sentences were distinguished from the unacceptable ones, at least according to the respondents. In
addition, the chi-squared test was calculated using the frequency numbers of the four rating points.
This test is designed to determine the significance of the results of a study.
In addition, the present study wanted to compare the results of Britons and Americans, and Belgian
and Dutch respondents. For each group, the voting percentage of each of the four rating scales was
calculated and this will be visualised in the results section. The comparison of the Dutch
respondents based on their gender, nationality, and age will be displayed in bar graphs, too. All of
the results mentioned in this paragraph were statistically tested with the chi-squared test, too.
24
3.2
Material
3.2.1 Google Forms
Online surveys are inexpensive and user-friendly (Saris and Gallhofer, 2014, p. 6). Google Forms,
a free web survey application that was used for the surveys, allows for rapid and easy data
collection, as it automatically lists the results in a table. Moreover, Google Forms provides a visual
overview of the results in bar charts and summarises the personal information of the respondents
in pie charts, which will be described in the results section (§4.1).
3.2.2 Adaptations to survey sentences
The English sentences were originally adopted from Vandepitte and Hartsuiker (2011) as were
their Dutch translations (cf. §3.1.1). However, a few sentences were adapted before they were
implemented in the present surveys. These adaptations are to be found below. The original sentence
always comes first, after which the new version of the sentence is written. The corresponding
sentence in the other language is also given, so as to show the equivalence between the two. The
parts of the sentences that were adapted, are underlined. These adaptations were made in order to
reach equivalence with the translation in terms of structure, voice, and vocabulary.
The mission developed a new strategy.
This mission developed a new strategy.
Die missie ontwikkelde een nieuwe strategie.
Mysteries surrounded him.
He was surrounded by mysteries.
Hij werd omringd door mysteries.
This climate placed many people under stress.
This climate put many people under pressure.
Dit klimaat zette veel mensen onder druk.
25
Below are the 5 perfectly acceptable sentences that were added for the present surveys so that the
respondents would not start doubting too much about their interpretation of acceptability in their
mother tongue. They were constructed akin to the simple structure of the metonymic sentences so
that they were easily translatable. Furthermore, they counted approximately the same number of
words so that they were not too different from the metonymic sentences. These sentences were
expected to obtain high acceptability ratings. If not, the linguistic abilities of native speakers would
be questionable.
That painting hangs in the living room.
Dat schilderij hangt in de woonkamer.
Her computer crashed unexpectedly.
Haar computer crashte onverwacht.
She drinks a cup of coffee with her mother.
Ze drink een kop koffie met haar moeder.
That businessman has never been outside of Europe.
Die zakenman is nog nooit buiten Europa geweest.
He was very happy with her birthday card.
Hij was heel blij met haar verjaardagskaartje.
26
4
RESULTS
This section will reveal the results of the surveys that were conducted over the course of five weeks.
Firstly, the profiles of the respondents will be described based on gender, age, nationality, study or
work sector, and higher education. Secondly, all of the survey sentences will be explained from a
metonymic point of view. Then, several comparisons will be drawn: Dutch vs English acceptability
ratings, British vs American acceptability ratings, Belgian vs Dutch acceptability ratings, Dutchspeaking younger vs older generations, and Dutch-speaking male vs female respondents. Finally,
the results of the Dutch survey will be compared to those of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011). For all
of the comparisons, the significance of the results will be calculated by means of a chi-squared test,
which calculates the chances that a similar study would yield the same results (Jooken, 2013). The
Excel files with the data from both surveys are to be found on the CD-ROM enclosed with the
paper version of the present dissertation.
4.1
Classification of respondents
Out of a total of 282 respondents from both surveys, 116 respondents shared their email address
because they were interested in the results of the survey. This implies that they are concerned with
the developments in their mother tongue and it also shows their curiosity about what other people
think of the acceptability of this set of linguistic expressions. Presumably, the respondents also
wanted to know the research subject of the survey that they completed. This sign of interest is
probably related to the high number of people whose profession or study programme is related to
the language sector, namely 216.
80 respondents took part in the English survey and 202 participated in the Dutch survey. 7
respondents of the English survey were non-natives, whereas there were only 2 non-native
participators in the Dutch survey. From this point onwards, the ratings and personal data of the
non-native speaker respondents will not be taken into consideration, since only the answers of
native speakers are relevant to the present study. Therefore, the data of the non-native speakers
were erased from the results. As a result, 200 respondents were counted for the Dutch survey and
73 for the English survey.
27
Figure 1 below shows that the majority of the respondents of the English survey were American
citizens (37). The second-largest group of respondents were British (30). The respondents in the
third group held neither of the two previous nationalities. They only indicated that they lived in an
English-speaking country. The pie chart on the right demonstrates that mainly Belgians (112) took
part in the Dutch survey, although a reasonably high number of Dutch nationals (88) also
participated.
other
8%
British
41%
Dutch
44%
Belgian
56%
American
51%
Figure 1: Comparison between the nationalities for the English (left) and the Dutch survey.
The age groups of the respondents for both surveys are displayed in the pie charts below (Figure
2). On the left, with 45 % of the respondents younger than 25, a fairly large number of young
English-speaking people (33) completed the survey. Many people of the older generations (40) also
participated. The age distribution of the participants in the Dutch survey is to be found on the right.
It is clear that the older generations account for most of the responses (139) while 31 % of the
respondents belong to the younger generation (61).
younger
than 25
45%
younger
than 25
31%
25 or
older
55%
Figure 2: Age groups of the respondents for the English survey (left) and the Dutch survey (right).
25 or
older
69%
28
It is noteworthy that in both surveys more females participated than males (Figure 3), although
there was no particular attention paid to gender when the surveys were spread. 26 men completed
the English survey against 47 women. The Dutch survey had 61 male as opposed to 139 female
participants.
men
30%
men
36%
women
64%
women
70%
Figure 3: Gender distribution for the English (left) and Dutch (right) survey.
The left pie chart of Figure 4 shows that the English survey had a more or less equal participation
of language experts (38) and non-experts (35). On the other hand, the Dutch survey was dominated
by language experts with 172 compared to 28 non-experts. The experts are thought to have better
linguistic intuitions, which can only benefit the results of the surveys.
no
14%
no
48%
yes
52%
yes
86%
Figure 4: Respondents with a study programme/profession in the language sector (left English, right Dutch).
29
Figure 5 shows the percentages of the respondents who studied at a higher education institution or
held a degree of this sort (“yes”). The respondents who did not hold a degree and did not study in
higher education (“no”) were a minority for both surveys: 5 for the English survey and only 2 for
the Dutch survey. The majority of the respondents did have a connection with higher education in
their life, namely 198 of 200 for the Dutch survey and 68 of 73 for the English survey. In summary,
the respondents of both surveys are highly educated.
no
7%
no
1%
yes
93%
yes
99%
Figure 5: Respondents with a higher education degree or still studying at a higher education institution (left English, right Dutch).
4.2
Findings per sentence
In this section, the Dutch sentences with their English equivalents will be listed. For each sentence
couple, the type of metonymy is determined based on the taxonomy of Radden and Kövecses
(1999), which is discussed in §2.2 and listed in full in Appendix A. Please note that the
interpretation of metonymy may vary between individuals (cf. §2.1) so it is possible that a sentence
has more than one metonymic interpretation even though only one option is explained. In addition,
the metonymic meaning of a sentence is contingent on the context. Most of the sentences were
originally embedded in the context of a short story. These short stories are to be found in Appendix
B. For these reasons, the most obvious metonymy type – based on the context and the most obvious
interpretation – will be explained below every sentence couple.
