Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 193–210

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).
Keywords: conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy, metaphtonymy, noun+noun compounds
Published online: 4 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.54.10kuc
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.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 1979. On the need for pragmatics in the study of nominal compounding. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 45–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. English Word-formation [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R. 2006. Creative compounding in English. The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations [Human Cognitive Processing 19]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2013. Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 2003[1980]. Metaphors we live by. With a new afterword. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. 2003. Word-Formation in English [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szymanek, B. 1989. Introduction to morphological analysis. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L.L., & Panther, K.-U. 2000. Why we subject incorporate (in English). A post-Whorfian view. In M. Pütz & M.H. Verspoor (Eds.), Explorations in linguistic relativity [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 199] (319–343). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources
AHD – The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition. 2000. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
CED – Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged. 2003. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from [URL].Google Scholar
CTEL – Collins Thesaurus of the English Language. 2002. Retrieved September 12, 2014 from [URL].Google Scholar
FFD – Farlex Financial Dictionary. 2012. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from [URL].Google Scholar
OED – Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition. 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
SMD – Segen’s Medical Dictionary. 2012. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from [URL].Google Scholar
WN – WordNet 3.1. 2014. Retrieved September 9, 2014 from [URL].Google Scholar
WRUD – Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary. 1913. Retrieved October, 15, 2014, from [URL].Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kuczok, Marcin
2020. The Interplay of Metaphor and Metonymy in Christian Symbols. Metaphor and Symbol 35:4 ► pp. 236 ff. DOI logo
Cetnarowska, Bozena
2016. Headedness of coordinate compounds in Polish and English. In Studies in Lexicogrammar [Human Cognitive Processing, 54], ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. 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.