Hide
Show all
Email this article In Search of Metonymic Motivation for Semantic Change: The Case of Words with Remarkable Origins
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to account for the semantics of selected terms of Germanic, Romance and Arabic origin with surprising origins, referred to by the editors of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as the “top ten words with remarkable origins”, which initially referred to objects, animals, places and later started to be employed figuratively in various human- and nonhuman-related contexts. The theoretical framework adopted in the research embraces such tools offered by Cognitive Linguistics as conceptual metaphor and metonymy. The paper attempts to explain the conceptual motivation behind the semantics of the targeted terms and the results of the research conducted may be said to corroborate not only the conceptual nature of metaphors/metonymies as such but also their impact on social cognition.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Allan, K. (2014). An inquest into metaphor death: Exploring the loss of literal senses of conceptual metaphors. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 291–311. DOI:10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.291.
Allan, K. (2015). Lost in transmission? The sense development of borrowed metaphor. In J. E. Diaz Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures (pp. 31–50). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110335453.31.
Barcelona, A. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & F. J. Sandra Pena Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Brdar, M. (2015). Metonymic chains and synonymy. Fluminensia, 27(2), 83–101.
Fass, D. (1991). met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational linguistics, 17, 49–90.
Flavell, L., & Flavel, R. (1993). Dictionary of word origins. London: Kyle Cathie Ltd.
Hilpert, M. (2007). Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective on body-part terms. In G. Radden, K.-M. Kopcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 77–98). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/z.136.07hil.
Kiełtyka, R. (2018). The semantic scope of English animal-specific surnames. Linguistica silesiana, 39, 153–170.
Kiełtyka, R., & Grząśko, A. (2022). In search of cognitive motivation for semantic change: The case of words that originate from body parts. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, 7(2), 87–108.
Koch, P. (2012). The pervasiveness of contiguity and metonymy in semantic change. In A. Kathryn, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp. 259–312). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110252903.259.
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001.
Kövecses, Z. (2017a). Conceptual metaphor theory. In E. Semino, & Z. Demjén (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Metaphor (pp. 13–27). London, New York: Routledge.
Kövecses, Z. (2017b). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. DOI: 10.1515/cog-2016-0052.
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108859127.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107338814.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (M-W). Retrieved August 10, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/.
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D.D. (2001). Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of historical pragmatics, 2, 245–272.
Online dictionary. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.indifferentlanguages.com.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Retrieved August 10, 2022, from https://www.oed.com/.
Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. Retrieved August 14, 2022, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/.
Paradis, C. (2011). Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. In A. Barcelona, R. Benczes, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), What is metonymy? An attempt at building a consensus view on the delimitation of the notion of metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1Dictionary22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hcp.28.04par.
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–316. DOI: 10.1515/COG.2006.007.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad.
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2008). Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: Volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 121–152). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Traugott, E. C. (2012) Pragmatics and language change. In A. Keith, & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 549–565). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/lsmll.2023.47.1.83-96
Date of publication: 2023-03-17 10:37:09
Date of submission: 2022-11-16 23:12:23
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Robert Kiełtyka
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.