30
As mentioned earlier, the survey sentences contained an abstract noun in combination with a
predicate that usually requires a human agent. For the sake of clarity, these abstract nouns are
underlined in every sentence of this section.
This section will also be concerned with the classification of the sentences in acceptable and
unacceptable sentences, although a concise overview is found in the next section (§4.3). A sentence
will be regarded as unacceptable if 33.3 % of the respondents or more rated it as unacceptable
(ratings 1 and 2 combined). The sentences that are in the middle zone (between 33.3 and 66.6 %)
are
unacceptable
too,
but
they
are
already
less
unacceptable
than
the sentences with approval percentages of 33.3 % or lower because there is still a considerable
number of respondents who rated these sentences as acceptable. Only the sentences with an
approval percentage of 66.6 % or more will be regarded as fully acceptable.
In order to recognise the unacceptable, less unacceptable, and fully acceptable sentences very
quickly, a colour scheme will be adopted. The unacceptable sentences with an approval percentage
(ratings 3 and 4 combined) between 0 and 33.3 % will be marked in dark grey. A light grey colour
will highlight the less unacceptable sentences with an approval percentage between 33.3 % and
66.6 %. The fully acceptable sentences with an approval percentage of 66.6 % or higher will remain
white.
Sentences
% of resp.
% of
Total % of
who rated
resp. who
resp. who
‘3’
rated ‘4’
rated
‘acceptable’
Het symptoom zorgde voor zichzelf.
The symptom took care of itself.
9
3
11
22
51
73
Metonymy type: WORDS FOR THE CONCEPTS THEY EXPRESS
These sentences occurred in a story in which an individual suffers from a back ache. After a few
days’ rest, he no longer has these aching symptoms as he has recovered. The words ‘symptom’ and
31
‘symptoom’ have the same meaning in Dutch and English, i.e. that “something is wrong with your
body or mind which shows that you have a particular illness” (Longman, 2009), and are connected
with the concept ‘disease’. The percentages tell that the sentence is much more accepted by the
English than by the Dutch respondents. The former regard the sentence as perfectly acceptable
whereas the latter find it completely unacceptable.
Het eerste seizoen zette ons in de moeilijke groep.
14
5
19
The first season put us in the most difficult group.
34
37
71
Metonymy type: CAUSE FOR EFFECT
Because of the results of the first season, this particular basketball team were put in the most
competitive group. This clearly is a cause-effect example. Again, the difference in acceptability
between both groups of respondents is enormous. The Dutch respondents consider the sentence as
completely unacceptable while the English respondents approve of it.
Die missie ontwikkelde een nieuwe strategie.
12
12
24
This mission developed a new strategy.
32
30
62
Metonymy type: ACTION FOR AGENT
A representative of a Japanese company went on a mission (action) to attract and maintain
American customers. As the mission and consequently the representative were not successful, he
had to develop a new strategy. Although both groups of respondents have problems accepting this
sentence, the English respondents are very close to a two third majority approval percentage.
De beste praktijk combineerde twee aanpakken.
20
17
36
The best practice combined two approaches.
26
59
85
Metonymy type: ACTION FOR AGENT
32
A best practice is “a procedure that has been shown by research and experience to produce optimal
results and that is established or proposed as a standard suitable for widespread adoption”
(Merriam-Webster, 2016). In other words, it can be regarded as an action and in this case it
represents the person (agent) behind the procedure. The English respondents find this sentence
fully acceptable, in contrast with the Dutch respondents who believe it is unacceptable.
De meeste actie kwam voor vrijdagmiddag.
31
11
42
Most of the action came before Friday afternoon.
27
49
77
Metonymy type: WHOLE EVENT FOR SUBEVENT
‘Most of the action’ is used as an umbrella term for the singing and dancing of female visitors in
front of a hotel. It is remarkable that this is the only example of a whole for part metonymy; the
other sentences all belong to part for part metonymy. Again, the English respondents show more
acceptability than the Dutch respondents.
Zijn adres veranderde niets.
25
19
43
His address changed nothing.
19
64
84
Metonymy type: CAUSE FOR EFFECT
The English sentence is ambiguous. ‘Address’ can stand for a formal speech or the details of a
place where someone lives or works (Longman, 2009). This sentence was not provided with any
context, but both will be interpreted in the latter meaning of ‘address’ as this is the only possible
explanation in Dutch. The person probably moved or changed his job. The change of his address
is the cause but what is meant is the effect of this change, and apparently this has not changed him
or the situation he finds himself in. This sentence too is accepted by the English respondents but
not by the Dutch respondents.
Die manieren verdienden haar respect.
25
19
43
These manners earned her respect.
25
52
77
33
Metonymy type: MEANS FOR ACTION
By means of courteous manners towards a lady, these actions lead to her respecting the people who
treated her this way. This in turn could be interpreted as ACTION FOR AGENT, whereby the
action of treating refers to the people who acted this way. Once more, the English respondents
approve of the sentence while the Dutch respondents do not.
Dat ideaal bracht het bedrijf voorwaarts.
34
19
52
This ideal carried the company forward.
25
58
82
Metonymy type: MENTAL STATE FOR PERSON CAUSING IT
‘This ideal’ is the mental state of the neighbours who want to pursue challenge after challenge in
order to increase the profits of the company that they own. They actually carry ‘the company’
forward, which can also be regarded as metonymic language use, whereby ‘the company’ stands
for the action of continuously growing revenue (OBJECT FOR ACTION). Once again, the Dutch
respondents do not show a high acceptability whereas the English respondents clearly accept the
sentence.
Het proces bepaalde het aantal mensen.
33
21
54
The process determined the number of people.
18
55
73
Metonymy type: EVENT FOR PERSON CAUSING IT
The process includes a procedure consisting of several steps to be taken in order to determine how
many people are needed in every department of the company. These steps have to be performed by
the employees of the company, so they indirectly determine ‘the number of people’. This sentence,
like many others, is accepted by more than two third of the English respondents, but this is not the
case with the Dutch respondents.
34
Zijn theorie sprak tegen wat ik vermoedde.
29
27
55
His theory contradicted what I suspected.
41
47
88
Metonymy type: MENTAL STATE FOR PERSON CAUSING IT
‘His theory’ refers to the person who developed the theory. So it is actually this person who
contradicted what the other person suspected. Again, the Dutch participants of the survey do not
reach a 66.6 % approval percentage, in contrast with the English respondents.
Hun advies bracht een moeilijke zaak ter sprake.
31
32
62
Their advice raised a difficult matter.
25
40
64
Metonymy type: EVENT FOR PERSON CAUSING IT
The event of giving advice is performed by ‘them’. So by giving advice, they raised a difficult
matter. This sentence is not rated high enough by both groups of respondents to be acceptable. The
English respondents show approximately as much acceptability for the sentence as the Dutch
respondents.
Zo'n standaard bespaarde veel geld.
32
30
61
Such a standard saved a lot of money.
42
23
66
Metonymy type: MEANS FOR ACTION
This standard actually stands for the action of starving the children and because of this saving a lot
of money. This in turn could be regarded as a STATE FOR PERSON CAUSING IT metonymy,
whereby the state of starvation refers to the father who caused it. Just like the previous sentence
couple, this one is not sufficiently accepted by both groups of respondents.
Dit klimaat zette veel mensen onder druk.
32
33
65
This climate put many people under pressure.
26
47
73
35
Metonymy type: STATE FOR PERSON CAUSING IT
The climate refers to a situation of being bullied with activities. It is the person who instructs the
other people to perform these activities who causes the pressure on them. This is another example
where the Dutch respondents do not accept the sentence whereas the English respondents do.
However, the Dutch respondents only just fail to reach the limit of 66.6 %.
Dit patroon is nu voor de eerste keer teruggekeerd.
37
32
68
This pattern has now returned for the first time.
22
19
41
Metonymy type: RESULT FOR ACTION
The pattern could be seen as a result. In this case, the pattern refers to three consecutive wins in
tennis matches. In other words, the pattern stands for the action of winning three consecutive
matches. This is rare example where the English sentence receives a lower acceptability score than
the Dutch one.
Zijn passie vond een thuis in ons huis.
32
35
67
His passion found a home in our house.
27
40
67
Metonymy type: STATE FOR STATE CAUSING IT
This sentence is about a boy who is in a state of enthusiasm because he loves painting in the attic.
This is encapsulated in the word ‘passion’, which found a figurative home in their house. This
sentence is as much accepted by the English as by the Dutch respondents.
Die functie werkte voor mij.
31
36
67
That function worked for me.
38
49
88
Metonymy type: ACTION FOR AGENT
36
The above sentences do not occur in context. They can be understood as meaning that a person
(agent) in a certain function labours or performs tasks (action) in favour of ‘me’. Both groups of
respondents accept the sentence in their respective language.
Deze winst ondermijnde het vertrouwen van de klanten.
35
36
71
This profit undermined customers' trust.
25
37
62
Metonymy type: RESULT FOR ACTION
A bank clerk gained large sums of money by giving loans to customers who were unable to pay
them back. In other words, the profit is a result of his fraudulent actions. This is another rare
example where the English sentence is not sufficiently accepted although the Dutch do show
enough acceptability.
Die minuut inspireerde veel mensen.
32
39
71
That minute inspired many people.
32
45
77
Metonymy type: TIME FOR ACTION
‘That minute’ refers to the action of a man giving a speech that lasted for approximately one minute.
This sentence is accepted by both the English and the Dutch respondents.
Die harmonie bracht hen vrede.
37
40
77
This harmony brought them peace.
33
37
70
Metonymy type: STATE FOR PERSON CAUSING IT
The harmonious state was caused by a calm and peaceful Norwegian concert audience, which led
to a state of peace for the members of the performing band too. Again, both sentences are acceptable
according to the Dutch and English respondents.
37
Deze visie bracht politieke en economische zaken
34
44
77
29
51
79
samen.
This vision wove together political and economic
matters.
Metonymy type: MENTAL STATE FOR PERSON CAUSING IT
A vision can be regarded as a mental state and this state is present in an individual. In other words,
this individual develops a vision which, in this case, wove together political and economic matters.
This sentence couple is accepted by both groups of respondents, too.
Hij werd omringd door mysteries.
33
46
79
He was surrounded by mysteries.
18
71
89
Metonymy type: WORDS FOR THE CONCEPTS THEY EXPRESS
This sentence is about Michael Jackson. So many things were unclear about his personality and his
life. That is why he was surrounded by mysteries. Longman (2009) defines ‘mystery’ as “the
quality that something or someone has when they seem strange, secret, or difficult to understand
or explain”. In this case, ‘mysteries’ involves all the stories, events, rumours etc. around him. Both
sentences received high ratings from the respondents.
Deze barrières beschermden ons tegen vijanden.
28
49
77
These barriers protected us against enemies.
15
66
81
Metonymy type: MEANS FOR ACTION
These barriers made of steel are a means to perform the action of protecting the people. In contrast
with the other sentences, where an abstract noun performs the action, the subject of this sentence
is inanimate. The sentences are acceptable in both languages according to the respondents.
38
Muziek bracht hem de wereld rond.
30
51
80
Music took him around the world.
22
77
99
Metonymy type: MEANS FOR ACTION
Thanks to his music and presumably the revenue he generates from it, he can travel around the
world. Both the English and the Dutch respondents believe that this sentence is acceptable in their
respective language.
Die triomf bracht de twee samen.
30
59
88
This triumph brought the two together.
30
62
92
Metonymy type: RESULT FOR ACTION
The triumph is the result of actions performed by two men who collaborated to raise money for a
charity. Both sentences received high acceptability ratings.
Die cultuur veranderde de stad.
28
61
89
This culture changed the city.
30
58
88
Metonymy type: STATE FOR PERSON CAUSING IT
A culture can be seen as a state in which people are situated. In this case, a culture of a new lifestyle
with better education and more efficient work is stimulated by a physician. Because of this new
lifestyle, he managed to change the city. The English and Dutch respondents showed a high
acceptability for the sentence in their respective language.
Haar computer crashte onverwacht.
7
79
86
Her computer crashed unexpectedly.
1
96
99
39
The English sentence is perfectly acceptable, which is reflected by the high ratings it received. In
the Dutch sentence there is a small error, however. ‘Onverwacht’ should be ‘onverwachts’ as it is
used as an adverb in this sentence. Most of the respondents did not consider this mistake as
problematic or they did not recognise it.
Die overwinning bracht de twee samen.
26
67
93
This victory brought the two together.
23
64
88
Deze grenzen beschermden ons tegen vijanden.
19
75
94
These borders protected us against enemies.
23
68
92
These are filler sentences from the study of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011). Logically, they received
high acceptability ratings.
Die zakenman is nog nooit buiten Europa geweest.
That businessman has never been outside of Europe.
9
89
98
11
81
92
Both sentences are perfectly acceptable in their respective languages. This is confirmed by the
majority of the respondents.
Hij was heel blij met haar verjaardagskaartje.
He was very happy with her birthday card.
6
93
98
10
79
89
These sentences are correct and idiomatic and this is reflected in the high rating percentages.
Ze drinkt een kop koffie met haar moeder.
4
95
99
She drinks a cup of coffee with her mother.
18
73
90
Both sentences are acceptable in their respective languages. The slightly lower rating for the
English sentences may be caused by the fact that the simple present is used instead of the present
continuous.
40
Dat schilderij hangt in de woonkamer.
3
96
99
That painting hangs in the living room.
15
75
90
Both sentences are perfectly acceptable from a grammatical point of view. Consequently, the
sentences received very high ratings from most of the respondents.
An overview with the percentages for all ratings of both surveys is to be found in Appendix C. The
chi-squared test is designed to examine the significance of ordinal data (Jooken, 2013). The surveys
of the present study adopted an ordinal scale with four different degrees of acceptability. In order
to assess the possibility that the differences between the English and Dutch ratings above are not
subject to coincidence, the chi-squared test was applied to these results. In other words, this test
calculates what the chances are that similar studies will yield the same results. If p (probability) is
lower than 0.05, it means that there is a less than 5 % chance that the results of a study are fortuitous.
In that case, the null hypothesis, which states that there is no difference between the measured
values, can be rejected (Jooken, 2013). Here, the calculation was made with the frequency data of
the ratings of the metonymic sentences from both surveys. This is the result of the chi-squared test:
p = 0.0014
In means that there is a 0.1 % chance that the results are coincidental, which implies that the
differences between Dutch and English native speakers are very significant.
4.3
Comparison between native speakers of Dutch and English
Table 1 below will use the same colour scheme as the sentences in the previous section in order to
obtain a comparative overview of the acceptable and unacceptable sentences in both languages.
