Metonymy and metaphor in

Bulgarian compounds

First International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language

25-26 April 2014, Thessaloniki, Greece

Alexandra Bagasheva, a.bagasheva@uni-sofia.bg

Objectives Discussion of the role of metonymy and metaphor

in lexicogenesis - "to provide more comprehen-

sive and consistent descriptions of individual word-

formation phenomena" (Ungerer 2007: 651).

Consistent cognitive linguistics analysis of

verbocentric compounds in Bulgarian - “meaning is

language-specific to a considerable extent. It is this

imagery that has to be described, not the presumably

universal cognitive representations that these

conventional images construe” (Langacker 1987: 47).

Outline

Metonymy in lexicogenesis

Metonymy and frames

Metonymy, metaphor and frames

in Bulgarian verbocentric

compounds

Metonymic processing of language

vs. processing metonymic language Processing metonymic language as Paris has dropped

hemlines this year vs. metonymic processing of language

which is a general cognitive strategy for filling out “gaps

by inferring some rich source of information”, like a

FRAME, “from the simple mention of some salient part

of that knowledge” (Gibbs 1999: 69).

The operation of metonymy in lexicogenesis (LG)

belongs to METONYMIC PROCESSING OF

LANGUAGE.

Metonymy in WF: a) greater diversity than lexical

metonymy (Janda 2011); b) distinct from

lexical/referential, speech act, illocutionary and

discourse metonymy.

Previous studies on metonymy in WF in

terms of

event schema conceptual derivations in conversion

(Dirven 1999);

category shifts in conversion (Farrell 2001);

the conventional metonymy SALIENT PROPERTY

FOR CATEGORY/PROPERTY FOR REFERENT in

so-called bahuvrihi compounds (as in English: red

neck, pick pocket; Huddleston and Pullum 2002);

creativity in compounding (Benzecs 2006);

figure-ground alignment in conversion (Ungerer

2007);

a general SOURCE FOR TARGET pattern in

affixation (Janda 2011).

The nature of metonymy in LG

LG metonymy - onomasiology-based

metonymy, guiding the creation of a new

symbol for а target concept.

LG metonymy - a formal cognitive

operation.

Cognitive operations

Cognitive operation - “any mental mechanism

whose purpose is to contribute to the

inferential processes that are necessary to

derive a full semantic representation out of a

linguistic expression” (Fransico Jose Ruiz de

Mendoza Ibanez 2011: 104).

Formal cognitive operations (FCO) vs. content

cognitive operations (CCO)

FCO – cuing, selection, integration and

abstraction – higher-level operations

preparing the conceptual material for the

successful accomplishment of lower-level

inferencing processes.

CCO – metaphor, metonymy, etc. – lower

level processes that people use to make

inferences and construct meaning on the

basis of linguistic cues.

Lexicogenesis

i) grammatical schematization, or the establishment

of instantiated and elaborated schemas;

ii) an interface phenomenon of an onomasiological

(Stekauer 1998) nature actualized in constructions

with different degrees of schematicity on the basis

of analogical creations based on an exemplar or

„leader word‟ (as Ykaov Malkiel 1966, in Adams

2001);

iii) establishing an analogy and constructing a new

naming unit with some of the same properties,

creating a neologism, as well as the initial use and

comprehension of established/entrenched words.

Lexicogenesis of VCCs

invariably associated with a verbal frame

which underlies the processes of

constructing associated concepts as a

generalized reflection of perceived reality

in human consciousness and the

realization of these concepts in language

in accordance with the available naming

means (Štekauer 2005: 49);

frame-based metonymic manipulation of

internal constituency.

Frames

“Frames, which are relevant not only to

metonymies but also to certain types of word

formation, can - and in fact, should - be defined

onomasiologically, so that even cross-over links

within one and the same frame realized in different

languages, concepts which have not yet been

expressed, senses of a given word which do not

yet exist, and new words which have not yet

been fanned can all be provided for” (Koch 2005:

153).

Frame – conceptual-onomasiological base; a gestalt

anchored into an actional core.

Metonymy and frames I

“Human knowledge appears to be frames all the way

down” (Barsalou and Hale 1993: 131)

A frame is a “system of concepts related in such a

way that to understand any one of them you have

to understand the whole structure; ....when one of

the things in such a structure is introduced all of

the others are automatically made available”

(Fillmore 2006: 373)

A frame is “the structured way in which the scene is

presented or remembered, […] [T]he frame

structures the word-meanings, and the word

„evokes‟ the frame” (Fillmore 2006: 378)

Metonymy and frames II

Frame semantics necessarily involves the study of the

unidirectional back/foregrounding relations between

concepts and the lexical items evoking and evoked by

them, as well as between a concept‟s frame and any

component thereof.

