Onomaziologické přístupy ke slovotvorbě



Petr Kos – Jana Kozubíková




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.


onomasiology, word-formation, naming unit, onomasiological model


onomaziologie, slovotvorba, pojmenování, onomaziologický model




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

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.

Úvod > 2020.1.1