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”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The works represented in Petersen (2007) as well as the works represented in this paper were developed in the research program “Functional Concepts and Frames” (FOR 600) at the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf. The research program is supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG).
- 2.
Here, an example is not given deliberately, due to the fact that the metonymical shift is not a matter of context-dependency, but rather a metonymically based polysemy.
- 3.
Apart from attribute-value sets, Barsalou (1992) states that structural invariants and constraints are further ingredients of frames. However, I will not comment on constraints and structural invariants as they are not relevant for the analysis proposed in this paper.
- 4.
- 5.
The term is used in the mathematical sense as (pontial) n-to-one mapping.
- 6.
I speak of nouns here because I am referring to a lexical-morphological level and not to a conceptual level.
- 7.
The example was discussed in our talk Kimm et~al. (2010).
- 8.
The example (1e) is not repeated here but the one-to-one mapping between the agent of an action and the action itself can easily be motivated; see Sect. 10.4.2.
- 9.
One of the anonymous reviewers of this paper pointed me to the example.
- 10.
We were advised of the example by Anja Latrouite. It was discussed in our talk Kimm et~al. (2010).
References
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.
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.
Guarino, Nicola. 1992. Concepts, attributes and arbitrary relations: Some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data & Knowledge Engineering 8(3): 249–261.
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.
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.
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.
Langacker, Ronald. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.
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.
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.
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.
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4): 409–441.
Stekauer, Pavol. 2005. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Handbook of word formation, ed. Pavol Stekauer and Rochelle Lieber, 207–232. Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
The following examples can be explained correspondingly to the examples in Sect. 10.4.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schulzek, D. (2014). A Frame Approach to Metonymical Processes in Some Common Types of German Word Formation. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds) Frames and Concept Types. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 94. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01540-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01541-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)