Margarida Basilio, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro
Metonymy in Word Formation: Agent Nouns and Denominal Verbs
In this paper, I will argue that the connection of morphological patterns to metonymy is fundamental to the efficiency of the
lexicon. I will focus on agent noun and denominal verb formation and claim that both constructions involve metonymic patterns.
From a cognitive point of view, the lexicon can be defined as a set of symbolic forms we use in speech and writing. This set is expansible, according to our conceptual and communicational needs. Word-formation patterns optimize lexical expansion: they
are essential for the efficiency of the lexicon as a symbol storage system which requires immediate lexical access in order to
provide immediate communication.
Metonymy is crucial to lexical efficiency. Under a conceptual view of metonymy, “a conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides
mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same idealized cognitive model.” (Radden & Kovecses 1999:21). According to Langacker, metonymy is so prevalent because it is basically a reference point phenomenon, that is, the entity represented by the metonymic expression “serves as a reference point affording mental access to the desired target.” (2000:199). Metonymy is thus fundamental for an efficient lexicon: as we can mentally access a conceptual entity by means of another, we
can neutralize the immediate lexical access and communication problem. We now turn to the relevance of metonymy in agent
noun and denominal verb formation.
Traditionally, agent noun formation is syntactically described; but the adequacy of syntactic analyses for agent nouns is illusory,
as shown by Panther and Thornburg (2003), among others. In professional agent nouns, for instance, we have the cognitive model of the professional market, which establishes a structure of functions and categories. The reference to a worker is not made just by
what one does; rather, the ICM of the work market determines which activity can stand for the acts performed in a given
profession or agent role; this activity is represented by the verb in a morphological [[X]v Y]n agent noun construction.
For instance, painter is connected to two different cognitive models (with different acts, stereotypes, etc.), the one of the art
market and the one of house finishing; the social role student is accessed by means of the verb to study, but what characterizes a
student is not studying, but being enrolled; etc. So, in agent noun formation a morphological pattern connects to a metonymic
model.
Denominal verbs were studied by Clark & Clark (1979), who claimed that they could not be understood out of a specific context;
and by Aronoff (1980), who argued that, on the contrary, the fundamental elements to their interpretation were in linguistic
structure. Denominal verb formation, however, seems to be more adequately described by means of an association of
morphological patterns with metonymic patterns. A denominal verb denotes a process specified by the noun. That is, the basic
noun is a reference point for the act represented by the verb. For instance, to mother is a verb whose meaning is crucially
provided by the noun mother: we use the noun representing the social role to label the act(s). In the same way, to hammer is an
act crucially denoted by the noun hammer: we use the noun representing the instrument to label the gestalt of acts
corresponding to the use of the instrument. In other words, interpreting denominal verb constructions is directly involved with connecting morphological patterns with metonymic patterns such as ROLE FOR ACT, INSTRUMENT FOR ACT.
In the paper, I will present a more detailed analysis of the interaction between morphological patterns and metonymic models,
using examples of word formation in English and Brazilian Portuguese.
References
ARONOFF, Mark (1980) Contextuals. Language v.56, n.4: 744-58.
CLARK, Eve &Herbert CLARK (1979) When Nouns Surface as Verbs. Language
v.55, n.4: 767-811.
LANGACKER, Ronald (2000) Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
PANTHER, Klaus-Uwe & Linda THORNBURG. 2003. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in
English –er nominals. In R.Dirvens & R. Pörings, eds., Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast, 279-319. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
RADDEN, Gunter & Zoltán KOVECSES (1999) Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In:
Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden (eds) Metonymy in Language and Thought.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