A lexical concept is “a unit of semantic structure, a bundle

of different types of highly schematic content” (Evans

2009: 11), a dynamic ad hoc piece of conceptual content

which operates by referencing richer conceptual frames,

which according to Koch (2005) are non-accidental

networks of contiguities. By manipulating these

contiguities on the principle of metonymy as FCO and

adjusting focal granularity we create compound verbs and

verbo-centric nominal compounds.

Metonymies in LG source-in-target but

highlighting?

Highlighting and domain reduction – reserved

for target-in-source metonymies (Ruiz de

Mendoza 2011) BUT the mechanism of

establishing a second focal element in the

profile of a verbocentric compound involves the

emancipation of a value-specified background

component, i.e. zone-activation is at play, but

instead of reduction expansion occurs.

Expansion and enrichment – the foregrounding

of a frame constituent is followed by its

integration in the resultant profile.

Metonymy in VCC revisited IVCC metonymy - a FCO involving cuing (the emancipation

of the running commentary ((Barsalou, Wenchi, Luka,

Olseth, Mix and Wu 1993)), selection (the choice of a

frame element for value specification), integration (the

onomatological explication of the specified element as a

secondary focal point in the profile of the lexical concept)

and possible abstraction (further cognitive operations).

VCC metonymy - source in target, operating through

expansion via frame element highlighting and

foregrounding.

VCC metonymy - an interrelation of entities that results in a

complex meaning, which can be captured in the notation

“X PLUS Y” instead of the standard “X FOR Y” (Radden and

Kövesces 1999: 18–19).

Metonymy as a frame-based analytical tool

Frame-based VCC

“a. A word sense‟s semantic frame (what

the word „means‟ or „evokes‟) = profile +

background frame;

b. A word sense‟s profile: what the word

designates, asserts;

c. A word sense‟s background frame: what

the word takes for granted, presupposes

(Goldberg 2010: 40).

Bulgarian compounds

Root compounds – exceptionally rare

(borrowing of patterns);

VCCs – i) onomatological realizations of

metonymic relations triggered, guided and

constrained by the qualia structure

(Pustejovsky 1991) of the verbal source

concept; ii) categorially right-headed (for

inflectional purposes), but display wide

variability in terms of semantic

endo/exocentrcity.

Bulgarian verbocentric compounds

(645 nouns + 77 verbs)[X+/-v Y +/-v ] Z - formal-operational

frame- based metonymy (cuing,

selection, integration via

explication and +/-abstraction)

[X V] N [-dyn; -rel] [X V] V[+dyn; +rel]

[V N]N [N V] -/+suff N

Onomasiological metaphtonymy nominal

verbocentric compounds I

въртиопашка

(vartiopashka, ‘twist/wag-

tail’, coquette)

frame-based THEME

/TWISTEE core component

metonymic explication

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS

INTENTIONS ARE

PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES

SALIENT PROPERTY FOR

CATEGORY

Onomasiological metaphtonymy nominal

verbocentric compounds II

загори тенджeрa [zagoritendzhera, ‘burn-pan’, a

person with no sense of time]

frame-based THEME / BURNEE core component

metonymic explication

cultural script WOMEN ARE HOUSEWIVES/

COOKS

ACTIVITY FOR TIME OF ACTIVITY

SALIENT PROPERTY FOR CATEGORY

Onomasiological metaphtonymy nominal

verbocentric compounds III

хвалипръцко [hvalipratsko, ‘brag farter’ windbag]

frame-based TOPIC/ REASON core component

metonymic explication

ironic evaluative markedness reversal – assigned

value to the TOPIC – farting

SALIENT PROPERTY FOR CATEGORY

[N V] N

a) semantically endocentric – pure

metonymy - cuing, selection, and integration

via explication – гроздобер [grozdober,

„grapes-pick‟, wine harvest]; кукловод[kuklovod, „doll-lead‟, puppeteer]);

b) semantically exocentric – metaphtonymy

– cuing, selection, integration via explication

and abstraction – пътепис [patepis, „road-

write‟, travelogue]; буквояд [bukvoyad,

„letter-eater‟, pedant/prig].

