See current and past issues in our e-shop
Enter e-shop
ČASOPIS PRO MODERNÍ FILOLOGII 2020 (102) 1
ABSTRACT (en)
The paper aims to offer a description of major onomasiological theories of word-formation. It mainly focuses on the purely synchronic approaches of Dokulil (1962) and Štekauer (1998). A comparative analysis shows that although these approaches are perceived as part of the same onomasiological tradition, they differ in a number of major aspects and should thus be seen as fully autonomous theories. In order to provide a full account of the major onomasiological approaches to word-formation, the paper also describes the most important aspects of those that are on the borderline between word-formation, diachronic onomasiology, and lexicology, those by Blank (1997) and Koch (2001). In the conclusion of the paper, we suggest possible directions which further research in onomasiology may take.
KEYWORDS (en)
onomasiology, word-formation, naming unit, onomasiological model
KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA (cs)
onomaziologie, slovotvorba, pojmenování, onomaziologický model
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14712/23366591.2020.1.1
REFERENCES
Barcelona, A. (2003): On the plauzibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In: A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2008): The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of “bahuvrihi” compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6, s. 208–281.
Berlin, B. (1992): Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals
in Traditional Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beard, R. (1995): Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. New York: State University of New York Press.
Blank, A. (1997): Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen
Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Blank, A. (2001): Words and concepts in time: Towards diachronic cognitive onomasiology.
Metaphorik.de, 1, 6–25.
Blevins, J. P. (2016): Word and Paradigm Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bonami, O., Strnadová, J. (2018): Paradigm structure and predictability in derivational
morphology. Morphology, Springer, s. 1–31.
Booij, G. (2010): Construction Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1,
s. 1–13.
Dokulil, M. (1962): Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: ČAV.
Dokulil, M. (1986): III Tvoření slov. In: J. Petr a kol., Mluvnice češtiny 1. Praha: Academia.
Fernández-Domínguez, J. (2019): The onomasiological approach. In: M. Aronoff (ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (2002): The scope of diachronic onomasiology. In: V. Agel — A. Gardt — U. Hass-Zumkehr — T. Roelcke (red.), Das Wort. Seine strukturelle und kulturelle Dimension. Festschrift für Oskar Reichmann zum 65. Geburtstag, s. 29–44. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Grzega, J. (2002). Some thoughts on a cognitive onomasiological approach to wordformation with special reference to English. Onomasiology Online, 3, s. 55–81 [www.onomasiology.de].
Horecký, J. (1983): Vývin a teória jazyka. Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateĺstvo.
Horecký, J. a kol. (1989): Dynamika slovnej zásoby súčasnej slovenčiny. Bratislava: Veda.
Jedlička, A. (1962): Základní práce o tvoření slov v češtině. Naše řeč, 45, 9–10, s. 298–305.
Koch, P. (2001): Bedeutungswandel und Bezeichnungswandel: Von der kognitiven
Semasiologie zur kognitiven Onomasiologie. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und
Linguistik, 121, s. 7–36.
Lakoff, G. (1992). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In: A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and
thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Panocová, R. (2015): Categories of word formation and borrowing: An onomasiological account ofneoclassical formations. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Rosch, E. (2002): Principles of categorization. In: D. J. Levitin (ed.), Foundations of cognitive
psychology: Core readings. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Štekauer, P. (1996): A Theory of Conversion in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Štekauer, P. (1998): An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Štekauer, P. (2001). Fundamental Principles of an Onomasiological Theory of English Word
Formation. Onomasiology Online, 2, s. 1–42 [www.onomasiology.de].
Štekauer, P. (2016): Compounding from an onomasiological perspective. In: P. ten
Hacken (ed.), The semantics of compounding, s. 54–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Štekauer, P., Chapman, D., Tomaščíková, S. & Franko, Š. (2005): Word-Formation as
Creativity within Productivity Constraints: Sociolinguistic Evidence. Onomasiology Online,
6, s. 1–55 [www.onomasiology.de].
Ureña, J. M., Faber, P. (2010): Reviewing imagery in resemblance and nonresemblance metaphors. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 1, s. 123–149.
Van Marle, J. (1984): On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996): Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