The English respondents found 5 of 25 metonymic sentences unacceptable, whereas the Dutch
respondents rated 13 of 25 metonymic sentences as unacceptable. This means that the latter
regarded 12 metonymic sentences as perfectly acceptable and that the former approved of 20. This
finding confirms the theory of Wolff et al (2009, cf. §2.5), which indirectly stated that abstract
agents in subject position are usually accepted in English but not in Dutch.
41
In addition, the ICM (cf. §2.1) of each sentence will be given in Table 1. These “idealized cognitive
models” (Lakoff, 1987) are the cognitive processes that occur when an individual intends to
understand the meaning of a metonymic instance. In other words, the type of ICM describes the
cognitive link that is made in the reader’s mind. This is a list of the abbreviations that will be used
in Table 1 below.
SR = Sign and Reference ICMs
CA = Causation ICM
CO = Control ICM
AC = Action ICM
EV = Event ICM
Of the 5 English sentences that are unacceptable according to the respondents, 4 contain an Action
ICM. The other unacceptable sentence has a Causation ICM. So, if English native speakers have
difficulties accepting a metonymic sentence, it is likely to contain an Action ICM so this may be
the cause of the unacceptability. However, it needs to be mentioned that only five different ICMs
appeared in the present study. 7 of the Dutch unacceptable sentences contain a Causation ICM and
4 contain an Action ICM. This means that these two ICMs may be harder to accept for native
speakers of Dutch. On the other hand, the acceptable sentences also contain 4 Causation and 6
Action ICMs, which demonstrates that these types can be acceptable in some cases, too.
Table 1: The Dutch and English sentences with their ICMs.
Dutch sentences
ICM
English sentences
Het symptoom zorgde voor zichzelf.
SR
The symptom took care of itself.
Het eerste seizoen zette ons in de moeilijke
CA
The first season put us in the most
groep.
difficult group.
Die missie ontwikkelde een nieuwe strategie
AC
This mission developed a new strategy.
De
AC
The best practice combined two
beste
aanpakken.
praktijk
combineerde
twee
approaches.
42
De meeste actie kwam voor vrijdagmiddag.
EV
Most of the action came before Friday
afternoon.
Zijn adres veranderde niets.
CA
His address changed nothing.
Die manieren verdienden haar respect.
AC
These manners earned her respect.
Dat ideaal bracht het bedrijf voorwaarts.
CA
This ideal carried the company forward.
Het proces bepaalde het aantal mensen.
CA
The process determined the number of
people.
Zijn theorie sprak tegen wat ik vermoedde.
CA
His theory contradicted what I
suspected.
Hun advies bracht een moeilijke zaak ter
CA
Their advice raised a difficult matter.
Zo'n standaard bespaarde veel geld.
AC
Such a standard saved a lot of money.
Dit klimaat zette veel mensen onder druk.
CA
This climate put many people under
sprake.
pressure.
Dit patroon is nu voor de eerste keer
AC
teruggekeerd.
This pattern has now returned for the
first time.
Zijn passie vond een thuis in ons huis.
CA
His passion found a home in our house.
Die functie werkte voor mij.
AC
That function worked for me.
Deze winst ondermijnde het vertrouwen van de
AC
This profit undermined customers' trust.
Die minuut inspireerde veel mensen.
AC
That minute inspired many people.
Die harmonie bracht hen vrede.
CA
This harmony brought them peace.
Deze visie bracht politieke en economische
CA
This vision wove together political and
klanten.
zaken samen.
economic matters.
Hij werd omringd door mysteries.
Deze
barrières
beschermden
ons
tegen
SR
He was surrounded by mysteries.
AC
These barriers protected us against
vijanden.
enemies.
Muziek bracht hem de wereld rond.
AC
Music took him around the world.
Die triomf bracht de twee samen.
AC
This triumph brought the two together.
Die cultuur veranderde de stad.
CA
This culture changed the city.
43
Haar computer crashte onverwacht.
/
Her computer crashed unexpectedly.
Die overwinning bracht de twee samen.
/
This victory brought the two together.
Deze grenzen beschermden ons tegen vijanden.
/
These borders protected us against
enemies.
Die zakenman is nog nooit buiten Europa
/
geweest.
Hij was heel blij met haar verjaardagskaartje.
That businessman has never been
outside of Europe.
/
He was very happy with her birthday
card.
Ze drinkt een kop koffie met haar moeder.
/
She drinks a cup of coffee with her
mother.
Dat schilderij hangt in de woonkamer.
4.4
/
That painting hangs in the living room.
Comparison between Britons and Americans
Figure 6 below shows the percentages of the votes for each rating from British and American
respondents for all of the metonymic sentences combined. The differences in percentage for each
rating are marginal, which means that there is no significant difference between American and
British native speakers when it comes to the acceptability of abstract metonymic sentences. The
difference between both nationalities is never greater than 2.18 %. In summary, Americans do not
perceive the metonymic sentences in the survey significantly different than Britons.
The general acceptability of Britons and Americans for metonymy is reasonably high. Both British
and American respondents rated approximately half of the sentences as “perfectly acceptable”
(rating 4), and little more than 25 % as “just about acceptable” (rating 3). If these two ratings are
combined, the American respondents show the highest acceptability by approving of 77.51 % while
the British respondents agreed with 74.78 % of the metonymic sentences. British and American
respondents rated respectively only 25.23 % and 22.49 % of the metonymic sentences as
unacceptable, of which respectively only 5.56 % and 6.38 % were “completely unacceptable”
(rating 1). However, the chi-squared test indicates that the results are not very significant (p = 0.32).
The null hypothesis cannot be rejected and therefore no strong conclusions can be drawn (Lane,
2014).
44
60,00%
48,00%
50,00%
49,73%
40,00%
26,78% 27,78%
30,00%
16,67% 16,11%
20,00%
10,00%
8,56%
6,38%
0,00%
1
2
Britons
3
4
Americans
Figure 6: Comparison of British and American acceptability ratings.
4.5
Comparison between Belgians and Dutch
Figure 7 below displays the percentages of the votes for each rating from Belgian and Dutch
respondents for all of the metonymic sentences combined. There is a significant difference between
both nationalities. Distinctions range from 2.36 % for rating 4 to 3.94 % for rating 1. It is
remarkable that the smallest difference between the Belgian and Dutch respondents is already
larger than the greatest difference between the American and British respondents, despite the fact
that these two pairs of nationalities both have a common language with only minor differences in
terms of grammar or vocabulary.
Just as the American and British respondents, the Dutch participants ticked the fourth rating scale
more than any other option. Belgian respondents, however, rated more sentences with rating 3 than
4. This means that they were less convinced of the acceptability of the metonymic sentences than
their Dutch peers. In addition, the Dutch respondents tended to choose one of the options at both
ends of the rating scale instead of opting for the less determined middle ratings, which are more
popular among the Belgian respondents. Overall, 59.44 % of the Belgian votes accounted for one
of both acceptable rating scales (ratings 3 and 4 combined) while this was 58.36 % for the Dutch
45
respondents. These percentages show that the Dutch respondents approved of the metonymic
instances about as much as the Belgian respondents do. However, again these results are not very
significant (chi-squared test: p = 0.18).
35,00%
32,00%
29,79%
30,00%
26,46%
15,00%
26,36%
23,59%
25,00%
20,00%
29,64%
18,05%
14,11%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
1
2
Dutch
3
4
Belgians
Figure 7: Comparison between Dutch and Belgian acceptability ratings.
4.6
Comparison between Dutch-speaking younger generation and older generations
Figure 8 below details the share of the Belgian and Dutch respondents for each of three different
age groups. Half of the respondents (85) were 35 or older, 54 (32 %) were aged between 25 and
34, and 30 (18 %) were 24 or younger.
46
16-24
18%
35+
50%
25-34
32%
Figure 8: The age groups of the Dutch and Belgian respondents.
Figure 9 below clearly demonstrates that the three age groups show different patterns of
acceptability. The younger generation (16-24 years old) accounts for the highest percentages for
ratings 2 and 3, and consequently for the lower percentages for ratings 1 and 4. Rating 3 is the most
popular option for this age group.
The middle generation (25-34 years old) is always the most moderate of the three except for rating
4, where it has the highest percentage. The respondents of this age group voted for rating 4 more
than any other rating, followed by ratings 3, 2, and 1 in this particular order. In other words, the
middle generation approves of the majority of the metonymic sentences.
The oldest generation (35 years old or older) tends towards the fourth rating scale, just as the middle
generation. However, this generation resorted to the first rating scale more than the younger and
middle generation. Consequently, it has the lowest percentage for ratings 2 and 3.
If ratings 3 and 4 are combined for each age group, the middle generation has the highest percentage
(62.50 %), which means that the people of this generation find the metonymic sentences more
acceptable than the older and the younger generation, who have a percentage of respectively 58.09
% and 58.77 %. However, no significance (p = 0.30) has been obtained here as there is a 30 %
chance that the differences between the three age groups are pure coincidence.
47
40,00%
35,00%
32,98%
29,11%
30,00%
23,84%23,20%
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
27,62%
25,88%
34,88%
32,89%
25,11%
18,02%
12,79%13,66%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
rating 1
rating 2
16-24
rating 3
25-34
rating 4
35+
Figure 9: Comparison between the acceptability ratings of three age groups of the Dutch survey.
4.7
Comparison between Dutch-speaking male and female respondents
The 61 male and 139 female respondents of the Dutch survey allowed for a comparison between
their results. This comparison did not yield a significant discrepancy as there were no important
differences in voting between both genders (Figure 10). The largest difference is only 1.57 % for
rating 1, and the differences between the other ratings are never larger than 0.83 %. The male
respondents did vote more for ratings 2, 3 and 4 than the female respondents, but in conclusion,
the Dutch-speaking male respondents do not perceive metonymic instances significantly
differently than the female respondents. However, the chi-squared test (p = 0.69) indicates that
there is a good chance that the results of the male and female respondents are coincidental.
48
35,00%
28,85% 28,03%
30,00%
30,69% 30,68%
25,70% 24,98%
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
14,75%
16,32%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%
rating 1
rating 2
male
rating 3
rating 4
female
Figure 10: Comparison between the acceptability ratings of the male and female respondents of the
Dutch survey.
4.8
Development since 2011
It is interesting to see whether the acceptability of native speakers of Dutch has changed since
2011. Therefore, the average ratings of the survey of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011) and the survey
of this study were compared. It has to be noted that there were non-native speakers of Dutch among
the respondents of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011), while the present survey focused on native
speakers of Dutch only. Furthermore, they adopted a 5-point Likert scale in the survey whereas
this survey used a 4-point Likert scale. In order to enable a comparison between the two surveys,
the average ratings of this survey were recalculated (cf. §3.1.6) and this way adapted to the 5-point
Likert-scale. The sentences below are arranged in ascending order according to the ratings of the
2016 survey.
In general, there is a clear upward trend of the acceptability of the metonymic sentences. All but
three of the sentences that were investigated show a slight increase in the acceptability of native
speakers of Dutch compared to 2011. The three exceptions are marked in italics. In order to see the
differences in rating faster, the same colour scheme as Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011) was adopted,
namely three different shades of grey: dark grey for the unacceptable sentences with an average
rating lower than 3, light grey for the sufficiently acceptable sentences with an average rating
49
between 3 and 4, and white for the acceptable sentences that received an average rating of 4 or
higher. Logically, the five sentences that were only used for the present Dutch survey cannot be
compared to the previous study of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011); these sentences obtained an
‘N/A’ label (not applicable).
Besides the five sentences that were added for the present survey, there were two filler sentences
that were already included in the study of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011). It was important for the
credibility of the survey that the respondents would recognise the sentences that are perfectly
acceptable according to the contemporary grammar rules. That is exactly what they did. The total
of seven Dutch filler sentences obtained the highest ratings from the respondents in this survey.
For these results, too, the chi-squared test was calculated using the data from the metonymic
sentences from the survey of Delsoir and Vandepitte (2011) and from the Dutch survey of the
present study. However, the outcome of the test implies that there is a 33 % chance (p = 0.33) that
a similar investigation will yield different results.
Table 2: Comparison of the average ratings of 2011 and 2016.
Sentences
Average rating
Average
Delsoir and
rating
Vandepitte
2016
(2011)
Het symptoom zorgde voor zichzelf.
1.95
1.96
Het eerste seizoen zette ons in de moeilijke groep.
2.10
2.25
Die missie ontwikkelde een nieuwe strategie.
2.39
2.40
De beste praktijk combineerde twee aanpakken.
2.69
2.79
De meeste actie kwam voor vrijdagmiddag.
2.46
2.93
Zijn adres veranderde niets.
2.76
2.95
Die manieren verdienden haar respect.
2.47
3.01
Dat ideaal bracht het bedrijf voorwaarts.
3.25
3.21
Het proces bepaalde het aantal mensen.
2.85
3.26
Zijn theorie sprak tegen wat ik vermoedde.
2.72
3.39
50
Hun advies bracht een moeilijke zaak ter sprake.
3.65
3.50
Zo'n standaard bespaarde veel geld.
3.02
3.51
Dit klimaat zette veel mensen onder druk.
3.27
3.57
Dit patroon is nu voor de eerste keer teruggekeerd.
3.51
3.59
Zijn passie vond een thuis in ons huis.
3.37
3.64
Die functie werkte voor mij.
3.13
3.66
Deze winst ondermijnde het vertrouwen van de klanten.
3.21
3.74
Die minuut inspireerde veel mensen.
3.32
3.76
Die harmonie bracht hen vrede.
3.46
3.84
Deze visie bracht politieke en economische zaken samen.
3.89
3.94
Hij werd omringd door mysteries.
4.12
3.95
Deze barrières beschermden ons tegen vijanden.
4.01
4.03
Muziek bracht hem de wereld rond.
3.84
4.08
Die triomf bracht de twee samen.
3.94
4.30
Die cultuur veranderde de stad.
4.12
4.34
Haar computer crashte onverwacht.
N/A
4.46
Die overwinning bracht de twee samen.
4.39
4.48
Deze grenzen beschermden ons tegen vijanden.
4.22
4.58
Die zakenman is nog nooit buiten Europa geweest.
N/A
4.83
Hij was heel blij met haar verjaardagskaartje.
N/A
4.88
Ze drinkt een kop koffie met haar moeder.
N/A
4.91
Dat schilderij hangt in de woonkamer.
N/A
4.93
51
5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The first hypothesis stated that the ratings for the English and Dutch sentences would differ because
of the greater acceptability of English people for abstract nouns in subject position (Wolff et al,
2009), the construction that is found in the metonymic sentences of the surveys. Furthermore,
Kamei and Wakao (1992) pointed out that the acceptability of metonymy is different for every
language. The results showed that there is indeed a discrepancy in the ratings of Dutch and English
respondents, confirming that Dutch-speaking people find metonymy less acceptable in their
language than English-speaking people do. The former agreed with 12 whereas the latter approved
of 20 of a total of 25 metonymic sentences. The chi-squared test statistically showed that these
differences are very significant (p = 0.0014). In other words, these results are very likely to be
replicated in similar research in the future. Therefore, translators may take this into account and
decide to avoid metonymy in the target language (Littlemore, 2015).
The second hypothesis of the present study held that the acceptability of Dutch native speakers for
metonymic instances might have increased compared to 2011, when Delsoir and Vandepitte
conducted a similar survey investigation with the same sentences as those in the present study. Not
surprisingly, the average ratings of the Dutch metonymic sentences, with the exception of three,
are higher for the present survey than for the survey of 2011, although they only increased by small
amounts. There are of course only five years between both surveys which means that this general
upward trend is an indicator that the acceptability may be developing. However, the probability
that the differences found are subject to coincidence, is realistic (p = 0.32). Anyway, this minor
rise may be caused by the increased influence of English on native speakers of Dutch through films,
series, games etc. However, the present study cannot provide evidence that this may be the reason
for the development.
Furthermore, the present study wanted to investigate what the impact of age, gender, and
nationality was on the acceptability of metonymy. The results demonstrated that the differences in
acceptability between Britons and Americans were marginal. The comparison of the Dutch and
Belgian respondents exposed more distinct voting patterns. The Dutch respondents were more
inclined to vote for ratings 1 and 4 than the Belgian respondents whereas the latter have a higher
percentage of votes for ratings 2 and 3. Overall however, both nationalities did have a nearly equal
52
acceptability percentage with respectively 59 % and 58 %. The separate results of three different
generations revealed that the middle generation (ages 25-34) showed a higher acceptability than
the younger generation (ages 16-24) and the older generation (ages 35 and upwards). One possible
explanation is that one generation has had more or less contact with English than the other. Finally,
the impact of gender on the acceptability of metonyms appeared to be very limited as there were
no significant differences in the voting patterns for male and female respondents. However, all of
the results mentioned in this paragraph are not sufficiently significant to draw a final conclusion.
For this reason, this research may be replicated in order to confirm the above-mentioned findings.
To obtain the above results, the present study conducted a survey based on sentences out of context.
This survey could be improved by embedding every metonymic sentence in a context since
metonymic instances may have contrasting meanings in different contexts (Littlemore, 2015).
Adding context to the survey might also increase the respondents’ understanding of metonymy and
consequently their acceptability.
Because metonymy is a cognitive process and because it is subsequently more difficult to provide
a theoretical framework for it, it has been the object of relatively little theory construction so far,
except for Littlemore (2015), who devoted an entire book to metonymy. In that respect, the present
study is an important step towards a further development of the theory on metonymy and in
particular the acceptability of its abstract forms in subject position. As the acceptability of the
Dutch respondents for such forms appears to be increasing, the question arises whether translators
and other language experts should follow this development.
In addition, future studies may investigate a possible correlation between the influence of the
English language, where these constructions are more accepted, and the increased acceptability of
abstract metonymy in Dutch.
In conclusion, the present study wishes to raise awareness that metonymy is perceived differently
in English than in Dutch and possibly in every other language, and that its acceptability among
native speakers of Dutch has increased over the course of multiple years, which could also be the
case for many other languages.
53
REFERENCES
Backus, A., Dogruöz, A.S., & Heine, R.J. (2011). Salient stages in contact-induced grammatical
change: Evidence from synchronic vs. diachronic contact situations. Language Sciences, 33, pp.
738-752.
Barcelona, A. (2010). Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. AILA Review,
23(1), 134-154.
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery.
Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1-34.
Best
practice.
(n.d.).
Retrieved
April
21,
2016,
from
http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/best practice
Brdar, M. (2009). Metonymies we live without. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar, 259-274.
Chen, Y. C., & Lai, H. L. (2012). EFL learners’ awareness of metonymy–metaphor continuum in
figurative expressions. Language Awareness, 21(3), 235-248.
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J., & Semino, E. (2013). Figurative language, genre and register.
Cambridge University Press.
Delsoir, J., & Vandepitte, S. (2011). The acceptability of non-prototypical agents with prototypical
agent requiring predicates in Dutch (with CD-ROM). Gent: s.n.
Denroche, C. (2012). Metonymic processing: a cognitive ability relevant to translators, editors and
language teachers.
Dijkstra, A. L. (2013). Mondjesmaat-Een onderzoek naar de beoordeling van regionale kleuring
binnen het Standaardnederlands en een vergelijking tussen het hanteren van een Likertschaal met
6 of 7 antwoordmogelijkheden.
event. In: Language and Cognition, 1 (2): 165-194.
Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable. Marketing bulletin, 2(1), 6670.
George, Lakoff. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Handl, S. Underspecified Metonymic Meanings: A matter of processing or perception?. The
Stockholm 2011 Metaphor Festival, 48.
Heine, B. & T. Kuteva (2006). The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University
54
Jooken, L. (2013). A2TK Deelsyllabus Heuristiek en onderzoeksmethoden. Ghent: Universiteit
Gent.
Kamei, S. I., & Wakao, T. (1992, June). Metonymy: reassessment, survey of acceptability, and its
treatment in a machine translation system. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting on
Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 309-311). Association for Computational
Linguistics.
Kiers, F. A. (2014). Frequenter of meer frequent: Een corpusonderzoek naar de invloed van het
Engels op de trappen van vergelijking in het Nederlands.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Landsbergen, F. (2006). Krijgen, kriegen en get: een vergelijkend onderzoek naar
betekenisverandering en grammaticalisatie. Huening, M., A. Verhagen A., U. Vogl & T. van der
Wouden (eds.) Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels, 259-272.
Lane, D. M. (2014). Introduction to statistics.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics (includes
Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 4(1), 1-38.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy. Cambridge University Press.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (5th ed.). (2009). Essex: Pearson Education
Limited.
Metonymy.
(2015).
In
Literary
Devices
online.
Retrieved
November
20,
from
online.
Retrieved
November
20,
from
21,
from
http://www.literarydevices.com/metonymy/
Metonymy.
(2015).
In
Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metonymy
Metonymy.
(2015).
In
Oxford
Dictionaries.
Retrieved
November
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/metonymy
Panther, K. U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy in language and thought (Vol. 4). John
Benjamins Publishing.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg (2007). Metonymy.
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive linguistics,
17(3), 269.
55
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and
contrast, 407-434.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. Metonymy in language and
thought, 4, 17-23.
Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension:
Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
28(3), 547-563.
Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. N. (2014). Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for
Survey Research.
Sijs, N. van der. (1996). Leenwoordenboek. De invloed van andere talen op het Nederlands. Den
Haag: Sdu Uitgevers
Stvan, L.S. (2012). Metonymy-driven polysemy in health discourse.
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sweep, J. (2009). Conceptuele metonymie en lexicografie, 2-4.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Acceptability in context. Acceptability in language, 39-61.
Vandepitte, S., & Hartsuiker, R. (2011). Metonymic language use as a student translation problem:
towards a controlled psycholinguistic investigation. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild ,& E. Tiselius (Eds.),
Methods and strategies of process research : integrative approaches in translation studies (Vol.
94, pp. 67–92). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Wolff, Philip et al. (2009). Causers in English, Korean and Chinese and the individuation of
Worcester RM & Burns TR (1975). A statistical examination of the relative precision of verbal
scales. Journal of Market Research Society, 17 (3), 181-197.
56
APPENDICES
A. Taxonomy of metonymy types and their examples
Whole for part metonymies according to Radden and Kövecses (1999, pp. 30-36).
Thing-and-Part ICM
•
•
Scale ICM
•
•
Constitution ICM
•
•
Event ICM
•
•
•
•
•
•
Category-and-Member
ICM
•
•
•
•
Category-and-Property
ICM
•
•
•
Whole thing for a part of the thing
e.g. America for United States
Part of a thing for the whole thing
e.g. England for Great Britain
Whole scale for upper end of the scale
e.g. Henry is speeding again for Henry is going too fast
Upper end of a scale for whole scale
e.g. How old are you? for What is your age?
Object for material constituting the object
e.g. I smell skunk
Material constituting an object for the object
e.g. wood for forest
Whole event for subevent
e.g. Bill smoked marijuana
Subevent for whole event
e.g. Mary speaks Spanish
Present for habitual
e.g. Mary speaks Spanish
Present for future
e.g. I am off for I will be off
Actual for potential
e.g. He is an angry person for he can be angry
Potential for actual
e.g. I can see your point for I see your point
Category for a member of the category
e.g. the pill for birth control pill
Member of a category for the category
e.g. aspirin for any pain-relieving tablet
Generic for specific
e.g. Boys don't cry
Specific for generic
e.g. A spider has eight legs
Category for defining property
e.g. jerk for stupidity
Defining property for category
e.g. blacks for black people
Category for salient property
e.g. Boys will be boys for unruly
57
•
Reduction ICM
•
Salient property for category
e.g. How do I find Mr. Right?
Part of a form for the whole form
e.g. crude for crude oil
Part for part metonymies according to Radden and Kövecses (1999, pp. 36-43).
Action ICM
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Perception ICM
•
Causation ICM
•
•
•
•
Agent for action
e.g. to author a new book
Action for agent
e.g. writer
Instrument for action
e.g. to ski
Action for instrument
e.g. pencil sharpener
Object for action
e.g. to dust the room
Action for object
e.g. the flight is waiting to depart
Result for action
e.g. to landscape the garden
Action for result
e.g. the production
Manner for action
e.g. to tiptoe into the room
Means for action
e.g. he sneezed the tissue off the table
Time for action
e.g. to summer in Paris
Destination for motion
e.g. to porch the newspaper
Instrument for agent
e.g. the pen for writer
Thing perceived for perception or reversely
e.g. sight for things seen
Cause for effect and effect for cause
e.g. slow road
State/event for thing/person/state causing it
e.g. She was my ruin
Emotion for cause of emotion
e.g. She is my joy
Mental/physical state for object/person causing it
e.g. You are a pain in the neck
58
•
•
•
•
Production ICM
•
•
•
Control ICM
•
•
Possession ICM
•
•
Containment ICM
•
•
Location ICM
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sign and Reference ICMs
•
Physical/behavioral effect for emotion causing it
e.g. She was upset
Sound for event causing it
e.g. The car screeched to a halt
Seeing something done for making sure that it is done
e.g. See that he gets his money (Lakoff 1987: 437)
Act of forming a percept for percept
e.g. to take a look (Norvig and Lakoff 1987: 204)
Instrument for product
e.g. did you hear the whistle for its sound
Product for instrument
e.g. to turn up the heat for the radiator
Place for product made there
e.g. camembert
Controller for controlled
e.g. Schwartzkopf defeated Iraq.
Controlled for controller
e.g. the Mercedes has arrived
Possessor for possessed
e.g. That's me for my bus
Possessed for possessor
e.g. He married money for person with money
Container for contents
e.g. The bottle is sour for milk
Contents for container
e.g. The milk tipped over for the milk container tipped over
(Norrick, 1981)
Place for inhabitants
e.g. The whole town showed up for the people
Inhabitants for place
e.g. The French hosted the World Soccer Games for France
Place for institution
e.g. Cambridge for Cambridge University Press
Institution for place
e.g. I live close to the University
Place for event
e.g. Waterloo for battle fought at Waterloo
Event for place
e.g. Battle, name of the village where the Battle of Hastings was
fought
Words for the concepts they express
e.g. a self-contradictory utterance for the conceptual content
expressed by the utterance
59
Modification ICM
•
•
Modified for original form
e.g. effing for fucking
Substitute form for original form
e.g. Do you still love me? – Yes, I do
B. Sentences in context
On 30 May 1848, a middle-aged naturalist from Great Britain came with his children to my small
village on the Brazilian coast. He soon turned out to be a “free thinker”: he did not believe in God as
his creator. Instead, he observed plant and animal life very carefully. His theory contradicted what I
suspected: until then, I had strongly believed that God had created all living beings.
Many female visitors already crowded into the small village car park on Thursday night and stayed
there overnight in tents. They were kept under control by the police who prevented them from climbing
up the fence of the hotel or singing and dancing all night long. But most of the action came before
Friday afternoon, when the press announced that the royal couple would leave the city that very day.
Some years ago, my brother Gordon invited a boy whose parents had died. The boy spent much time
in the attic where he painted from the depth of his heart. He was able to express his thoughts and
emotions in his paintings and Gordon was so enthusiastic that his passion found a home in our house.
He has lived with our family ever since and we have all grown accustomed to him.
‘Life Without a Book' is a close portrait of one man's struggle with reading, and surviving in our visual,
alphabetical world. It is a documentary film telling the story Rick "Pepper" Holmes, a talented funk
drummer who graduated high school unable to read in 1974. After high school his music took him
around the world. Now fifty-three years old, he still struggles with the most basic level of reading.
I considered him a criminal because he had stolen my brother’s wristwatch, although I couldn’t prove
it. Last January he called for my professional help as a doctor. He was suffering from a terrible back
ache. I advised him to stay in bed for three days. And, indeed, the symptom took care of itself. He
soon returned to his daily routine but after a week he phoned me again.
Mr Temple, a physician, came to this city seven years ago. He inspired people into taking better care
of themselves and adopting a lifestyle with better education and more efficient work with a community
spirit that is so important to keep a society together. We may even say that this culture changed the
city and that our prosperity has risen to today’s level mainly because of Dr Temple.
The conference took place at a hotel in the city centre. One of the hotel residents was a representative
from a Japanese company. He was sent abroad to attract, build and retain long-term partnerships with
American customers. But the journey had not yet been very successful. So, the mission developed a
new strategy. It now focused on the creation of a series of solutions for its customers.
At the time, my younger brother had just been promoted into a new position where he coordinated a
team of five employees. They were on the brink of developing a model that continually estimated the
growth of the various departments in the company. He explained how the process determined the
number of people by first counting the total number of employees in a department for a certain period.
His dad worked hard to make a good living for his family: he demanded much discipline and
obedience, but was also fair and consistent. This yielded a climate of order in the house, but, at the
same time, he also starved his boys for parental companionship. Such a standard saved a lot of
money. But what was money if the children weren’t taught how to make a good life?
60
When my twin sister and I turned twelve, we joined a basketball programme for girls under fourteen
at the local school. The programme prepared teenage girls to join the Midlands basketball team and it
was run by two different people, one coach for each term. But the first season put us into the most
difficult group, which had a devastating effect on my poor sister, because she soon dropped out.
The team of twelve scientists worked hard on the book project in a small village in India. The Belgian
participant was a specialist on army discipline and started to bully the others into a rigid scheme of
activities, while tropical torrents of rain kept them inside the house. This climate placed many people
under stress, and the final outcome was that their ambitious book project was never completed.
