1

Metonymic and metaphoric mappings in morphology: a case study

Lampropoulou MarthaPhD candidateSchool of EnglishThessaloniki Cognitive Linguistics Reading GroupAristotle University25-04-2014

2

Questionnaire

You are asked to choose the definition that first comes to your mind when you read the following words

Bossify1) To make someone the boss2) To be in charge of something3) To treat someone like s/he is the boss/ think

highly of someone4) To be busy because of many responsibilities

3

Objectives•conceptual metonymic and metaphoric

relationships between noun and verb-forming suffixes

•whether speakers relate a particular suffix with a scenario

•a preference towards a literal or figurative interpretation

4

Theoretical background Lakoff (1987): member of a category for the whole category

Gibbs (1994): metaphor and metonymy are grounded in experience

Ruiz de Mendoza and Pérez (2001): grammatical metonymy is a high level metonymy; through a source entity we are metonymically led to a target

Radden and Kövecses (1999: 17-59) metonymy occurs when an Idealized Cognitive Model is activated.

ICMs involve any possible associations stimulated in our mind

Prerequisites for productivity are taken into account such as a. type frequency b. semantic coherence and the ability to build new forms (Bauer 2001, Plag 2003)

5

Experimental partParticipants: 51 Czech participants 130 German participants University students Age: 20-30 years oldMaterial: online questionnaire via email

Duration: 7-10 minutesMaterial: non existent words with the verb suffixes –ize

and –ify, and the nominal suffixes –hood, -ship and -dom

Pilot study: 20 participants, university students

6

Possible words •Bossify•Childify•Gossipize•Silverize•Perfumize•Cookdom•Farmdom•Orchestrahood •Dragonhoood etc.

7

-ize (Marchand, 1969) • recorded in Old Greek - both transitive and intransitive verbs• the group of transitive verbs is the stronger one

• The prinicipal semantic types with transitive verbs are the following:

a) legalize ‘render, make …..’ (the regular type with deadjectival verbs)b) itemize ‘convert into, put into the form of, give the character or shape

of ….’ As in dramatize, editorialize, fictionize, picturize, satirize, methodize, monopolize, systematize, motorize, robotize, unitize.

c) Propagandize ‘subject to the action, treatment, process of……’, as in hospitalize, radiumize, scrutinize, terrorize

8

-ify• Is ultimately Latin –ificare from the same root as facare

“make”

• English loans from French ended in –ify, as amplify, certify, adify, glorify, magnify, modify, purify, rectify, sanctify, verify

• Derived from native substantives are beautify, fishify, (16th century), countrified, ladify, steelify, stonify, (17th century), chiefly used contemptuously since about 1700, with the implication ‘make look like, give the (undesirable) appearance of –‘, as monkeyfy, speechify

9

-hood• Is today a suffix, but was like –dom an independent world

in Old English, hād meaning ‘state, rank, order, condition, character’

• The current meaning of derivatives is ‘status of…’ Nationhood (1850) and statehood (1868) joined this

group.

• With the nuance ‘time, period’ of the respective state occur babyhood, boyhood, childhood, girlhood.

• Other words may denote a concrete collective body, as brotherhood, ladyhood, maidenhood, manhood, priesthood, sisterhood.

10

- dom• is a suffix which has congeners in all Germanic languages

except Gothic.

• In Old English it was a full substantive (dōm) with the meaning ‘juridiction, state, statute’ which formed compounds with adjectival first-words, such as frēodōm (freedom).

• In Middle English the suffix developed the sense ‘territory’ with a few words, as dukedom, earldom, kingdom

• The suffix is productive in American English. It may be that the influence of German has played a role (compare also AE –fest which is likewise due to German influence), the influence of German is clearly to be seen in translation loans such as Manchesterdom 1882, junkerdom (frequent in World War I)

11

-ship• forms denominal substantives, chiefly from personal nouns, with

the basic meaning ‘state, condition’. The suffix goes back to OE –scipe, scype and has parallels in other Germanic languages.

• the suffix conveys the abstract meaning ‘state, condition of…, being…’.

• . often including the connotation of position, as in fellowship, headmastership, postmastership, scholarship,

• in later use more often “function, office”, as in speakership 1653, editorship, trusteeship (both 18th century), ‘position, role’, as in leadership 1834,

12

Example 1

Perfumize1) To make or produce a perfume2) To spray with perfume3) To wear too much perfume4) To create a pleasant atmosphere

Czech participants German participants

1) 4 112) 26 743) 7 104) 14 37

13

Observations

•Perfume + -ize

•1st preference = to spray with perfume

•2nd preference = speakers relate the qualities of perfume with a possible scenario denoted by the verb, metonymic use of the root.

Perfume = pleasant atmosphere

14

Example 2Bossify1) To make someone the boss2) To be in charge of something3) To treat someone like s/he is the boss/ think

highly of someone4) To be busy because of many responsibilities

Czech participants German participants1) 17 492) 9 123) 24 664) 1 5

15

Observations•Boss + -ify

•1st preference = to treat sb like a boss, speakers relate the qualities of boss with a possible scenario denoted by the verb, metaphoric use of the root.

•2nd preference = to make someone the

boss (make/ turn into meaning)

16

Example 3Cookdom1) Being a cook2) The realm or kingdom of cooks/ where they cook3) The staff of a restaurant (chefs, sous-chefs) 4) Having excellent knowledge and dexterity in

terms of cooking

Czech participants German participants1) 1 142) 38 673) 5 194) 7 32

17

Observations•Cook + dom

•1st preference = the realm of cooks, the territory,

‼People for place •2nd preference = having excellent

knowledge and dexterity in terms of cooking, shifting away from the individual

‼The qualities for the person

18

Example 4Academyship1) The quality or condition of being a member of an

institution of learning, a university2) All people who work in an institution, university3) The premises, buildings, laboratories, parking lots

that belong to a university campus or institution4) The manner of being picky and sophisticated

Czech participants German participants1) 21 842) 23 313) 6 74) 1 10

19

Observations •Academy + ship

•1st preference = condition of being a member of an institution of learning, a university

‼status

•2nd preference = All people who work in an institution, university

‼collectivity

20

Example 5Orchestrahood1) Being a highly talented music group2) A fellowship of musicians who play musical

instruments3) All musicians who participate in a live performance4) An area where musicians give their performance

Czech participants German participants1) 1 6 2) 37 713) 4 18 4) 9 23

21

Observations•Orchestra + hood

•1st preference = A fellowship of musicians who play musical instruments

‼collectivity

•2nd preference = An area where musicians give their performance

•‼place for people

22

Conclusion• More specifically, examining the productivity of

words, it can be argued that “a suffix forms a network of senses subsumed under a schema, a pattern which represents an outline of a suffix”

(Hamawand 2011)

• The base can affect the suffix in that it can lead to different imagistic metaphorical/ metonymic interpretations.

• There are tendencies towards both a literal and figurative meaning

23

References• Bauer L 2001 Morphological Productivity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

• Hamawand Z. 2011. Morphology in English: Word Formation in Cognitive Grammar. India: Continuum International Publishing Group.

• Gibbs W. R. Jr. (1993: 258-259) Gibbs, Raymond W, Jr. Processes and products in making sense of tropes. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Second edition. 252-276.

• Lakoff G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

• Marchand Hans (1969), The categories and types of Present- Day Englsih Word Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Munchen: C:H:Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

• Kövecses , Z. And Radden, G. (1999). Towards a theory of Metonymy In Metonymy in Language and Though. Volume 4. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

• Plag, I 1999 Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.

• Ruiz de Mentoza and Pérez Hernández (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication 21 (2001) 321–357.

24

Thank you for your attention!