The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 69 ppsx

chapter 25

WORD-FORMATION

friedrich ungerer
1. Introduction

Word-formation is one of those linguistic terms that may be unsatisfactory on
a more theoretical level, but that are immensely useful when one tries to survey
processes of extending the lexicon. Loosely defined as ‘‘creating new words from
existing words,’’
1
word-formation ranges from prefixation and suffixation (where it
overlaps with inflectional morphology in the use of bound morphemes; see Janda,
this volume, chapter 24) to processes not even reflected in the phonological form
of the item involved (e.g., conversion); there, word-formation borders on purely
semantic processes of metaphor and metonymy (Lipka 2002: 108–9). Between these
two extremes may be placed the many ways in which words can be combined, fused,
and condensed (as in compounds, lexical blends, back-formations, clippings, and
acronyms). Since English is one of the languages that makes use of all these pro-
cesses, mostly English examples will be chosen for illustrative purposes, but it
should be kept in mind that some of the processes, in particular affixation, are much
more widespread and more differentiated in other languages.
However, the relative sparseness of affixal processes in English has not kept
structuralist linguistics from approaching English word-formation within the frame-
work of a morphological analysis focused on the segmentation of free and bound
morphemes (with the emphasis on the latter), adding zero forms to include con-
version (dirty adj. ? dirty verb), back-derivation (baby-sitt(er) n. þ Ø ? baby-sit
verb) and bahuvrihi compounds (laptop þ Ø ? laptop computer) and only grudg-
ingly admitting that blends, acronyms, and other ‘‘irregular forms’’ did not re-
ally lend themselves to this kind of interpretation. The relationship between

the constituent elements of word-formation items (i.e., the items that result from
word-formation processes) was first interpreted as a hierarchy of immediate con-
stituents based on a modifier-head relationship; later, underlying syntactic struc-
tures were used to explain derivatives, especially compounds, and when this method
was found insufficient for many noun-noun compounds, semantic argument
structure was introduced as an analytical tool (e.g., in Levi 1978).
Another long-standing aim of word-formation research has been the establish-
ment of a set of rules and constraints to explain productivity of word-formation
patterns (Bauer 2001); in addition, attention has been attracted by the processual
aspects of institutionalization and lexicalization (Bauer 1983: chapter 3; Quirk
et al. 1985: 1522–29; Lipka 2002: 6, 110–14). The ‘‘rules and constraints’’ approach
was primarily an offspring of Transformational Grammar; but far from being
restricted to formal approaches, it permeated the discussion of basic semantic
patterns of composition (Levi 1978) and productive argument constellations for
-er-derivations (Rappaport and Levin 1992), to name just a few examples, and
reemerged in more recent onomasiological approaches (Stekauer 1998). Although
the general trend over the years thus favored semantic analysis, it remained safely
tied to grammatical word classes and a syntactically oriented argument structure.
No wonder, it was difficult to find a place for lexical blends and acronyms in such a
framework or to integrate convincing explanations for concepts such as institu-
tionalization or lexicalization.
If this is an acceptable account of the general research situation, it should
be no surprise that Cognitive Linguistics has the potential to stimulate word-
formation research. Indeed, it can provide both the theoretical background and
the empirical tools to complete a process that had already been set going: the
semanticization of word-formation analysis. Starting from the axiom of the
centrality of meaning (Langacker 1987: 12), cognitive linguists will treat all aspects
of word-formation as meaningful: the concepts expressed by word-formation
items and their constituents (whether they enjoy the status of morphemes or not),
the structural patterns underlying derivatives and the restrictions imposed on

them, and finally the processual aspects of word-formation (such as lexicaliza-
tion). On the empirical level, cognitive analysis has developed ways of describing
lexical concepts in terms of schemas, prototypes, and radial categories, including
metonymic and metaphorical extensions, of analyzing prepositions in terms of
Figure/Ground alignment, and of explaining argument structures as event
schemas. Linguistic processes have been described as conceptual fusion, their
iconic aspects as a matter of form-meaning isomorphism. All these approaches
have been used to integrate word-formation into concepts like Cognitive Gram-
mar, Conceptual Blending, and form-meaning iconicity or, on a more specific
level, to provide more comprehensive and consistent descriptions of individual
word-formation phenomena.
word-formation 651
2. General Aspects