Frame metonymy suffixless nominal compounds I

(endocentric)

i) кукловод [kuklovod, ‘doll-lead’,

puppeteer]

frame-based THEME/LEADEE core

component metonymic explication

ii) гроздобер [grozdober, ‘grapes-pick’,

wine harvest]

frame-based THEME/PICKEE core

component metonymic explication

Frame metonymy suffixless nominal

compounds II (exocentric)

буквояд [bukvoyad, ‘letter-eat’, pedant/prig] (on

analogy with дървояд [darvoyad, ‘wood-eat’,

woodworm]

frame-based THEME/EDIBLE core component

metonymic explication

PRINTED LETTERS ARE EDIBLES

PEOPLE WHOSE HUNGER CAN BE

SATIATED BY LETTERS ARE PRIGS.

[N V] suff N

a) semantically endocentric – pure metonymy –cuing, selection, and integration via explication

– болногледач [bolnogledach, „ill-watcher‟,

hospital attendant]; тънкописец [tankopisets,

„thin-writer‟, fine-tipped/fountain pen];

b) semantically exocentric – metaphtonymy –cuing, selection, integration via explication and

abstraction – блюдолизец [blyudolizets, „plate-

licker‟, lickspittle]; броненосец [bronenosets,

„armour-bearer‟, battleship/armadillo].

Frame metonymy suffixal nominal

compounds I (endocentric)

Suffix - the categorial head. Assigns the

onomasiological type of the whole via

inferential metonymy.

мореплавател [moreplavatel, ‘sea-sail-

er’, seafarer/sailor]

frame-based PATH core component

metonymic explication

suffix-triggered inferential metonymy

Frame metonymy suffixed compounds II

(exocentric)

рогоносец [rogonostes, ‘horn-wearer’,

cuckold]

*nosets - not a legitimate lexical item

frame-based THEME/THING WORN

core component metonymic

explication

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS

suffix-associated inferential metonymy

чревоугодник [chrevougodnik, ‘intestine-

fawner/toady, glutton] – a person who

indulges in eating and drinking high quality

foods and drinks, lit. a person who panders

their intestines

frame-based BENEFICIARY/FAWNEE

core component explication

HUMAN ORGANS ARE HUMANS

suffix – triggered inferential metonymy

Frame metonymy suffixed compounds II

(exocentric)

[X V]V

a) semantically endocentric - pure metonymy -

cuing, selection, integration via explication –кръводарявам [kravodaryavam, ‘blood-

donate‟, donate blood]; водоснабдявам[vodosnabdyavam, „water-supply,‟ supply with water];

b) semantically exocentric - metaphtonymy -

cuing, selection, integration via explication and

abstraction – лицемеря [litsemerya, ‘face-

measure‟, act hypocritically]; ръкополагам[rakopolagam, „hand-place‟, ordain]; creation of a

new unperspectivized frame.

Frame metonymy compound

verbs I (endocentric)

i) водоснабдявам [vodosnabdyavam,

‘water-supply’, supply with water]

frame-based THEME/SUPPLY core

component explication

ii) бракосъчетавам [brakosachetavam, ‘marriage-

unite’, marry/wed]

frame-based WHOLE core component

explication

Frame metonymy compound

verbs II (exocentric i)

ръкополагам [rakopolgam, ‘hand-place’, ordain]

frame-based THEME/PLACEE core component

explication

PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES ARE SYMBOLIC ACTS

Novel unperspectivized frame is created – ORDAIN,

with core frame elements: Member, Object ,

Instrument, Guardian, Leader, Desired State and New

Status

Frame metonymy compound

verbs II (exocentric ii)

главоблъскам се [glavoblaskam se, ‘head-

jostle self’, strain one’s brain/worry]

frame-based THEME/JOSTLEE core

component explication

EMOTIONS ARE PHYSICAL SENSATIONS

/ACTIVITIES

Novel frame is created – WORRY, with core

frame elements: Experiencer, Topic,

Manner, Degree, Means, Result

Summary I Irrespective of the fact whether and to what extent

metaphor is involved in the meaning of verbocentric

compounds in Bulgarian, frame element foregrounding

based on conceptual contiguity is always involved as a

formal cognitive operation.

