Metonymic and metaphoric mappings in morphology: a case study

1. Metonymic and metaphoric mappings in morphology: a case study Lampropoulou Martha PhD candidateSchool of EnglishThessaloniki Cognitive Linguistics Reading GroupAristotle University 25-04-2014

2. Questionnaire You are asked to choose the definition that first comes to your mind when you read the following words Bossify 1) To make someone the boss 2) To be in charge of something 3) To treat someone like s/he is the boss/ think highly of someone 4) 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 • Raddenand 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 part Participants: 51 Czech participants 130 German participants University students Age: 20-30 years old Material: online questionnaire via email Duration: 7-10 minutes Material: 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 ‘makelook 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 Perfumize 1) To make or produce a perfume 2) To spray with perfume 3) To wear too much perfume 4) To create a pleasant atmosphere Czech participants German participants • 4 11 • 26 74 • 7 10 • 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 2 Bossify 1) To make someone the boss 2) To be in charge of something 3) To treat someone like s/he is the boss/ think highly of someone 4) To be busy because of many responsibilities Czech participants German participants • 17 49 • 9 12 • 24 66 • 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 3 Cookdom 1) Being a cook 2) The realm or kingdom of cooks/ where they cook 3) The staff of a restaurant (chefs, sous-chefs) 4) Having excellent knowledge and dexterity in terms of cooking Czech participants German participants • 1 14 • 38 67 • 5 19 • 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 4 Academyship 1) The quality or condition of being a member of an institution of learning, a university 2) All people who work in an institution, university 3) The premises, buildings, laboratories, parking lots that belong to a university campus or institution 4) The manner of being picky and sophisticated Czech participants German participants • 21 84 • 23 31 • 6 7 • 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 5 Orchestrahood 1) Being a highly talented music group 2) A fellowship of musicians who play musical instruments 3) All musicians who participate in a live performance 4) An area where musicians give their performance Czech participants German participants • 1 6 • 37 71 • 4 18 • 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 • HamawandZ. 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 PérezHernández (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication 21 (2001) 321–357.

24. Thank you for your attention!