2.1. Word-Formation in Cognitive Grammar
Since Cognitive Grammar, as developed by Langacker, does not distinguish be-
tween lexical and grammatical units in the traditional sense of the term, word-
formation is regarded as part of a unified grammatical description, and this shows
up with respect to categorization, Figure/Ground alignment, and accommodation.
Word-Formation as Semantic Extension
Just like additional meanings of simplex lexical items, word-formation items can be
understood as encoding extensions, based on category judgments, from a profiled
linguistic unit. The only difference between simplex and word-formation items is
that in the latter, additional meaningful components, both lexical items and affixes,
are added. This is illustrated in figure 25.1, which is based on Langacker’s notation
and on some of his examples (Langacker 1987: 374–83, 451) complemented by ad-
ditional ones.
Figure 25.1 shows that the degree of morphological complexity is not decisive
for the relationship of semantic extension from an assumed prototype unit (here
tree), but that there may be compounds that are semantically closer to the pro-

totype than some simplex extensions, as for instance apple tree compared with tree
in the metaphorical sense of ‘family tree’.
Word-Formation Items and Figure/Ground Alignment
Although the Figure/Ground contrast (see Schmid, this volume, chapter 5) is em-
ployed at all levels of categorization, an important application concerns the level of
words or linguistic units and their interaction with other linguistic units (Lan-
gacker’s term is valence relation). Figure and Ground, here called trajector and
landmark, are not only embodied in lexical items such as verbs or prepositions, but
also in affixes like the -er suffix.
2
Figure 25.2 shows how trajector and landmark are
involved in creating the prepositional phrase above the table and the -er derivation
climber.
In figure 25.2a, the prepositional relation is characterized by the contrast be-
tween the trajector, which is positioned in the upper section, and the yet unspec-
ified landmark, which is placed below. Combining the prepositional concept with a
lexical concept like ‘table’ provides the specification of the landmark and estab-
lishes the composite structure, documented in the top box (see Svorou, this vol-
ume, chapter 28). The -er suffix (figure 25.2b) also consists of a trajector and an
unspecified landmark, but the meaning of the suffix is vaguer than the preposi-
tional meaning and the processing is complicated by the fact that lexical concepts
like climb already contain a complex trajector-landmark configuration spread over
time (indicated by the changing position of the trajector).
652 friedrich ungerer
This influences the integration of the two constituent units, which results in
fusing the affix concept with the verbal concept, but does not prevent treating
derivation and prepositional phrase in a parallel fashion (see figure 25.2b, top box).
Word-Formation, Composite Structures, and Accommodation
The process of -er derivation is just one instance of the many parallels between
word-formation items and phrases emerging from Langacker’s approach. Another

example is compounds that can be compared with adjective-noun combinations.
Figure 25.3 makes it clear that the same schema is applicable both to modifier-head
phrases and compounds.
The parallels are not only a matter of structure in the more conventional sense,
but include the semantic adjustment of the components and the addition of
conceptual content in the composite item. This is indicated through the element
X in the formula for the composite item in the schematic boxes on the left of
figures 25.3a and 25.3b. The ‘‘accommodation’’ of the components, as Langacker
(1987: 75–76) calls this semantic process, may be limited in the case of tall tree,
where only a certain semantic adjustment of the prototypical meaning of tall as
‘height of human beings’ is required. Yet with regard to Christmas tree, it is obvious
that a great deal of additional information, mostly of an encyclopedic kind, has
to be added to permit a proper conceptualization of the item compared with the
Figure 25.1. Word-formation items and simplex items as semantic extensions (based
on Langacker’s notation; length of arrows indicates relative distance from prototype)
word-formation 653
prototypical notion of ‘tree’. Postulating the necessity of accommodation for
compounding and other word-formation processes implies a rejection of full
compositionality, which means that the components of word-formation items can
no longer be understood as building blocks of the composite structure. Instead,
Langacker (1987: 452, 461) proposes a scaffolding metaphor to indicate that the
components only trigger off or motivate the compounds, supply a certain amount
of conceptual assistance, but are discarded when the compound is fully entrenched
by frequent activation.
3
Compositionality and Analyzability
Yet even the partial compositionality to which Langacker admits, and which is
mirrored in the scaffolding metaphor, requires a more fine-grained analysis. While
compositionality can be claimed to denote an objective relationship between the
composite structure and its components, analyzability introduces the psycholog-

