The interplay of metaphor and metonymy in English noun+noun compounds
The present chapter aims at comparing two different methodologies that can be used to explain the intricacies of the interplay between metaphor and metonymy in noun+noun compounds in English. The meaning of such compounds may be motivated by the mechanisms of conceptual metaphor or metonymy, and sometimes by both of them in a process called metaphtonymy. First, the chapter presents Benczes’s analysis (2006) of the metaphorical and metonymical semantics of noun+noun compounds, which is based on the Langackerian distinction between the profile determinant and the modifier, and on Fauconnier and Turner’s (2002) theory of conceptual blending. Second, the chapter offers an analysis of the interaction between metaphor and metonymy in selected English noun+noun compounds, based on the typology of metaphtonymical patterns suggested by Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez (2002).
References (30)
Barcelona, A
2000 The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In
A. Barcelona (Ed.),
Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective [
Topics in English Linguistics 30] (1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bauer, L
1979 On the need for pragmatics in the study of nominal compounding.
Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 45–50.
Bauer, L
1983 English Word-formation [
Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, L
2010 The typology of exocentric compounding. In
S. Scalise &
I. Vogel (Eds.),
Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding [
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311] (167–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bierwiaczonek, B
2013 Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
Cetnarowska, B
2012 O złożeniach rzeczownikowo-rzeczownikowych i zestawieniach przymiotnikowo-rzeczownikowych w języku angielskim. In
P. Sznurkowski,
E. Pawlikowska-Asendrych, &
B. Rusek (Eds.),
Neofilologie na przełomie tysiącleci. Najnowsze tendencje w literaturze, językoznawstwie, przekładzie i glottodydaktyce (319–330). Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo AJD.
Diez, O
2001–2002. Metaphor, metonymy, and image schemas: An analysis of conceptual interaction patterns.
Journal of English Studies, 3, 47–63.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M
2002 The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
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 [
Cognitive Linguistics Research 20] (435–465). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goossens, L
2002[1990] Metaphtonymy. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In
R. Dirven &
R. Pörings (Eds.),
Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast [
Cognitive Linguistics Research 20] (349–377). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
2003[1980] Metaphors we live by. With a new afterword. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R.W
1999 Grammar and conceptualization [
Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag, I
2003 Word-Formation in English [
Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z
1999 Towards a theory of metonymy. In
K.-U. Panther &
G. Radden (Eds.),
Metonymy in language and thought [
Human Cognitive Processing 4] (17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F
2000 The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In
A. Barcelona (Ed.),
Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective [
Topics in English Linguistics 30] (109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F
2011 Metonymy and cognitive operations. In
R. Benczes,
A. Barcelona, &
F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.),
Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view [
Human Cognitive Processing 28] (103–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Diez, O
2002 Patterns of conceptual interaction. In
R. Dirven &
R. Pörings (Eds.),
Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast [
Cognitive Linguistics Research 20] (489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scalise, S., & Vogel, I
2010 Why compounding? In
S. Scalise &
I. Vogel (Eds.),
Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding [
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311] (1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Spencer, A
2005 Word-formation and syntax. In
P. Štekauer &
R. Lieber (Eds.),
Handbook of word-formation [
Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64] (73–98). Heidelberg: Springer.
Szymanek, B
1989 Introduction to morphological analysis. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Thornburg, L.L., & Panther, K.-U
Sources
AHD – The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
. Fourth Edition
2000 Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
CED – Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged
2003 Retrieved October 15, 2014, from
[URL].
CTEL – Collins Thesaurus of the English Language
2002 Retrieved September 12, 2014 from
[URL].
FFD – Farlex Financial Dictionary
2012 Retrieved October 15, 2014, from
[URL].
OED – Oxford English Dictionary
. Second Edition
1989 Oxford: Clarendon Press.
SMD – Segen’s Medical Dictionary
2012 Retrieved October 15, 2014, from
[URL].
WN – WordNet 3.1
2014 Retrieved September 9, 2014 from
[URL].
WRUD – Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
1913 Retrieved October, 15, 2014, from
[URL].
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
Kuczok, Marcin
2020.
The Interplay of Metaphor and Metonymy in Christian Symbols.
Metaphor and Symbol 35:4
► pp. 236 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.