Article published in:
Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 8:1 (2018) ► pp. 100–133

An analysis of Arabic metaphorical and/or metonymical compounds

A cognitive linguistic approach

| University of Jordan
| Al Ain University of Science and Technology
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.
Keywords: Arabic compounds, blending theory, conceptual metaphor theory, conventionality, corpus, metaphor, metonymy.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
  • 3.Compositionality and transparency of compounds in mainstream linguistics
  • 4.Transparency of metaphorical and/or metonymical compounds from a cognitive linguistic perspective
  • 5.Methodology
  • 6.Analysis of Arabic metaphorical and/or metonymical compounds
    • 6.1Compounds in which the head is metaphorical
    • 6.2Compounds in which both elements are metaphorical
    • 6.3Compounds in which the relationship between the head and the non-head is metaphorical
    • 6.4Metaphorical and metonymical compounds (metaphtonymy)
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 07 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.16023.zib
References
Al Ghad Newspaper
Accessed online 29th April 2016 from http://​www​.alghad​.com/.
Al Rai Newspaper
Accessed online 29th May 2016 from http://​alrai​.com/.
Al-Khaleej Magazine
Accessed online 12th April 2016 from http://​www​.alkhaleej​.ae​/portal.
Allen, M. R.
(1978) Morphological investigations in English. PhD dissertation: University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Altakhaineh, A. R. M.
(2016a) Compounding in Modern Standard Arabic, Jordanian Arabic and English. Unpublished PhD thesis, Newcastle University, UK.Google Scholar
(2016b) Identifying Arabic compounds other than the Synthetic Genitive Construction. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 63(3), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016c) Headedness in Arabic compounds within the Synthetic Genitive Construction. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Identifying Adj + N compounds in Modern Standard Arabic. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 70(4).Google Scholar
Ana Zahara Magazine
Accessed online 12th May 2016 from http://​www​.anazahra​.com.
Aronoff, M., & Fudeman, K.
(2005) What is morphology? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Asfaar Magazine
Accessed online 12th May 2016 from http://​www​.asfaar​.net/.
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(1978) The grammar of nominal compounding. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
(1983) English word-formation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Exocentric compounds. Morphology, 181, 51–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) The typology of exocentric compounding. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 167–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
(2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R.
(2006) Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., & Littlemore, J.
(2000) Cognitive style variables in participants’ explanations of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 177–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2002) Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 141, 301–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) The grammar of words. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A.
(2002) An introduction to English morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J.
(2004) Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M.
(1998) Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Downing, P.
(1977) On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53(4), 810–842. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
El Refaie, E.
(2015) Reconsidering “Image Metaphor” in the light of perceptual simulation theory. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 63–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M.
(2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, N.
(1998) Compounding. In A. Zwicky & A. Spencer (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 66–83). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Facebook
Accessed online 3rd May 2016 from https://​www​.facebook​.com.
Fassi Fehri, A.
(2012) Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2008) Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle 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 (pp. 435–465). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.
(2003) Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language, 84(1), 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 211, 434–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Girju, R., Moldovan, D., Tatu, M., & Antohe, D.
(2005) On the semantics of noun 256 compounds. Computer Speech &Language, 19(4), 479–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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
Grady, J.
(2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1595–1614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2002) Understanding morphology. London: Hodder.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Kövecses, Z.
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LahaMagazine
Accessed online 24th April 2016 from http://​www​.lahamag​.com​/Global.
Lakoff, G.
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought 2nd ed. (pp. 202–251). New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B.
(1968) The grammar of English nominalizations. 5th printing. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Marchand, H.
(1960) The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tonio, Y.
(2006) Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pragglejaz Group
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), pp. 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rejal Al-Amal Magazine
Accessed online 17th April 2016 from http://​rejalalamal​.net/.
Roelofs, A., & Baayen, H.
(2002) Morphology by itself in planning the production of spoken words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(1), 132–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Sanford, D.
(2013) Emergent metaphor theory: Frequency, schematic strength, and the processing of metaphorical utterances. Journal of Cognitive Science, 14(1), 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) WordSmith Tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Semino, E.
(2010) Unrealistic scenarios, metaphorical blends and rhetorical strategies across genres. English Text Construction, 3(2), 250–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Twitter
Accessed online 16th May 2016 from https://​twitter​.com​/?lang​=en​-gb.
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
Waugh, L. R.
(1994) Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(1), 55–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, R.
(2007) Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 721–731. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, N.
(2015) Metaphorical character of moral cognition: A comparative and decompositional analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(3), 163–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zibin, A.
(2016a) The comprehension of metaphorical expressions by Jordanian EFL learners. SAGE Open, 6(2), 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) On the production of metaphors and metonymies by Jordanian EFL learners: Acquisition and implications. Topics in Linguistics, 17(2), 41–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 13 other publications

Altakhaineh, Abdel Rahman Mitib
2018. The semantic change of positive vs. negative adjectives in Modern English. Lingua Posnaniensis 60:2 ► pp. 25 ff. Crossref logo
Altakhaineh, Abdel Rahman Mitib
2022. Compositionality in N + N compounds in Jordanian Arabic and English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Altakhaineh, Abdel Rahman Mitib & Razan N. Alkhatib
2019. The acquisition of the Arabic construct state (CS) constructions by Arabic-speaking children with ASD. Advances in Autism 5:4 ► pp. 255 ff. Crossref logo
Altakhaineh, Abdel Rahman Mitib, Hodan Mahmoud & Alaa Y. Abukhater
2020. The effectiveness of using colors in L1 and L2 vocabulary development of autistic children. Advances in Autism 6:3 ► pp. 215 ff. Crossref logo
Altakhaineh, Abdel Rahman Mitib, Aseel Zibin & Razan N. Alkhatib
2020. On the Acquisition of the Arabic Grammatical Gender by Arabic-Speaking Children with ASD. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 49:6 ► pp. 1027 ff. Crossref logo
Zibin, Aseel
2018. The effect of the Arab Spring on the use of metaphor and metonymy in Jordanian economic discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 254 ff. Crossref logo
Zibin, Aseel
2019. A Phonological Analysis of English Loanwords Inflected With Arabic Morphemes in Urban Jordanian Spoken Arabic. SAGE Open 9:2 ► pp. 215824401984192 ff. Crossref logo
Zibin, Aseel
2019. The causative–anticausative alternation in Jordanian Arabic (JA). Lingua 220 ► pp. 43 ff. Crossref logo
Zibin, Aseel
2020. A corpus-based study of metaphors used to describe Syrian refugees in Jordanian politico-economic discourse. Pragmatics and Society 11:4 ► pp. 640 ff. Crossref logo
Zibin, Aseel
2021. Blood metaphors and metonymies in Jordanian Arabic and English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:1 ► pp. 26 ff. Crossref logo
Zibin, Aseel & Abdulrahman Dheyab Abdullah
2019. The Conceptualization of Tolerance in the UAE Press Media: A Case Study of ‘The Year of Tolerance’. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 405 ff. Crossref logo
Zibin, Aseel & Khawlah M. AL-Tkhayneh
2019. A sociolinguistic analysis of the use of English loanwords inflected with Arabic morphemes as slang in Amman, Jordan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2019:260 ► pp. 155 ff. Crossref logo
Zibin, Aseel, Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh & Elham T. Hussein
2020. On the comprehension of metonymical expressions by Arabic-speaking EFL learners: A cognitive linguistic approach. Topics in Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 45 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 april 2022. 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.