1887
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The article deals with the role of metonymy in word-formation, specifically in naming extra-linguistic concepts. Its role is approached from an onomasiological perspective, i.e., the starting point in the analysis is the concept to be named. Within this approach, metonymy is seen as a cognitive process (in the dynamic sense) that is inherent in the act of coining any naming unit irrespective of its resulting form, as metonymy provides the perspective from which the concept is mentally accessed, and the morphological form is an outcome of the subsequent matching of the result of conceptualisation with a suitable constructional schema. This understanding of metonymy, however, does not lead to an unrestricted application of the term. The article suggests that if a consistent view of metonymy in coining words is applied, any formal restrictions on its use turn out to be irrelevant.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00128.kos
2023-01-30
2024-04-22
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 (pp.1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894677.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2003b) On the possibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for a conceptual metaphor. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp.31–58). Berlin & New York: 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 Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp.7–58). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Bauer, L.
    (2017) Metonymy and the semantics of word-formation. Proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meetings, 111, 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Benczes, R.
    (2006) Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.19
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.19 [Google Scholar]
  8. Booij, G.
    (2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brdar, M.
    (2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.161–205). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.161
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.161 [Google Scholar]
  11. Desfayes, M.
    (1998) A thesaurus of bird names: Etymology of European lexis through paradigms. Sion: Musée cantonal dhistoire naturelle et La Murithienne.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dirven, R.
    (1999) Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. InK. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.275–287). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.16dir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.16dir [Google Scholar]
  13. Dokulil, M.
    (1962) Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: ČAV.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gosler, A.
    (2019) What’s in a name? The legacy and lexicon of birds. British Wildlife, 30(6), 391–397.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grzega, J.
    (2005) Onomasiologial approach to word-formation. A comment on Pavol Štekauer: Onomasiological approach to word-formation. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 21, 76–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2007) Summary, supplement and index for Grzega, Bezeichnungswandel, 2004. Onomasiology Online, 81, 18–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D.
    (2010) Understanding morphology. London: Hodder Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  20. Janda, L. A.
    (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]
  21. Koch, P.
    (2001) Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21, 201–244. 10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc [Google Scholar]
  22. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp.202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (2003) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987 / 1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  28. Levinson, S., & 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]
  29. Lipka, L.
    (2006) Naming Units (NUs), Observational Linguistics and Reference as a Speech Act or What’s in a Name. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 30–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mathesius, V.
    (1975) A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis (Ed.Vachek, J.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110813296
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813296 [Google Scholar]
  31. Nesset, T.
    (2010) The art of being negative: Metonymical morphological constructions in contrast. Oslo Studies in Language, 21, 261–279. 10.5617/osla.55
    https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.55 [Google Scholar]
  32. Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2000) A conceptual analysis of English -er nominals. Essen: LAUD.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2002) The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.279–319). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.279 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  35. Radden, G., & Panther, K. U.
    (2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. InG. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.1–46). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Štekauer, P.
    (2001) Fundamental principles of an onomasiological theory of English word-formation. Onomasiology Online, 21, 15–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Williams, W.
    (1906) Maori bird names. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 15(4), 193–208.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00128.kos
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00128.kos
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructional schema; metonymy; onomasiology; paradigmatic series; word-formation
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