Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study provides an analysis of Arabic metaphorical and/or metonymical compounds, extracted from a 20,000-word corpus, based on Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Conceptual Blending Theory. The analysis focuses on the semantic transparency of these compounds, on the one hand, and their linguistic creativity, on the other. In line with Benczes ( 2006 , 2010 ), we suggest that the comprehension of Arabic metaphorical and/or metonymical compounds is possibly one of degree depending on which element is affected by metaphor and metonymy. Here, it is proposed that there are compounds which are more creative than others. We argue that in addition to the degree of semantic transparency and linguistic creativity of Arabic metaphorical and/or metonymical compounds, there are other factors that can influence the comprehension of these compounds; namely, the frequency of the compound, the conventionality of the metaphors involved in the compound and whether conceptual metonymy acts on the compound. Our proposal is supported by the judgments of 12 native-speaker informants, who were asked to provide the meaning of 35 Arabic metaphorical and/or metonymical compounds. The study concludes with recommendations for further research.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Al Ghad Newspaper
    Al Ghad Newspaper. Accessed online29th April 2016fromwww.alghad.com/.
  2. Al Rai Newspaper
    Al Rai Newspaper. Accessed online29th May 2016fromalrai.com/.
  3. Al-Khaleej Magazine
    Al-Khaleej Magazine. Accessed online12th April 2016fromwww.alkhaleej.ae/portal.
  4. Allen, M. R.
    (1978) Morphological investigations in English. PhD dissertation: University of Connecticut, Storrs.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Altakhaineh, A. R. M.
    (2016a) Compounding in Modern Standard Arabic, Jordanian Arabic and English. Unpublished PhD thesis, Newcastle University, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2016b) Identifying Arabic compounds other than the Synthetic Genitive Construction. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 63(3), 1–22.10.1556/064.2016.63.3.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/064.2016.63.3.1 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2016c) Headedness in Arabic compounds within the Synthetic Genitive Construction. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1–16.10.1177/2158244016674514
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016674514 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2017) Identifying Adj + N compounds in Modern Standard Arabic. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 70(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ana Zahara Magazine
    Ana Zahara Magazine. Accessed online12th May 2016fromwww.anazahra.com.
  10. Aronoff, M. , & Fudeman, K.
    (2005) What is morphology?Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Asfaar Magazine
    Asfaar Magazine . Accessed online12th May 2016fromwww.asfaar.net/.
  12. Barcelona, A.
    (2011) The conceptual motivation of bahuvrihi compounds in English and Spanish. In M. Brdar , S. Th. Gries & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Convergence and expansion (pp.151–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.32.11bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.11bar [Google Scholar]
  13. Bauer, L.
    (1978) The grammar of nominal compounding. Odense: Odense University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1983) English word-formation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2008) Exocentric compounds. Morphology, 18, 51–74. doi: 10.1007/s11525‑008‑9122‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-008-9122-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010) The typology of exocentric compounding. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross disciplinary issues in compounding (pp.167–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.311.14bau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.311.14bau [Google Scholar]
  17. Bauer, L. , Lieber, R. , & Plag, I.
    (2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Benczes, R.
    (2006) Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.19
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.19 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2010) Setting limits on creativity in the production and use of metaphorical and metonymical compounds. In A. Onysko & S. Michel (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on word formation (pp.219–242) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110223606.217
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223606.217 [Google Scholar]
  20. Boers, F. , & Littlemore, J.
    (2000) Cognitive style variables in participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 177–187. doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1503_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1503_4 [Google Scholar]
  21. Booij, G.
    (2002) Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14, 301–327. doi: 10.1017/S1470542702000168
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542702000168 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2007) The grammar of words. 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226245.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226245.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Borer, H.
    (2009) Afro-Asiatic, Semitic: Hebrew. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.386–399). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Cameron, L.
    (2008) Metaphor shifting in the dynamics of talk. In M. S. Zanotto , L. Cameron , & M. C. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach (pp.45–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.173.04cam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.173.04cam [Google Scholar]
  25. Carstairs-McCarthy, A.
    (2002) An introduction to English morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2004) Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  27. Croft, W. , & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  28. Deignan, A.
    (2008) Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.280–294). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.018 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dirven, R. , & Verspoor, M.
    (1998) Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Downing, P.
    (1977) On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53(4), 810–842. doi: 10.2307/412913
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412913 [Google Scholar]
  31. El Refaie, E.
    (2015) Reconsidering “Image Metaphor” in the light of perceptual simulation theory. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 63–76. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2014.948799
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.948799 [Google Scholar]
  32. Evans, V. , & Green, M.
    (2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fabb, N.
    (1998) Compounding. In A. Zwicky & A. Spencer (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp.66–83). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Facebook
    Facebook. Accessed online3rd May 2016fromhttps://www.facebook.com.
  35. Fassi Fehri, A.
    (2012) Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.182
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.182 [Google Scholar]
  36. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2008) Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.53–66). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005 [Google Scholar]
  39. Flowerdew, L.
    (2004) The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp.11–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.16.02flo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16.02flo [Google Scholar]
  40. Geeraerts, D.
    (2002) The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.435–465). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.435
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.435 [Google Scholar]
  41. Gibbs, R.
    (2003) Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language, 84(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00517‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00517-5 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21, 434–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Gibbs, R. , & Matlock, T.