“Coming now to the conceptual level, we can claim that

every concept designated by a given lexical item appears

as a figure in relation to (at least) another contiguous

concept that - for the time being - remains the ground

within the same frame. […] certain pragmatic, conceptual

or emotional factors may highlight the ground concept so

that figure and ground become” (Koch 2005: 152)

integrated in the profile of the new lexical concept and

start to designate the specific event/referent.

Summary II

Bulgarian verbocentric compounds:

A) pure frame-metonymies (cuing,

selection and integration via explication) –

semantically endocentric;

B) frame metonymy + abstraction

(content metaphors, metonymies, irony,

etc.) – semantically exocentric.

Selected References I Barcelona, A. (2003). Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a few modest

proposals. In Cuyckens, H., Berg, Th., Dirven, R. & Panther, K. (Eds.), Motivation in

Language. Studies in Honour of Günter Radden (223-255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing House.

Barsalou, L. & Hale, Ch. (1993) Components of conceptual representation: From

feature lists to recursive frames. In Van Mechelen, I. , Hampton, J., Michalski, R. &

Theuns, P. (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis

(97–144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Barsalou, L., Wenchi, Y., Luka, B., Olseth, Mix, K., & Wu, L. (1993) Concepts and

Meaning. In K. Beals, K., Cooke, G., Kathman, D., McCullough, K., Kita, S. & D. Testen,

D. (Eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society 29: Papers from the parasession on conceptual

representations (pp. 23-61). University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Barsalou, L., Yeh, W., Luka, B., & Olseth, K. (1993). Concepts and Meaning. Retrieved

from

http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/barsalou/papers/Barsalou_et_al._chap_1993_

concepts_meaning.pdf.

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Benczes, R. (2004) Analysing exocentric compounds in English: a case for

creativity. In The Even Yearbook 6 ELTE SEAS Working Papers in Linguistics.

Selected References II Benczes, R. (2006) Creative Compounding in English. John Benjamin Publishing

Company.

Costello, F. (2002). Investigating creative language: People‟s choice of words in the

production of novel noun-noun compounds. Proceedings of the 24th Annual

Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 232–237. Available at

http://www.csi.ucd.ie/staff/fcostello/ papers/Costello2002a.pdf.

Evans, V. (2006). Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning-Construction.

Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (4), 491–534.

Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning

Construction. Oxford University Press.

Farrell, P. (2001). Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language and

Linguistics, 5, 109–130.

Fillmore, Ch. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di

Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.

Fillmore, Ch. (2006). Frame semantics. In Geeraerts, D. (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics. Basic

readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Selected References III FrameNet Available at https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/. Copyright 2000–

2011, International Computer Science Institute.

Goldberg, A. (2010). Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. In M. Rappaport

Hovav, & Sichel, I. (Eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure, (pp. 39–58).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goossens, L. (2003). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in

expressions for linguistic action. In Dirven, R. & Pörings, R. (Eds.), Metaphor and

Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 349–377). Berlin and New York: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Janda, L. (2011) Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2): 359-392.

Koch, P. (2005) Frame and Contiguity: On the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and

Certain Types of Word-formation. In Panther, K. & Radden, G. (Eds.) Metonymy in

Language and Thought (pp. 139–167). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing House.

Kövesces, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view.

Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 37–77.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1981). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University

Press.

Selected References IV

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its

Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Langacker, R. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites.

Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, Image, Symbol. Berlin and New York: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford/New York:

Oxford University Press.

Onysko, A. (2010). Casting the conceptual spotlight: Hybrid compounding in German

as an example of head-frame internal specifier selection. In Onysko, A. & Michel, S.

(Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Word-formation (pp. 243–300). Berlin and New York:

De Gruyter Mouton.

Onysko, A. & Michel, S. (2010). Introduction: Unravelling the cognitive in word

formation. In Onysko, A. & Michel, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Word-formation

(pp. 1–25). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.

Peirsman, Y. & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive

Linguistics 17 (3), 269–316.

Selected References V Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamin Publishing House.

Radden, G. & Kövesces, (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In In Panther, K. &

Radden, G. (Eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought (17–59).

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing House.

Schmid, H. (2007). Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In Geeraerts, D. &

Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (117–138). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Steen, G. (2011). Metaphor in language and thought: How do we map the field? In

Brdar, M., Gries, St. & Fuchs, M. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion

(67–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing House.

Štekauer, P. (2005) Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and

Lieber, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation (207-232). Berlin: Springer.

Taylor, John, R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language. A Usage Based Theory of Language

Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.