Lingvisticae Investigationes (2027) :
les liens entre métaphore et syntagmes nominaux à deux noms

Chers collègues, 

Nous avons le plaisir de vous partager cet appel à contributions pour un numéro de Lingvisticae Investigationes (2027) sur les liens entre métaphore et syntagmes nominaux à deux noms (“Metaphor and binominal phrases across languages: a syntax-semantics perspective”), co-dirigé par Felix Anthony (Grenoble Alpes University) & Manon Philippe (Rennes 2 University). L’appel ci-dessous est en anglais mais l’article peut porter sur n’importe quelle langue, et peut être rédigé en anglais ou en français.

Bien cordialement, 

Félix Anthony & Manon Philippe

 

 

Metaphor and binominal phrases across languages: a syntax-semantics perspective

 

This issue explores the expression of a metaphorical meaning in binominal noun phrases following a DET N1 PREP (DET) N2 pattern across languages, N1 and N2 being nominal elements (common nouns, proper nouns/names) linked by a preposition. 

Examples are:

an army of robots, the Harvard of nursery schools, an ocean of time, the height of his playing career, the king of pop, a wow of a show, a gem of a construction (Eng.); ce chien de Roger, une forêt de mâts, le sommet de la gloire, le Tom Cruise du cinéma français, une avalanche de courrier (Fr.); qué pedazo de gol, un montón de problemas, la primavera de su vida, el reloj de sangre (Spa.); legionarul de Georgescu (Rom.); een pracht van een kerstkaart, een boom van een kerel (Dutch); una montagna di debiti (It.); …

A number of studies mention the possibility of metaphorical uses of nouns in binominal NPs. In the case of nominal quantifiers of the form [Det N₁ PREP] (“quantifieurs nominaux”, Izert, 2019, also known as “pseudo-partitives”), such as [a sea of] stars or [hordes of] troubles, N₁ no longer functions as an autonomous referential noun but as a figurative marker of quantity. In these phrases, the metaphorical expression emerges from the “unnatural” association between N₁ and N₂. In such examples, the metaphor may trigger a quantificational reading when N₁ is a collective noun (eg. a flood of questions) (Lammert, 2010; Lecolle, 2019), or simply “renew quantificational meaning through deviant associations” when N₁ is already quantifying (“un renouveau dans la quantification, par le biais d’associations déviantes entre les quantifieurs et les quantifiés” Benninger, 2001: 33) (e.g. a handful of doubts). Other metaphorical effects depend on the choice of nouns (Leroy, 2005 : 55-56): some of-constructions glossable with be are more predicative and filter the existence of N₂ through that of N₁ (this pool of blood ≈ “the blood is a pool”); others with a deverbal N₁, with inherited verbal traits, retain an event-like structure (an irruption of bees ≈ “the bees make an irruption”). Some N₁ also specialize in providing a vague categorization (or quantification) of N₂(“approximateurs quantitatifs”: aux alentours de…, “catégorisation de détresse”: une espèce de …, Mihatsch 2009, 2010). Metaphor occurs as well in binominals of the form [Det N₁ of a N₂], called Evaluative Binominal Noun Phrases, or EBNPs (ten Wolde, 2023). For example, in a butcher of a surgeon, N₂is compared to N₁ in that the surgeon features some characteristics of a butcher. According to Foolen (2004), those are not conceptual metaphors per se but are better interpreted in terms of blending, as only a few semantic traits of N₁ are “mapped onto the target” (ibid : 94). While some authors consider that EBNPs come into two types (the “literal or category” type, eg. that clever little wretch of a Rebecca, and the “figurative” type, eg. a Methuselah of a pear tree, see Austin, 1980: 359), for others EBNPs are inherently metaphorical (see Cotte, 2025). The possible combinations and constraints on syntax and interpretation are not fully understood today. Neither are differences in productivity and degree of conventionalisation, within and across languages.

