Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Metonymy in word-formation
View through CrossRef
Abstract
A foundational goal of cognitive linguistics is to explain linguistic phenomena in terms of general cognitive strategies rather than postulating an autonomous language module (Langacker 1987: 12–13). Metonymy is identified among the imaginative capacities of cognition (Langacker 1993: 30, 2009: 46–47). Whereas the majority of scholarship on metonymy has focused on lexical metonymy, this study explores the systematic presence of metonymy in word-formation. I argue that in many cases, the semantic relationships between stems, affixes, and the words they form can be analyzed in terms of metonymy, and that this analysis yields a better, more insightful classification than traditional descriptions of word-formation. I present a metonymic classification of suffixal word-formation in three languages: Russian, Czech, and Norwegian. The system of classification is designed to maximize comparison between lexical and word-formational metonymy. This comparison supports another central claim of cognitive linguistics, namely that grammar (in this case word-formation) and lexicon form a continuum (Langacker 1987: 18–19), since I show that metonymic relationships in the two domains can be described in nearly identical terms. While many metonymic relationships are shared across the lexical and grammatical domains, some are specific to only one domain, and the two domains show different preferences for source and target concepts. Furthermore, I find that the range of metonymic relationships expressed in word-formation is more diverse than what has been found in lexical metonymy. There is remarkable similarity in word-formational metonymy across the three languages, despite their typological differences, though they all show some degree of language-specific behavior as well. Although this study is limited to three Indo-European languages, the goal is to create a classification system that could be implemented (perhaps with modifications) across a wider spectrum of languages.
Title: Metonymy in word-formation
Description:
Abstract
A foundational goal of cognitive linguistics is to explain linguistic phenomena in terms of general cognitive strategies rather than postulating an autonomous language module (Langacker 1987: 12–13).
Metonymy is identified among the imaginative capacities of cognition (Langacker 1993: 30, 2009: 46–47).
Whereas the majority of scholarship on metonymy has focused on lexical metonymy, this study explores the systematic presence of metonymy in word-formation.
I argue that in many cases, the semantic relationships between stems, affixes, and the words they form can be analyzed in terms of metonymy, and that this analysis yields a better, more insightful classification than traditional descriptions of word-formation.
I present a metonymic classification of suffixal word-formation in three languages: Russian, Czech, and Norwegian.
The system of classification is designed to maximize comparison between lexical and word-formational metonymy.
This comparison supports another central claim of cognitive linguistics, namely that grammar (in this case word-formation) and lexicon form a continuum (Langacker 1987: 18–19), since I show that metonymic relationships in the two domains can be described in nearly identical terms.
While many metonymic relationships are shared across the lexical and grammatical domains, some are specific to only one domain, and the two domains show different preferences for source and target concepts.
Furthermore, I find that the range of metonymic relationships expressed in word-formation is more diverse than what has been found in lexical metonymy.
There is remarkable similarity in word-formational metonymy across the three languages, despite their typological differences, though they all show some degree of language-specific behavior as well.
Although this study is limited to three Indo-European languages, the goal is to create a classification system that could be implemented (perhaps with modifications) across a wider spectrum of languages.
Related Results
A REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL METONYMY - METHODS, THEORY AND DESCRIPTION
A REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL METONYMY - METHODS, THEORY AND DESCRIPTION
This paper systematically reviews the main content and academic contributions of Conceptual Metonymy - Methods, Theory and Description. As Volume 60 of the "Human Cognitive Process...
On Conceptual Metonymy Represented Across Two Languages
On Conceptual Metonymy Represented Across Two Languages
Metonymy in cognitive linguistic studies is conceptual. But it is frequently represented by means of language. The previous studies focus on the metonymy of one single language and...
The Existential and Anthropological Semantics of the Word in Late 17th-Century Sermons
The Existential and Anthropological Semantics of the Word in Late 17th-Century Sermons
This article describes the semantics of the word concept, which is represented in late 17th-century homiletic texts. It is defined by the topics of sermons in terms of their ontolo...
Spoken Word Recognition
Spoken Word Recognition
The core question that spoken word recognition research attempts to address is: How does a phonological word-form activate the corresponding lexical representation that is stored i...
Metaphoric and Metonymic Operations for the Iron Expressions
Metaphoric and Metonymic Operations for the Iron Expressions
This study uses the word iron as an example to analyze the phenomena of meaning extensions and function shifts from a cognitive semantic perspective. The analysis shows that the me...
Die Soefi-denkwêreld van Rumi na aanleiding van sy gedig “Die rietfluitlied”
Die Soefi-denkwêreld van Rumi na aanleiding van sy gedig “Die rietfluitlied”
Hierdie artikel het ten doel om vir die leser iets van die denkwêreld van die gewilde 13de-eeuse Persiese digter en Soefi-mistikus, Jalāl al-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī, te bied. ’n Afrikaan...
Phonological Word and Grammatical Word
Phonological Word and Grammatical Word
‘Word’ is a cornerstone for the understanding of every language. It is a pronounceable phonological unit. It will also have a meaning, and a grammatical characterization-a morpholo...

