Going Back to Metaphtonymy in Neologism

Abstract

Goossens (1990) first demonstrated that metaphor and metonymy interact in a single unit, called metaphtonymy. Following the pioneering work, researchers, including Ruiz de Mendoza (1997) and Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez Velasco (2002) discovered that there are more types of conceptual complexes other than metaphtonymy, such as metaphoric amalgam and metonymic amalgam. Furthermore, Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa (2011) rejected three of the four metaphtonymy types Goossens suggested and argued that one more type of conceptual complexes has to be added in order to interpret phrasal verbs, namely metaphoric chains. This paper aims to investigate whether Korean and English new words exploit various types of conceptual complexes and whether any of the other types of metaphtonymy, that Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez Velasco (2002) rejected, is observed in the interpretation of the new words. The result shows that Korean and English neologisms do make use of all types of conceptual complexes and the result partly supports Goossens (1990) in that metaphor within metonymy type metaphtonymy, rejected by Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera-Masegosa (2011), is required for interpretation of new words.