    (2008) Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.161–176). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011 [Google Scholar]
  44. Girju, R. , Moldovan, D. , Tatu, M. , & Antohe, D.
    (2005) On the semantics of noun 256 compounds. Computer Speech &Language, 19(4), 479–496. doi: 10.1016/j.csl.2005.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2005.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  45. Goossens, L.
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–342. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  46. (1995) Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action. In L. Goossens , P. Pauwels , B. Rudzka-Ostyn , A. Simon-Vanderbergen & J. Vanparys (Eds.), Pragmatics & beyond. New series 33 (pp.159–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Grady, J.
    (2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1595–1614. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  48. Grady, J. , Oakley, T. , & Coulson, S.
    (1999) Blending and metaphor. In R. Gibbs and G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp.101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.175.07gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.07gra [Google Scholar]
  49. Haspelmath, M.
    (2002) Understanding morphology. London: Hodder.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Heyvaert, L.
    (2009) Compounding in cognitive linguistics. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ji, H. , Gagné, C. L. , & Spalding, T. L.
    (2011) Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 406–430. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kavka, S.
    (2009) Compounds and idiomatology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.19–33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  55. LahaMagazine
    LahaMagazine. Accessed online24th April 2016fromwww.lahamag.com/Global.
  56. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought2nd ed. (pp.202–251). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lees, R. B.
    (1968) The grammar of English nominalizations. 5th printing. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Libben, G.
    (2006) Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp.1–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Libben, G. , Gibson, M. , Yoon, Y. B. , & Sandra, D.
    (2003) Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84(1), 50–64. doi: 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00520‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5 [Google Scholar]
  62. Lipka, L.
    (1977) Lexikalisierung, Idiomatisierung und Hypostasierungals Problemeeiner Synchronischen Wortbildungslehre. In H. E. Brekle & D. Kastovsky (Eds.) Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung (pp.155–164). Bonn: Bouvier.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Marchand, H.
    (1960) The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Marelli, M. , & Luzzatti, C.
    (2012) Frequency effects in the processing of Italian nominal compounds: Modulation of headedness and semantic transparency. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 644–664. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  65. McEnery, T. , Xiao, R. , & Tonio, Y.
    (2006) Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Neef, M.
    (2009) IE, Germanic: German. In R. Lieberand & P. Štekauer (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.386–399). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Nelson, M.
    (2010) Building a written corpus: What are the basics?In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp.53–65). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203856949.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  68. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), pp.1–39. doi: 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  69. Rejal Al-Amal Magazine
    Rejal Al-Amal Magazine. Accessed online17th April 2016fromrejalalamal.net/.
  70. Roelofs, A. , & Baayen, H.
    (2002) Morphology by itself in planning the production of spoken words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(1), 132–138. doi: 10.3758/BF03196269
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196269 [Google Scholar]
  71. Rohrer, T.
    (1997) Conceptual blending on the information highway: How do metaphorical inferences work?In W. A. Liebert , G. Redeker & L. R. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp.185–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.151.13roh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.13roh [Google Scholar]
  72. Ryder, M. E.
    (1994) Ordered chaos: The interpretation of English noun-noun compounds (University of California Publications in Linguistics 123). Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Sanford, D.
    (2013) Emergent metaphor theory: Frequency, schematic strength, and the processing of metaphorical utterances. Journal of Cognitive Science, 14(1), 1–45. doi: 10.17791/jcs.2013.14.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2013.14.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  74. Scalise, S. , & Fábregas, A.
    (2010) The head in compounding. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross disciplinary issues in compounding (pp.109–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.311.10sca
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.311.10sca [Google Scholar]
  75. Scott, M.
    (2010) What can corpus software do?In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp.136–151). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203856949.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2012) WordSmith Tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Semino, E.
    (2010) Unrealistic scenarios, metaphorical blends and rhetorical strategies across genres. English Text Construction, 3(2), 250–274. doi: 10.1075/etc.3.2.07sem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.3.2.07sem [Google Scholar]
  78. Sinclair, J.
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. (2005) Corpus and text – basic Principles. In M. Wynne (Ed.) Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice (pp.1–16). Oxford: Oxbow Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sweetser, E.
    (1999) Compositionality and blending. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp.129–162). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110803464.129
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803464.129 [Google Scholar]
  81. Tribble, C.
    (2010) What are concordances and how are they used?In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp.167–183). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203856949.ch13
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  82. Twitter
    Twitter. Accessed online16th May 2016fromhttps://twitter.com/?lang=en-gb.
  83. Warren, B.
    (1992) Sense developments: A contrastive study of the development of slang senses and novel standard senses in English [Stockholm Studies in English 80]. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Waugh, L. R.
    (1994) Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(1), 55–70. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90056‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90056-6 [Google Scholar]
  85. Wilson, N. L. , & Gibbs, R.
    (2007) Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 721–731. doi: 10.1080/15326900701399962
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701399962 [Google Scholar]
  86. Yu, N.
    (2015) Metaphorical character of moral cognition: A comparative and decompositional analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(3), 163–183. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2015.1049500
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1049500 [Google Scholar]
  87. Zibin, A.
    (2016a) The comprehension of metaphorical expressions by Jordanian EFL learners. SAGE Open, 6(2), 1–15.10.1177/2158244016643144
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016643144 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2016b) On the production of metaphors and metonymies by Jordanian EFL learners: Acquisition and implications. Topics in Linguistics, 17(2), 41–58.10.1515/topling‑2016‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/topling-2016-0012 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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