ical perspective of the hearer (or reader). Composite structures, Langacker (1987:
457) explains, may, but need not be, analyzed by the hearer in the comprehension
process, and we cannot be sure to what extent this process is carried out consci-
ously or unconsciously. For instance, swimmer, mixer, and complainer are deriva-
tives suggesting a strong awareness of the constituents while, barring exceptions,
the compositionality of computer, propeller, and ruler is not normally realized by
the language user (Langacker 1987: 297).
Schematicity
So far, word-formation has been mainly approached from the angle of semantic
extension and composite structures. However, Cognitive Linguistics offers an al-
ternative, but complementary, view in terms of schematicity. As explained in detail
Figure 25.2. Trajector and landmark in a prepositional phrase and an -er derivation (from
Langacker 1990: 25, figure 12a, and Langacker 1987: 311, figure 8.8, excerpt)
654 friedrich ungerer
by Tuggy (this volume, chapter 4), the notion of schema (in Langacker’s definition)
offers a flexible way of generalization that is not understood as a fixed a priori rule,
but takes account of salience based on frequency of use (see Schmid, this volume,
chapter 5); ‘‘schemas are essentially routinized, or cognitively entrenched, patterns
of experience’’ (Kemmer 2003: 78). In the lexical sphere, this is reflected in the net-
works in which both schematic ‘superordinate’ schemas and prototypes and ex-
tensions combine easily, as in figure 25.4. As shown by the boxes in bold, the salient
elements of the network are not the most general schemas (entity, thing), but the
lower level schemas (e.g., plant) and the prototype (tree).
The notion of schema becomes even more helpful when, leaving lexical net-
works, one looks at the ‘‘rules’’ (of whatever status) that have been postulated to
describe compositional and derivational processes, not to mention back-formation,
blending, and acronyming, and considers how all these rules are notoriously jeop-
ardized by a host of exceptions. Understandably, then, the notion of schema has—
in different ways—been applied to various word-formation phenomena, to the
analysis of compounds (see section 3.4.) as well as the explanation of blends (see

section 3.5.), while other phenomena still await ‘‘schematic’’ treatment. Further-
more, Lakoff’s concept of image schemas (‘‘basic’’ schemas based on bodily expe-
rience such a up-down, part-whole, container, path) and event schemas
(first used by Talmy 1991) have been influential; image schemas have left their mark
on the cognitive analysis of prefixation (see section 3.3), and event schemas on the
treatment of conversion (see section 3.2).
2.2. Word-Formation and Conceptual Blending
Although Tuggy (this volume, chapter 4) regards conceptual blending as still an-
other variant of schematicity, it is preferable to treat it as a phenomenon in its
own right, as the most successful cognitive attempt so far to come to terms with the
online processing aspect of conceptualization. Most word-formation processes
Figure 25.3. Relationship of word-formation items to semantic extension of prototypes
and integration into composite structures in Langacker’s system (based on Langacker’s
diagrammatic representation; Langacker 1987: 451, figure 12.2)
word-formation 655
involve semantic combination or fusion, and this qualifies them for an analysis in
terms of conceptual blending as proposed by Fauconnier and Turner (this volume,
chapters 14 and 15, resp.), even if the conceptual blending analysis has taken its time
to discover lexical blending and acronym formation (but see section 3.5 below)
In particular, conceptual blending seems well suited to elucidate processes like
lexicalization, perhaps even more convincingly than Langacker’s notion of ac-
commodation, as shown in figure 25.5 for the compound wheelchair.
4
While the two input spaces reflect the conceptual content of the two coun-
terparts (the constituents of the compound), the blended space contains the emer-
gent structure of the compound, which is not provided by the two input spaces
alone, but which, according to Fauconnier and Turner (2002: 48–49) involves al-
together three types of conceptual process: composition, completion, and elabo-
ration. While composition refers to the contributions made by the projections
from the two inputs, completion is concerned with the addition of background

