Metonymy and word-formation revisited

Abstract

Brdar and Brdar-Szabó (this volume) offer a critique of Janda (2011( ). Janda (2011 found that the same cognitive strategy that facilitates metonymy, namely use of a conceptual source to access a target, can also be invoked in many patterns of affixal word-formation. In other words, many cases of word-formation appear to be motivated by metonymic association. Brdar and Brdar-Szabó claim that it is incorrect to refer to word-formational processes as metonymies. In addition to the robust parallels evidenced in my data, I offer three arguments to defend my use of the term "metonymy": (1) a broader definition of metonymy facilitates more insightful generalizations; (2) there is no fixed boundary between lexical metonymy and word-formational metonymy since they coexist in the lexicon-grammar continuum; and (3) context, whether it be a suffix or other cues, is always a factor in metonymy.

Metonymy in Czech Word Formation in Terms of Cognitive Linguistics

“…The theoretical background leaned upon the theory of metonymy as cognitive strategy using a conceptual VEHICLE/source to access a TARGET through word-formation. The robust impetus for conducting the research was Jandas call for more thorough studies of this issue (Janda 2014). The core premise here is that suffixal word-formation can be motivated by the general cognitive strategy of metonymic association.…”

“…Here the research leans upon the way in which the metonymy is handled by Janda (2010Janda ( , 2011Janda ( , 2014, i.e., metonymy as a referential relational between two concepts: a source (VEHICLE) concept is overtly named and provides the mental access to a TARGET concept in a given context. Similarly the notion of metonymy is understood in Kövecses and Radden (1998) as a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity (VEHICLE) provides mental access to another conceptual entity (TARGET).…”

“…The milk tipped over (Janda 2010(Janda , 2011(Janda , 2014) is a prototypical and oftencited example of metonymy. The majority of studies have focused on what is called lexical metonymy so far.…”

An introduction to cognitive linguistic analysis of novel name-based derivatives in the current political discourse in Poland

“…: 373f., 379). Janda's (2011Janda's ( , 2014 most vital conclusion seems to be that suffixal word-formation is "largely motivated by the general cognitive strategy of metonymic association" (2014: 342); hence, the same type of analysis can be applied to all the above types of derived words. The only justification offered is that resorting to different conceptual strategies in order to account for the processes of conversion and overt affixal derivation "would be strange" (ibid.…”

Las relaciones semánticas en la sufijación del español

“…Si se reconoce la pluralidad de significados a través de extensiones, tampoco hay acuerdo en los procesos que las pueden producir. Dentro de la lingüística cognitiva prevalece la idea de que son producidas por metonimia; postura que ha dado lugar a una fructífera discusión entre Janda y Brdar y Brdar-Szabó (Brdar y Brdar-Szabó 2013, 2014Janda 2014Janda , 2011. Esta generalización de la metonimia como proceso generador choca con los datos diacrónicos, en los que la polisemia afijal no parece estar generada únicamente por metonimia, sino por otros procesos como los préstamos, la homonimización o la elipsis (H. Luschützky y Rainer 2011; H.C. Luschützky y Rainer 2013).…”