1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 13, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Various works on metonymy in word-formation do not agree on to what extent word-formation has a metonymic basis. The proponents of the “broad” view claim that metonymy is a mental process inherent in coining (almost) all words, while the proponents of the “narrow” view restrict its application to specific forms only, expressing their concerns that the unrestricted application of metonymy in word-formation would make the notion vacuous. The present paper argues for a “broader” view on the basis that metonymy is seen primarily as a mental process based on a relationship between a motivating and a named concept, the former providing mental access to the latter. This does not mean, however, that all complex words have a metonymic basis. Complex words that are variations on existing lexemes, such as variation driven syntactically, e.g., transposition, or pragmatically, e.g., diminutiveness, refer to the same concept as the derivational base, so we cannot speak of a relationship between two concepts. The resulting form with which the named concept is expressed is irrelevant as it solely depends on the formal means a language offers. The paper cannot thus claim that typologically different languages (e.g., synthetic languages with predominant suffixation versus analytic ones with predominant compounding) make use of cognitive processes to a different extent since they only use different formal means for the same purpose.

© 2026 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00142.kos
2026-04-17
2026-05-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00142.kos
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (2003a) Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894677.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2003b) On the possibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual metaphor. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894677.31
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.31 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2008) The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of ‘bahuvrihi’ compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 208–281. 10.1075/arcl.6.10bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.10bar [Google Scholar]
  4. (2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  5. (2016) Salience in metonymy-motivated constructional abbreviated form with particular attention to English clippings. Cognitive Semantics, 2(1), 30–58. 10.1163/23526416‑00201003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00201003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Basilio, M.
    (2006) Metaphor and metonymy in word formation. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 221, 67–80. 10.1590/S0102‑44502006000300006
     https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502006000300006 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauer, L.
    (2004) The function of word-formation and the inflection-derivation distinction. InM. Hannay, H. Aertsen & R. J. Lyall (Eds.), Words in their places: A Festschrift for J. L. Mackenzie (pp. 283–292). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Benczes, R.
    (2006) Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.19
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.19 [Google Scholar]
  9. Booij, G.
    (2000) Inflection and derivation. InG. E. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation: 1. Halbband 1 (pp. 360–369). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110111286.1.5.360
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110111286.1.5.360 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowerman, J.
    (2016) Examining the nature of referential metonymy. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 281, 1–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Brdar, M.
    (2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (2002) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 161–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.161
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.161 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dirven, R.
    (1999) Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 275–288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.16dir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.16dir [Google Scholar]
  15. Dokulil, M.
    (1962) Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov [Formation of words in Czech I. Theory of word derivation]. Praha: ČAV.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Grandi, N., & Körtvélyessy, L.
    (2015) Introduction: Why evaluative morphology?. InN. Grandi & L. Körtvélyessy (Eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology (pp. 1–20). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748681754‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748681754-005 [Google Scholar]
  17. Grzega, J.
    (2007) Summary, supplement and index for Grzega, Bezeichnungswandel, 2004. Onomasiology Online, 81, 18–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gutiérrez Rubio, E.
    (2021) Metonymy in Spanish word formation. InA. Fábregas, V. Acedo-Matellán, G. Armstrong, M. C. Cuervo & I. Pujol Payet (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish morphology (pp. 399–415). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429318191‑31
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429318191-31 [Google Scholar]
  19. ten Hacken, P.
    (2015) Transposition and the limits of word formation. InL. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 187–216). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑14102‑2_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_10 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J.
    (2020) The texture of the lexicon: Relational morphology and the parallel architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Jakobson, R., & Halle, M.
    (2002) Fundamentals of language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894264
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894264 [Google Scholar]
  22. Janda, L. A.
    (2010) The role of metonymy in Czech word-formation. Slovo a slovesnost, 71(4), 260–274.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2011) Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 359–392. 10.1515/cogl.2011.014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.014 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2014) Metonymy and word-formation revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 341–349. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0008 [Google Scholar]
  25. Koch, P.
    (2001) Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 201–244. 10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc [Google Scholar]
  26. Kos, P.
    (2023) The role of metonymy in naming: If longhair then apple tree and teacher. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 86–114. 10.1075/rcl.00128.kos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00128.kos [Google Scholar]
  27. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A.
    (2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427. 10.1111/mila.12057
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12057 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nesset, T.
    (2010) The art of being negative: Metonymical morphological constructions in contrast. Oslo Studies in Language, 2(2), 261–279. 10.5617/osla.55
     https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.55 [Google Scholar]
  35. Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2001) A conceptual analysis of English -er nominals. InM. Pütz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 149–200). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110866254.149
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866254.149 [Google Scholar]
  36. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2002) The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 279–322). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.279
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.279 [Google Scholar]
  37. Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
  38. Portero Muñoz, C.
    (this volume). Metonymy in morphological recategorization: The case of Spanish body-part verbs. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 13(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Prasad, M. M.
    (2008) Surviving Bollywood. InA. P. Kavoori & A. Punathambekar (Eds.), Global Bollywood (pp. 41–51). New York: New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a Theory of Metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  41. Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U.
    (2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. InG. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Warren, B.
    (2006) Referential metonymy. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00142.kos
Loading
Arguing for a “broader” view of metonymy in word-formation
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 13, 78 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00142.kos
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00142.kos
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00142.kos
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): metonymy; onomasiology; relational morphology; schemas; word-formation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error