Cover not available
Article published In:
Applying Embodied Cognition and Cognitive Linguistics to language teaching
Edited by Paolo Della Putta and Ferran Suñer
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1] 2023
► pp. 86–114
Regular articles

The role of metonymy in naming

If longhair then apple tree and teacher

ORCID logo | University of South Bohemia

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.

Keywords: metonymy, word-formation, onomasiology, paradigmatic series, constructional schema
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Word-formation and metonymy
  • 3.The process of naming
  • 4.Implications for the role of metonymy in word-formation
    • 4.1Naming is metonymic irrespective of the resulting form
    • 4.2Naming is metonymic irrespective of the word-class of the base word in the derivative
    • 4.3Metonymy at stages
      • 4.3.1Metonymy prior to naming
      • 4.3.2The part of icm for whole icm metonymy
      • 4.3.3Further conceptualisation of the selected part(s) of the ICM
    • 4.4No metonymy within the selection of the suffix
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00128.kos
References
Barcelona, A.
(2003a) Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003b) On the possibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for a conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of “bahuvrihi” compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (1), 208–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basilio, M.
(2006) Metaphor and metonymy in word-formation. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 22 1, 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2017) Metonymy and the semantics of word-formation. Proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meetings, 11 1, 1–13.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brdar, M.
(2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2002) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–205). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desfayes, M.
(1998) A thesaurus of bird names: Etymology of European lexis through paradigms. Sion: Musée cantonal dhistoire naturelle et La Murithienne.Google Scholar
Dirven, R.
(1999) Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 275–287). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dokulil, M.
(1962) Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: ČAV.Google Scholar
Gosler, A.
(2019) What’s in a name? The legacy and lexicon of birds. British Wildlife, 30 (6), 391–397.Google Scholar
Grzega, J.
(2005) Onomasiologial approach to word-formation. A comment on Pavol Štekauer: Onomasiological approach to word-formation. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 2 1, 76–80.Google Scholar
(2007) Summary, supplement and index for Grzega, Bezeichnungswandel, 2004. Onomasiology Online, 8 1, 18–196.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Rubio, E.
(2021) Metonymy in Spanish word formation. In A. Fábregas, V. Acedo-Matellán, G. Armstrong, M. C. Cuervo & I. Pujol Payet (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish morphology (pp. 399–415). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D.
(2010) Understanding morphology. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A.
(2011) Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22 (2), 359–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P.
(2001) Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2 1, 201–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(2003) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987 / 1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 1, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S., & Majid, A.
(2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29 (4), 407–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 3 1, 30–39.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V.
(1975) A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis (Ed. Vachek, J.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, T.
(2010) The art of being negative: Metonymical morphological constructions in contrast. Oslo Studies in Language, 2 1, 261–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. L.
(2000) A conceptual analysis of English -er nominals. Essen: LAUD.Google Scholar
(2002) The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 279–319). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 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 (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K. U.
(2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P.
(2001) Fundamental principles of an onomasiological theory of English word-formation. Onomasiology Online, 2 1, 15–54.Google Scholar
Williams, W.
(1906) Maori bird names. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 15 (4), 193–208.Google Scholar