Advertisement

A Frame Approach to Metonymical Processes in Some Common Types of German Word Formation

  • Daniel SchulzekEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 94)

Abstract

Langacker (1987, 2008) defines metonymies as conceptual shifts within a domain or domain matrix. However, there are several cases in which metonymical shifts between conceptual entities that belong to the same domain are not possible. Thus, in this paper a more restrictive definition of metonymy is developed on the basis of frames, understood as recursive attribute-value structures. It is claimed that metonymies can be explained by a simple frame transformation requiring a necessary condition that I refer to as bidirectional functionality. This assumption is confirmed by an analysis of metonymical processes in various common types of word formation in German, including possessive compounds, -er nominalizations, and synthetic compounds. Furthermore, bidirectional functionality seems to underlie a sub-class of nominal compounds I suggest calling “frame compounds”.

Keywords

Frames Concept types Metonymy Word formation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Sebastian Löbner, Anselm Terhalle, Nicolas Kimm, and Tanja Osswald for discussion and helpful comments. Furthermore, I would like to thank Mattis List and Carina Fueller for proofreading this paper. I am also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Barsalou, Lawrence. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Frames, fields, and contrasts. New essays in semantic and lexical organisation, ed. Adrienne Lehrer and Eva F. Kittay, 21–74. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Croft, William. 2002. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, 161–205. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Guarino, Nicola. 1992. Concepts, attributes and arbitrary relations: Some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data & Knowledge Engineering 8(3): 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kanngießer, Siegfried. 1987. Kontingenzen der Komposition. In Neuere Forschungen zur Wortbildung und Historiographie der Linguistik. Festgabe für Herbert E. Brekle zum 50. Geburtstag, ed. Brigitte Asbach-Schnitker and Johannes Roggenhofer, 3–30. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  5. Kimm, Nicolas, Daniel Schulzek, and Anselm Terhalle. 2010. Bidirectional functionality and metonymy in semantic change and word formation. Presented at cognitive modeling in linguistics. Dubrovnik.Google Scholar
  6. Knobloch, Clemens. 1997. Über Possessivkomposita im Deutschen. In Nominationsforschung im Deutschen. Festschrift für Wolfgang Fleischer zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Barz Irmhild, Schröder Marianne, and Fleischer Wolfgang, 249–263. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
  7. Langacker, Ronald. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Löbner, Sebastian. 2005. Funktionalbegriffe und Frames – Interdisziplinäre Grundlagenforschung zu Sprache, Kognition und Wissenschaft. In Jahrbuch der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf 2004, Hrsg. Alfons Labisch, S.463–S.477. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universität.Google Scholar
  13. Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda L. Thornburg. 2002. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in Englisch -er Nominals. In Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, 279–322. Berlin/New Jersey: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Petersen, W. 2007. Representation of concepts as frames. In Complex cognition and qualitative science, the Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication, vol. 2, ed. J. Skilters et~al., 151–170. Riga: University of Latvia.Google Scholar
  15. Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4): 409–441.Google Scholar
  16. Stekauer, Pavol. 2005. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Handbook of word formation, ed. Pavol Stekauer and Rochelle Lieber, 207–232. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Information ScienceHeinrich Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations