Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011)

Brdar, Mário; Brdar-Szabó, Rita

doi:10.1515/cog-2014-0013

Cited by 20 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…And yet, the question as to the overall impact of metonymy on word-formation is far from being settled even in Cognitive Linguistics (cf. Radden/Kövecses 2007;Schönefeld 2005;Janda 2011Janda , 2014Brdar/Brdar-Szabó 2014;Brdar 2017;or Bauer 2018a for controversial discussions), and further investigation as to the precise nature of this synthesis is required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive approach to the allegedly left-headed prefix verbs in German:

Baeskow¹

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the much discussed problem of apparently left-headed German prefix verbs (e. g. besohlen ‘sole’, erschneidern ‘obtain by tailoring’, verschimmeln ‘become mouldy’) will be addressed from a cognitive perspective. It will be argued that nominal bases are metonymically reconceptualized as events inside the derivatives. This proposal has two advantages over previous approaches. First, it is not necessary to assign verbal or verbalizing properties to the prefixes be-, ent-, er-, ver-, and zer-, which have their origin in prepositions or adverbs. Secondly, an overgeneration of virtual verbs, i. e. of verbs which are not or no longer attested (e. g. *dachen ‘roof’, †sohlen ‘sole’) is avoided because the metonymic and hence purely conceptual verbalization process takes place in the context of the inseparable prefixes. The prefixes neither change the word-class of their bases nor provide argument structures, which are predicted by a small set of conceptual event schemata. The function of the prefixes is rather to add semantic or aspectual information. Synchronic support for the proposal to be presented first of all comes from the fact that conversion, which historically preceded prefixation in German, is still active. Contrastive analyses of English and German non-derived denominal verbs will illustrate this point. Moreover, many prefix verbs still co-exist with non-derived denominal verbs (e. g. schottern (< Schotter ‘gravel, ballast’) vs. beschottern, entschottern, verschottern). A more general observation is that the compatibility of denominal verbs with the holistic (or ‘synoptic’) perspective conveyed by the inseparable prefixes depends on the metonymic patterns underlying these verbs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive approach to the allegedly left-headed prefix verbs in German:

Baeskow¹

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19 Usp. Brdar i Brdar-Szabó (2014), koji oštro i potpuno utemeljeno kritiziraju opasno izjednačavanje morfosemantičkih odnosa između tvorbene osnove i tvorenice s čisto semantičkim / metonimijskim odnosima među različitim značenjima pojedinih tvorenica, što je slučaj primjerice u nekim radovima Jande i njenih suautora (Janda 2010a, b;Nesset 2010;Janda 2011).…”

Section: Lokativnost I Materijalni Izvorunclassified

Neke misli o nastanku augmentativnih/evaluativnih značenja hrvatskog sufiksa –ara

Buljan¹

2023

suvlin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his typological study of the genesis of diminutive and augmentative suffixes Grandi (2011) attributed the development of augmentative suffixes in Romance and Slavic languages to four sources: agentive/ pejorative derivational suffixes, collective suffixes, relational suffixes, and – in Slavic languages – suffixes deriving place nouns. This paper seeks to establish how the Croatian suffix –ara fi ts into Grandi’s (2011) system. According to Babić (2002: 130, 132), suffixations in –ara primarily denote places but there is a small number of suffixations with augmentative or pejorative meaning. Skok (1971: 49–52), in turn, describes this Pan–Slavic suffix under the entry for the agentive suffix –ar, which goes back to Latin –arius. This paper sought to identify any conceptual indications in our synchronic data that the augmentative/ evaluative meanings of the suffix may have developed from any of the four meanings, viz. agentive/ pejorative, collective, relational and locative. The paper leans on usage–based models of language and Rainer’s (2005) model of semantic change in word formation involving two mechanisms: reinterpretation and approximation. Results indicate that the augmentative and other evaluative meanings of the suffix may have developed from its agentive/pejorative meaning through a complex interplay of reinterpretation and approximation, with some influence of metaphor and metonymy and structural factors. Our results are submitted as hypotheses to be tested in future by dedicated diachronic studies.

show abstract

“…Some other scholars also point out that very little metonymy takes place in word-formation per se (e.g. Brdar & Brdar-Szabó, 2014). …”

Section: The English Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-linguistic variation in metonymies for PERSON

Zhang

Geeraerts

Speelman

2015

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates metonymies for person in Chinese and English in the framework of Cognitive Linguistics with an emphasis on cross-linguistic variation. Our central goal is to highlight the important role of cultural elements on the use of metonymy. Three main types of cross-linguistic variation were found at different degrees of granularities of metonymies: variation in metonymic patterns for the general target category person, variation in metonymic patterns for a specific kind of person, and variation in metonymic sources in a specific pattern. The variation was examined against its cultural background, and we conclude that some cross-linguistic differences are to a large extent rooted in culturally relevant factors. The findings suggest that although bodily experience as the general cognitive basis for metonymic pattern/source selection implies the universality of metonymies across different languages, cultural elements contribute to the language-specific preferences for metonymies of a given target.

show abstract

Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011)

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

A cognitive approach to the allegedly left-headed prefix verbs in German:

A cognitive approach to the allegedly left-headed prefix verbs in German:

Neke misli o nastanku augmentativnih/evaluativnih značenja hrvatskog sufiksa –ara

Cross-linguistic variation in metonymies for PERSON

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About