In:Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
Edited by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona and Rossella Pannain
[Human Cognitive Processing 60] 2018
► pp. 261–286
Chapter 10Are smartphone face and Googleheads a real or a fake phenomenon?
The current role of metonymy in semantic exocentricity
Published online: 17 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.10por
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.10por
Abstract
This paper seeks to provide evidence of the pervasiveness of metonymy as a resource triggering the creation of examples of a remnant category in morphological research, so-called ‘exocentric’ compounds. Exocentricity is not a homogeneous phenomenon in English, where it is typically represented by bahuvrihi compounds, which refer to an entity via a salient property on the basis of the metonymy part for whole. This research starts up with the collection of a corpus of over 300 English compounds with a body-part noun as the right component. As a result of the search, some regions of productivity will be shown to exist, not only by the creation of new instantiations of existing patterns but also by the emergence of new subtypes.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Exocentricity in English?
- 3.The scope of this work: Semantic exocentricity
- 4.Methodology and discussion
-
4.1Possessive compounds
- 4.1.1The case of -head formations
- 4.1.2Other body-part formations
- 4.2Ailment descriptors
- 4.2.1‘Diagnosis’ compounds
- 4.2.2‘Symptomatic’ compounds
- 4.2.3Personality traits
- 4.3Other inanimate formations
-
4.1Possessive compounds
- 5.Concluding remarks
Acknowledgements Notes References Appendix
References (29)
Barcelona, A. 2008. The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of ‘bahuvrihi’ compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 208–281.
2010. The typology of exocentric compounding. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (167–176). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: OUP.
Benczes, R. 2013. On the non-viability of the endocentric-exocentric distinction: Evidence from linguistic creativity. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics 1(1), 3–18.
2006. Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brugmann, K. 1889. GrundiΒ der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen II. Strassburg, 2nd edn.
Coseriu, E. 1977. Inhaltliche Wortbildungslehre (am Beispiel des Typs coupe-papier). In H. E. Brekle & D. Kastovsky (Eds.), Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung (46–61). Bonn: Grundmann.
Damaso, J., & Cotter, C. 2007. UrbanDictionary.com: Online dictionaries as emerging archives of contemporary usage and collaborative lexicography. English Today 90 23(2), 19–26.
Davies, M. 1990–2012. The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].
Dressler, W. U. 2006. Compound types. In G. Libben, & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (23–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guevara, E., & Scalise, S. 2009. Searching for universals in compounding. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals in language today (101–128). Dordrecht: Springer
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (Eds.), 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: University Press.
Jespersen, O. 1909–1949. A modern English grammar on historical principles I–VII. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Standford CA: Standford University Press.
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Bom Yoon, Y., & Sandra, D. 2003. Compound fracture: the role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64.
Littlemore, J. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: University Press.
Marchand, H. 1969. The categories and types of present day English word formation. München: C. H. Beck.
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A. 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Portero-Muñoz, C. 2014. A constructional approach to transitional formatives: The use of -head in so-called ‘exocentric’ formations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(1): 160–192.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Radden, G. 2005. The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando, & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (11–28). Castelló (Spain): Universitat Jaume I.
Ryder, M. E. 1994. Ordered chaos: The interpretation of English noun-noun compounds. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Barcelona, Antonio
2024. Trends in cognitive-linguistic research on metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 51 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 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.