Furthermore, the analysis of of-binominals questions the potential role of the preposition in the construction of the metaphor and in the binominal noun phrase as a whole. Indeed, the literature considers it alternatively as a formally meaningless linker (eg. Kim & Sells, 2015, in their study of EBNPs) or, on the contrary, as a relation-encoding marker that participates directly in shaping the metaphorical interpretation (eg. Cotte, 1983, 1985). What all these studies highlight is that metaphor in binominal constructions can have tangible grammatical consequences: not only does it enable expressive extensions of quantification (eg. a sea of N₂), but it may also give rise to syntactic and or semantic reanalyses, for instance in modifier constructions (eg. a helluva N) or in complex quantifiers (eg. a lot of N, bunches of N) (Gardelle, 2019). The focus of these studies, however, is typically restricted to one type of of-binominal. The aim of this issue is to take metaphor as the starting-point, and bring together experts of of-binominals in order to foster new thoughts on how metaphors interact with the grammar of binominals, at the syntax/semantics interface.

We welcome submissions which discuss how metaphor is created in binominal phrases, where metaphor lies and what is meant exactly, depending on the type of N or the link between N1 and N2 are welcome. More specifically, and non exclusively, submissions could deal with:

• The type of metaphor found in binominal phrases: 
  • Is the metaphor conceptual or stylistic? Which (types of) traits, and how many, are attributed to the target referent? 
  • Metaphor and comparison: is the metaphor expressed (always) comparable to N2 is (like) a N1? Is there a specificity of metaphors in binominals, compared with other uses of metaphor?
• The origin of the metaphorical meaning : where does the metaphorical meaning come from? N1, N2 (are there Ns that are more likely to bring about this metaphorical meaning?), the co-occurrence of the N1-N2 pair, the preposition? How is metaphor achieved?
• The comparison between metaphorical and non-metaphorical DET N1 PREP (DET) N2: can they share the same N, same determiners, etc.? Are there contexts favouring a metaphorical interpretation or a literal one? Can metaphor be only one part of the overall meaning expressed, as in an ocean of time, in which metaphor combines with quantification?
• The relationship (and order) between the categories represented by N1 and N2 in metaphorical binominals: how is it that pop does not do for king in the king of pop what wow does to show in a wow of a show, or that ocean does for time in an ocean of time, and yet all express metaphors? 
• The parallels or differences between binominals using common nouns and binominals using proper names: are common nouns and proper names equally licensed in metaphorical binominals? Do they specialise in certain metaphorical meanings?
• The comparison with neighbouring constructions with a metaphorical or literal interpretation: what kind of meaning is added, or lost, or changed, in a binominal phrase with a preposition such as a mystery of a man, compared with a binominal phrase without a preposition, like a mystery man, and with a simple noun phrase containing a noun and its modifier, as in a very mysterious man? Does the abstract meaning attached to parts of speech play a role in the creation of metaphor in the noun phrase? 
• The role of the preposition in bringing about the metaphorical meaning: is there a constraint on the preposition? How does its use in metaphorical binominals relate to its other uses? How are metaphors managed in languages which do not have prepositions?
• The potential for crosslinguistic comparisons: are there cross-linguistic regularities? Are cross-linguistic differences random, or partly motivated?

 

Selected references

Austin, F. (1980). A crescent-shaped jewel of an island: appositive nouns in phrases separated by of. English Studies, 61, 357–366.

Benninger, C. (2001), Une meute de loups / une brassée de questions : collection, quantification et métaphore. Langue française, 129, 21–34.

Brdar-Szabó, R. &, Brdar, M. (2020).The Bruce Willis Of Sandwiches: The Y Of X is Y Of Z Construction on its Journey towards a Paragon Model, As One Way Of Achieving Intersubjectivity. Diadorim, Rio de Janeiro, 22 (2), 277–302.

Cotte, P. (1983). Of et la modification. Sigma, 7, Publication du CELAM, Montpellier, Université Paul-Valéry,  95–113.

Cotte, P. (1985). A Fine figure of a man, un amour de petite fille, essai d’analyse. Sigma, 9, 73–107.

Cotte, P. (2025). Quelles métaphores pour les structures binominales en of ?. Journée d’études “Constructions binominales en OF et métaphores”, 21 May 2025, Université Grenoble-Alpes & Université Rennes 2, online.

Foolen, A. (2004). Expressive binominal NPs in Germanic and Romance languages. In Radden, G. & Panther, K.-U. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation (pp 76–100.). Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

De Mattia-Viviès, M. (2019). Leçons de grammaire anglaise. Groupe Nominal, Aix en Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence.

Gardelle, L. (2019). Semantic Plurality: English Collective Nouns and Other Ways of Denoting Pluralities of Entities. John Benjamins.

Gardelle, L. (2024). A Swarm of Helicopters, the Last Couple of Weeks: A Constructional Analysis of the Syntax/Semantics Interface for the Classification of N1 as “Collective” or “Quantificational”. In L. Gardelle, E. Mignot & J. Neveux (eds.), Nouns and the Morphosyntax / Semantics Interface (pp 209–232). Palgrave MacMillan.

Gauthier, A. (1995). Délimitation et modulation qualitative dans quelques emplois de of. Cahiers Charles V, 19, 93–109.

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G., et al. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Chapter 5, Nouns and noun phrases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Izert, M. (2019). D’une horde de barbares à une horde de pensées – à propos de quelques quantifieurs nominaux figuratifs d’origine militaire en français et en polonais. Białostockie Archiwum Językowe, 19, 125–139.

Jonasson, K. (1991). Les noms propres métaphoriques : construction et interprétation. Langue française, 92, Marie-Noëlle Gary-Prieur (dir.), Syntaxe et sémantique des noms propres, 64–81.

Keizer, E. (2007). The English Noun Phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lammert, M. (2010). Sémantique et cognition. Genève: Droz.

Lecolle, M. (2019). Les noms collectifs humains en français. Enjeux sémantiques, lexicaux et discursifs. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.

Leroy, S. (2005). Autour de cette mare de sang. Déterminants nominaux et noms déterminés dans Tête d’or. L’information grammaticale, 107, 53–56.

Mihatsch, W. (2009). L’approximation entre sens et signification: un tour d’horizon. In D. Verbeken (ed.), Entre sens et signification. Constitution du sens: points de vue sur l’articulation sémantique-pragmatique (pp 125–144). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Mihatsch, W. (2010). Les approximateurs quantitatifs entre scalarité et non-scalarité. Langue française, 165 (1), 125–153.

Quirk, R. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Chapter 5. Nouns and Determiners, Chapter 17. The Noun phrase. London, Longman.

ten Wolde, E. (2023). The English binominal noun phrase: A Cognitive-Functional approach (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Scientific board

Mario Brdar, University of Osijek

Rita Brdar-Szabó, Eötvös Loránd University

Ann Coady, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3

Laure Gardelle, Grenoble Alpes University

Evelien Keizer, University of Vienna

Elise Mignot, Sorbonne University

Wiltrud Mihatsch, University of Tübingen

Agnieszka Mykowiecka, Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences

Elnora ten Wolde, University of Gratz

 

The colleagues who spoke at the workshop on Metaphor and binominal phrases in May 2025 as well as the members of the scientific board have been invited to submit a paper for review, but the call is open to all colleagues.

Format

The studies may bear on any language, but the papers should be written in English or in French. They should not exceed 15 pages in total, bibliography included, Times 12 1,5, regular margins. Submissions must be sent to felix.anthony@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr and manon.philippe@univ-rennes2.fr by March 24^th 2027 at the latest.

 

Calendar

Call for Papers : 24/09/2026

Submission of papers by : 24/03/2027 at the latest

Notification to authors : end of April 2027

Final version of papers : end of May 2027

Publication: end of August – September 2027