Cover not available
Article published In:
Lexical semantics towards the big-data era
Edited by Meichun Liu and Chunyu Kit
[Chinese Language and Discourse 14:1] 2023
► pp. 100–120

Meaning construal and meaning conventionalization of Chinese [X+body part] metonymic compounds from the perspective of cognitive pragmatics

 | Peking University
It is common for “body part” nouns to refer to other concepts through metonymy operations in a specific context to produce new meanings in many languages. Some compound words formed by body part nouns as morphemes can also refer to other concepts through metonymy operations, and the degree of conventionalization varies. This study firstly defines the degrees of conventionalization of the target compound words–Chinese [X+body part] metonymic compounds, and divides them into three types: conventionalized, half-conventionalized, and inconventionalized. Then, from the perspective of cognitive pragmatics, this study uses an integrated analysis model of cognitive linguistics and Relevance Theory to analyze the meaning inferential process of metonymic compounds with different degrees of conventionalization. This study has found similarities and differences among them. The similarity is that both speakers and hearers need to achieve “optimal relevance” in the process and the difference is that the lower degree of conventionalization of the compound, the more complicated the meaning inferential process is. Lastly, on the basis of the inferential process, this study summarizes four factors that affect the conventionalization of metonymic compounds: time of word formation, salience of metonymy, clarity of word-forming motivation and contextual support, among which contextual support is the most crucial factor.
Keywords: meaning inference, “body part” nouns, conventionalization, metonymic compounds, relevance theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The integrated analysis model of cognitive linguistics and relevance theory
  • 3.Meaning inference of metonymic compounds based on relevance theory
    • 3.1Three types of metonymic compounds with different degrees of conventionalization
    • 3.2Inferential process for compounds of different conventionalization degrees
      • 3.2.1Inferential process of conventionalized compounds
      • 3.2.2Inferential process of half-conventionalized compounds
      • 3.2.3Inferential process of inconventionalized compounds
  • 4.Factors influencing the conventionalization of metonymic compounds
    • 4.1The time when the metonymic compounds are formed
    • 4.2Salience of metonymy
    • 4.3Clarity of word-forming motivations
    • 4.4Contextual support
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.21014.li
References (34)
References
Carmen, Portero-Muñoz. 2015. “Are smartphone face and Googleheads a real or a fake phenomenon?” In Conceptual Metonymy, Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues, ed. by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona, and Rossella Pannain, 261–286. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Carson, Robyn. 1988. “Implicature, explicature and truth- theoretic semantics”. Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality ed. by Ruth M. Kempson, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: Pragmatics of Explicit Communication, Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dictionary Editing Office of the Institute of Linguistics (eds). 2016. Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Modern Chinese Dictionary (seventh edition), Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick. C. and Richard, Schmitt. 1998. “Rules or association in the acquisition of morphology – the frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax”, Language and Cognitive Processes, 131, 307–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick. C. 2002. “Frequency effects in language processing and acquisition”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 241, 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Birong. 2013. “On metaphorical properties of acceptation of body terms and its projection braking”, Foreign Language Research (6), 39–42.Google Scholar
Jiang, Xiaohong. 2011. “Research on cognitive pragmatic mechanism of metonymic word understanding – the integrated analysis model of relevance theory and cognitive”, Linguistics Modern Foreign Languages (1).Google Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo. 2008. “Much mouth much tongue: Chinese metonymies and metaphors of verbal behavior”, Cognitive Linguistics 19(2), 241–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch. 2013. “The pervasiveness of congruity and metonymy in semantic change”, In Current methods in historical semantics, ed. by Kathryn Allan and Justyna A. Robinson, 259–311. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mounton.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán and Günter, Radden. 1998. “Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view”, Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 37–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark, Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. “Reference-point constructions”, Cognitive Linguistics 4(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Jiapan. 2019. “Research on procedure and mechanism of semantic construal for [N+N] morphological words in Contemporary Chinese”, Language Teaching and Research (5), 92–102.Google Scholar
Riemer, Nick. 2003. “When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy”. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast ed. by Driven, Rene and Porings, Ralf, 297–403. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shi, Chunhong. 2010. “Web Language as a language Variety and a Linguistic Issue”, Applied Linguistics (3), 70–80.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance Theory: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wang, Ning. 1997. “Exegetics and the Structure and Meaning of Chinese Disyllabic Words”, Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (4), 11–22.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Robyn, Carson. 2006. “Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue”, Mind & Language (21), 404–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan, Sperber. 2002. Relevance Theory, In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by L. Horn and G. Ward. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, Edward J. and Bradley C. Love. 1998. “Relations versus properties in conceptual combination”, Journal of Memory and Language 38(2), 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Hui. and Hui, Cai. 2005. “On the Complementarities of Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory”, Journals of Foreign Languages (3), 14–21.Google Scholar
Zhao, Qian. 2007. Research on Rules of Lexical Semantic Change and Cognitive Motivation of Chinese Body Nouns. PhD dissertation, Beijing Language and Culture University.
. 2020. “The semantic structure and motivation of word formation of ‘V+N’ of Chinese modifying compound words, Chinese Teaching in the World, 2020(2), 201–214.Google Scholar
Zhou, Jian. 2009. New Chinese Words 2008, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. New Chinese Words 2009, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. New Chinese Words 2012, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. New Chinese Words 2014, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. New Chinese Words 2015, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. New Chinese Words 2016, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
. 2018. New Chinese Words 2017, Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar