Cover not available

Article In: Metonymic Thinking All the Way Down: From discourse to the lexicon, and beyond
Edited by Carmen Portero-Muñoz, Antonio Barcelona and Almudena Soto Nieto
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 13:1] 2026
► pp. 78–106

Section 2. Metonymy in morphology

Arguing for a “broader” view of metonymy in word-formation

ORCiD logo with link | University of South Bohemia
ORCiD logo with link | Palacký University Olomouc
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Various works on metonymy in word-formation do not agree on to what extent word-formation has a metonymic basis. The proponents of the “broad” view claim that metonymy is a mental process inherent in coining (almost) all words, while the proponents of the “narrow” view restrict its application to specific forms only, expressing their concerns that the unrestricted application of metonymy in word-formation would make the notion vacuous. The present paper argues for a “broader” view on the basis that metonymy is seen primarily as a mental process based on a relationship between a motivating and a named concept, the former providing mental access to the latter. This does not mean, however, that all complex words have a metonymic basis. Complex words that are variations on existing lexemes, such as variation driven syntactically, e.g., transposition, or pragmatically, e.g., diminutiveness, refer to the same concept as the derivational base, so we cannot speak of a relationship between two concepts. The resulting form with which the named concept is expressed is irrelevant as it solely depends on the formal means a language offers. The paper cannot thus claim that typologically different languages (e.g., synthetic languages with predominant suffixation versus analytic ones with predominant compounding) make use of cognitive processes to a different extent since they only use different formal means for the same purpose.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Studies on metonymy in word-formation
    • 2.1Janda (2010, 2011)
    • 2.2Brdar (2017)
  • 3.An onomasiological approach to word-formation
    • 3.1Word-formation
    • 3.2Functions of word-formation
    • 3.3Metonymy
    • 3.4Process of naming
  • 4.English and Spanish examples
    • Coca tea
    • Dead-eyed
    • Nollywood
    • Manosear
    • Codearse
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (42)
References
Barcelona, A. (2003a). Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003b). On the possibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Salience in metonymy-motivated constructional abbreviated form with particular attention to English clippings. Cognitive Semantics, 2(1), 30–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Basilio, M. (2006). Metaphor and metonymy in word formation. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 221, 67–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2004). The function of word-formation and the inflection-derivation distinction. In M. Hannay, H. Aertsen & R. J. Lyall (Eds.), Words in their places: A Festschrift for J. L. Mackenzie (pp. 283–292). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2000). Inflection and derivation. In G. E. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation: 1. Halbband 1 (pp. 360–369). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowerman, J. (2016). Examining the nature of referential metonymy. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 281, 1–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. 161–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. 275–288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dokulil, M. (1962). Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov [Formation of words in Czech I. Theory of word derivation]. Praha: ČAV.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grandi, N., & Körtvélyessy, L. (2015). Introduction: Why evaluative morphology?. In N. Grandi & L. Körtvélyessy (Eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology (pp. 1–20). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grzega, J. (2007). Summary, supplement and index for Grzega, Bezeichnungswandel, 2004. Onomasiology Online, 81, 18–196.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ten Hacken, P. (2015). Transposition and the limits of word formation. In L. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 187–216). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2020). The texture of the lexicon: Relational morphology and the parallel architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R., & Halle, M. (2002). Fundamentals of language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (2010). The role of metonymy in Czech word-formation. Slovo a slovesnost, 71(4), 260–274.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 359–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Metonymy and word-formation revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 341–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, P. (2001). Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 201–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesset, T. (2010). The art of being negative: Metonymical morphological constructions in contrast. Oslo Studies in Language, 2(2), 261–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L. (2001). A conceptual analysis of English -er nominals. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 149–200). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (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. 279–322). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portero Muñoz, C. (in press). Metonymy in morphological recategorization: The case of Spanish body-part verbs. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 13(1).
Prasad, M. M. (2008). Surviving Bollywood. In A. P. Kavoori & A. Punathambekar (Eds.), Global Bollywood (pp. 41–51). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, B. (2006). Referential metonymy. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue