A Frame Approach to Metonymical Processes in Some Common Types of German Word Formation
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”.
KeywordsFrames Concept types Metonymy Word formation
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4): 409–441.Google Scholar