Cover not available
Part of
Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
Edited by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona and Rossella Pannain
[Human Cognitive Processing 60] 2018
► pp. 261–286

Chapter 10
Are smartphone face and Googleheads a real or a fake phenomenon?

The current role of metonymy in semantic exocentricity

 | Universidad de Córdoba
This paper seeks to provide evidence of the pervasiveness of metonymy as a resource triggering the creation of examples of a remnant category in morphological research, so-called ‘exocentric’ compounds. Exocentricity is not a homogeneous phenomenon in English, where it is typically represented by bahuvrihi compounds, which refer to an entity via a salient property on the basis of the metonymy part for whole. This research starts up with the collection of a corpus of over 300 English compounds with a body-part noun as the right component. As a result of the search, some regions of productivity will be shown to exist, not only by the creation of new instantiations of existing patterns but also by the emergence of new subtypes.
Keywords: bahuvrihi compounds, body-part nouns, exocentricity, metonymy, possessive compounds, productivity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Exocentricity in English?
  • 3.The scope of this work: Semantic exocentricity
  • 4.Methodology and discussion
    • 4.1Possessive compounds
      • 4.1.1The case of -head formations
      • 4.1.2Other body-part formations
    • 4.2Ailment descriptors
      • 4.2.1‘Diagnosis’ compounds
      • 4.2.2‘Symptomatic’ compounds
      • 4.2.3Personality traits
    • 4.3Other inanimate formations
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 17 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.10por
References (29)
References
Barcelona, A. 2008. The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of ‘bahuvrihi’ compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 208–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 2008. Exocentric compounds. Morphology, 18, 51–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. The typology of exocentric compounding. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (167–176). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R. 2013. On the non-viability of the endocentric-exocentric distinction: Evidence from linguistic creativity. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics 1(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K. 1889. GrundiΒ der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen II. Strassburg, 2nd edn.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. 1977. Inhaltliche Wortbildungslehre (am Beispiel des Typs coupe-papier). In H. E. Brekle & D. Kastovsky (Eds.), Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung (46–61). Bonn: Grundmann.Google Scholar
Damaso, J., & Cotter, C. 2007. UrbanDictionary.com: Online dictionaries as emerging archives of contemporary usage and collaborative lexicography. English Today 90 23(2), 19–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 1990–2012. The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].
Dressler, W. U. 2006. Compound types. In G. Libben, & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (23–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guevara, E., & Scalise, S. 2009. Searching for universals in compounding. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals in language today (101–128). Dordrecht: Springer DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (Eds.), 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1909–1949. A modern English grammar on historical principles I–VII. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Killingley, S. Y., & Killingley, D. 1995. Sanskrit. München and Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Standford CA: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Bom Yoon, Y., & Sandra, D. 2003. Compound fracture: the role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. 1969. The categories and types of present day English word formation. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & ‎Barcelona, A. 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petersen, W. 1914–1915. Der Ursprung der Exozentrika. IF 34: 254–285.Google Scholar
Plag, I. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portero-Muñoz, C. 2014. A constructional approach to transitional formatives: The use of -head in so-called ‘exocentric’ formations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(1): 160–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G. 2005. The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando, & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (11–28). Castelló (Spain): Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Ryder, M. E. 1994. Ordered chaos: The interpretation of English noun-noun compounds. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Scalise, S., & Guevara, E. 2006. Exocentric compounding in a typological framework. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2, 185–206.Google Scholar
Smith, Rachel E. 2011. Urban dictionary: youth slanguage and the redefining of definition. English Today, 27, 43–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Barcelona, Antonio
2024. Trends in cognitive-linguistic research on metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.