Metonymy and metaphor in Bulgarian compounds

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 comprehensive and consistent descriptions of individual wordformation 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 I VCC 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/wagtail, 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, roadwrite, 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, platelicker, 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-sailer, 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

Frame metonymy suffixed compounds II (exocentric) чревоугодник [chrevougodnik, intestinefawner/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

[X V]V a) semantically endocentric - pure metonymy - cuing, selection, integration via explication кръводарявам [kravodaryavam, blooddonate, donate blood]; водоснабдявам [vodosnabdyavam, water-supply, supply with water]; b) semantically exocentric - metaphtonymy - cuing, selection, integration via explication and abstraction лицемеря [litsemerya, facemeasure, 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, marriageunite, 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, headjostle 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.