At the town hall, the football team was honoured by the mayor himself in the presence of coaches,
family members, and, of course, the team’s leader, who also praised the players and all those who
worked for their achievements. And although his speech was very short, that minute inspired many
people: his words stuck in many listeners’ minds and inspired them to do their utmost.
A new theatre group from China had gained much success in spring last year and its actors were widely
praised for their honest and daring acting. It had also attracted my attention and they told me to take
two more semesters of classes with Gan Lulu from Beijing. Their advice raised a difficult matter:
would I finance another study year or did I now want to finally settle down?
Michael Jackson transformed himself into music. He was gifted with such great talents that no one
can match, but he was also destined to be famous with an unhappy life full of loneliness, pain and
sadness, and was overwhelmed by financial and legal difficulties. Mysteries surrounded him, and
the stories of his kindness to disadvantaged and sick children were legendary.
The band was often received by turbulent audiences: its controversial songs and angry attitude caused
people to become restless and listeners even broke into a fight at times. In 2008, the young band went
to Norway, where the audience was friendlier and more restful. This harmony brought them peace:
their old worries disappeared and, instead, they finally found a state of quiet.
The winner took his first tennis classes when he went to university. He soon proved to be an excellent
player: he had the ability to combine strength, technique and speed. He used to beat three opponents
in a row, but his illness put an end to that. However, this pattern has now returned for the first
time: he won from Jack, Pete and Ben in a friendly competition in Staines last Saturday.
Dick and Martin had disliked each other all their lives: Dick came from a rich family and hated
Martin’s brutality, and Martin couldn’t stand Dick’s haughtiness. The new village priest put them at
work to gain subsidies for a new charity that they both believed in. They succeeded and this triumph
brought the two together: they finally appreciated what they meant to each other and they often
collaborated.
Our neighbours believed in their company: they constantly pursued challenge after challenge. They
challenged how to produce better, how to eliminate waste, how to deal with a problem to reduce costs
or to get more capacity. They always found a challenge to be working towards. Their ideal carried
the company forward, and that’s why it has survived the financial crisis and its prospects are so good.
As a politician, she saw her state as a bridge from the past to the future. She had her administration
listen to economists, because they had been trained to anticipate unintended consequences. She also
set up communication strategies and dealt with trade and finance personally. So, this vision wove
together political and economic matters, and, therefore, included all seeds of success that were
necessary at the time.
When Catherine worked for me, she specialized in assisting customers to buy and sell properties. She
won many wealthy customers who admired her, always treated her in a courteous way and put their
61
trust in her. Never once did anyone complain to her. So, considering that these manners earned her
respect, I never understood why she left the company in these circumstances so suddenly.
When I joined the nuclear power plant as an engineer, it was at a time when most of the company had
already been built. The reactor had been completed and the discharge canal had been dug. At various
spots around the site labourers had set up some steel structures. These barriers protected us against
enemies: our nuclear plant had to be able to protect itself against three human attackers.
In watercolour painting, artists can choose between two approaches. In one approach, the artist tries to
represent reality as closely as it is. In the other, the artist does not try to give the impression of a reality,
but creates a new reality. My brother thought that the best practice combined the two approaches,
but I disagreed. I felt that they expressed emotions that couldn’t be combined.
One village bank clerk gave loans to customers who were incapable of paying them back and he took
huge gains from this activity for years. He refused to see it as some kind of despicable bank fraud until
another clerk found out about his gains and told others how this profit undermined customers' trust,
and he was no longer visited by ignorant customers who inquired about loans.
C. Overview ratings Dutch and English respondents
Dutch and English sentences (fillers in italics)
Percentages (truncated)
Rating 1
Het symptoom zorgde voor zichzelf.
Rating 2 Rating 3 Rating 4
57
32
9
3
8
19
22
51
Het eerste seizoen zette ons in de moeilijke groep.
43
39
14
5
The first season put us in the most difficult group.
7
22
34
37
Die missie ontwikkelde een nieuwe strategie .
44
32
12
12
This mission developed a new strategy.
18
21
32
30
De beste praktijk combineerde twee aanpakken.
29
35
20
17
The best practice combined two approaches.
4
11
26
59
De meeste actie kwam voor vrijdagmiddag.
18
41
31
11
3
21
27
49
26
32
25
19
3
14
19
64
21
36
25
19
7
16
25
52
14
34
34
19
The symptom took care of itself.
Most of the action came before Friday afternoon.
Zijn adres veranderde niets.
His address changed nothing.
Die manieren verdienden haar respect.
These manners earned her respect.
Dat ideaal bracht het bedrijf voorwaarts.
62
This ideal carried the company forward.
8
10
25
58
Het proces bepaalde het aantal mensen.
15
32
33
21
4
23
18
55
10
35
29
27
1
11
41
47
Hun advies bracht een moeilijke zaak ter sprake.
14
25
31
32
Their advice raised a difficult matter.
10
26
25
40
Zo'n standaard bespaarde veel geld.
10
29
32
30
Such a standard saved a lot of money.
11
23
42
23
Dit klimaat zette veel mensen onder druk.
12
24
32
33
8
19
26
47
Dit patroon is nu voor de eerste keer teruggekeerd.
12
20
37
32
This pattern has now returned for the first time.
38
21
22
19
Zijn passie vond een thuis in ons huis.
11
22
32
35
His passion found a home in our house.
12
21
27
40
Die functie werkte voor mij.
10
24
31
36
That function worked for me.
1
11
38
49
Deze winst ondermijnde het vertrouwen van de
8
22
35
36
15
23
25
37
Die minuut inspireerde veel mensen.
9
21
32
39
That minute inspired many people.
7
16
32
45
Die harmonie bracht hen vrede.
9
15
37
40
This harmony brought them peace.
3
27
33
37
Deze visie bracht politieke en economische zaken
6
18
34
44
5
15
29
51
Hij werd omringd door mysteries.
9
12
33
46
He was surrounded by mysteries.
1
10
18
71
The process determined the number of people.
Zijn theorie sprak tegen wat ik vermoedde.
His theory contradicted what I suspected.
This climate put many people under pressure
klanten.
This profit undermined customers' trust.
samen.
This vision wove together political and economic
matters.
63
Deze barrières beschermden ons tegen vijanden.
4
20
28
49
These barriers protected us against enemies.
3
16
15
66
Muziek bracht hem de wereld rond.
5
16
30
51
Music took him around the world.
0
1
22
77
Die triomf bracht de twee samen.
3
10
30
59
This triumph brought the two together.
4
4
30
62
Die cultuur veranderde de stad.
3
8
28
61
This culture changed the city.
4
8
30
58
Haar computer crashte onverwacht.
8
7
7
79
Her computer crashed unexpectedly.
1
1
1
96
Die overwinning bracht de twee samen.
1
7
26
67
This victory brought the two together.
3
10
23
64
Deze grenzen beschermden ons tegen vijanden.
2
5
19
75
These borders protected us against enemies.
3
5
23
68
Die zakenman is nog nooit buiten Europa geweest.
1
2
9
89
That businessman has never been outside of
4
4
11
81
Hij was heel blij met haar verjaardagskaartje.
1
2
6
93
He was very happy with her birthday card.
4
7
10
79
Ze drinkt een kop koffie met haar moeder.
1
1
4
95
She drinks a cup of coffee with her mother.
3
7
18
73
Dat schilderij hangt in de woonkamer.
1
0
3
96
That painting hangs in the living room.
1
8
15
75
Europe.
64