knowledge (here represented by the notions of ‘invalid’, ‘hospital’, ‘engine’), and
this permits the emergence of a new conceptual structure (indicated by the square
within the blended space). Finally, elaboration may be envisaged as a test of the
correctness and consistency of the conceptual content of the blended space.
2.3. Word-formation and Form-Meaning Iconicity
One aspect that is not in the foreground of Langacker’s and Fauconnier’s con-
siderations is the iconic relationship between phonological form (including a form’s
graphic shape) and meaning (Langacker’s phonological and semantic phonological
poles). The link between the two is taken for granted, as in many traditional ac-
counts, and this is probably quite acceptable for one-word (lexical) schemas, but
Figure 25.4. Lexical network combining schemas (entity, thing, plant, etc.), prototype
(here: tree), and compound extensions (apple tree, etc.)
656 friedrich ungerer
not necessarily for word-formation items, in which the form-meaning relationship
is systematically violated. Coupled with this item-related isomorphism is a second
type of iconicity, which is process-related in the sense that an item’s phonological
form mirrors a particular word-formation process. While lexical blending can be
seen as the word-formation enactment of conceptual blending (see section 2.2) and
compounding as a clustering of two (or more) concepts, acronyming involves a
reduction of conceptual content, and these processes of fusion or accumulation and
reduction are duly reflected in the phonological (and graphic) shape of the items.
As I showed in Ungerer (1999), the interaction of these two types of iconicity
is not always beneficial for the word-formation process. As for compounds, the
parallelism of two forms and two concepts is only achieved for the minority of fairly
compositional, analyzable compounds (apple juice, silk jacket). For compounds that
have undergone conceptual accommodation and expansion, the ensuing asym-
metry between two forms and multiple meanings can only be resolved if full en-
trenchment (or lexicalization) is achieved because the word form is no longer an-
alyzed (as probably in holiday) or if the complex phonological form is reduced to a
simplex form again (paper for newspaper).

The situation for word-formation blends like skyjacking, stagflation,orinfo-
tainment is the reverse, but it is not satisfactory either. Given the schematic license
(see section 3.5 below), the fusion is impressively reflected in the phonological and
graphic form, which thus provides an example of processual iconicity; yet one
cannot be sure that a simultaneous, complete, and entrenched fusion takes place
on the meaning side resulting in a new isomorphic form-meaning relation-
ship. With regard to acronyms, the iconic reduction mirrored in chains of initial
letters of words is convincing, but its effect can be devastating and cause a
Figure 25.5. Compounding as conceptual blending process: Example wheelchair (based
on Fauconnier 1997: 151)
word-formation 657
complete breakdown of the isomorphic form-meaning link. This is one of the
reasons why acronyms are often remodeled on existing items with an identical
phonological form and a related meaning; the intention is to use these ‘‘prop
words’’ and their attested form-meaning isomorphism to promote the entrench-
ment of the acronym.
3. Description of Individual
Word-Formation Phenomena

It is not surprising to find that more specific cognitive studies of derivation and
composition have concentrated on the areas most widely discussed in traditional
word-formation research: prefixation, -er suffixation, conversion or zero deriva-
tion, and noun-noun compounding. To sketch the possibilities—and hopefully the
superiority—of the cognitive view, each of these domains will be represented by
two different approaches. In addition, lexical blending will be discussed because its
cognitive treatment opens up interesting research lines.
3.1. Prefixation, Contrast, and Diminutives
The fact that prefixation in English lends itself to an interpretation in terms of con-
trastivity has stimulated several differing cognitive approaches toward prefixation.
Profiling Contrast

Although English prefixes may reflect different semantic concepts, Schmid (2005:
162–65) claims that they have one thing in common: they profile contrast, and thus
express a specific interpretation of the basic Figure/Ground distinction. This no-
tion of contrast, of being ‘different from X’, can take on various guises depend-
ing on the semantic specification of the prefix, as shown in table 25.1, where the
traditional semantic classification of prefixes is interpreted in terms of the notion
‘contrast’.
The dominant role of ‘‘contrast’’ is supported by gaps in the productivity of
prefixation. Such gaps can be observed with verbs that do not permit contrast
(*unlive,*unsit,*unsleep,*unplay), as well as with most concrete nouns, which,
apart from gender-sensitive pairs like man and woman, do not naturally invite
semantic opposition. Adjectives, according to Schmid, are characterized by a one-
dimensional semantic structure which is particularly well suited for the establish-
ment of contrast, and they therefore feature prominently in prefixation.
5
658 friedrich ungerer
Contrastivity as a Complex Category
Although he is in agreement with Schmid on the significance of ‘‘contrast’’ for
prefixation, Mettinger (1994, 1996) does not regard contrastivity as a unified cog-
nitive principle, but as a complex category rooted in several image schemas. As for
adjectives prefixed with un-, Mettinger holds that they involve two image schemas,
the scale schema for the prefixation of polar adjectives (unimportant, uncertain,
unhappy) and the container schema for the contradictorily negated adjectives
(untrue vs. true). Following Taylor’s (1992) interpretation of polar adjectives, Met-
tinger interprets the -un prefix as encoding the relation between a thing serving as
trajector and a scale serving as landmark scale, whereby the trajector is positioned
on the landmark scale below the assumed norm (see figure 25.6a). For contradic-
torily negated adjectives, the container functions as landmark and the trajector is
placed outside the landmark; the un- predication is constituted by the relation
between the ‘‘extraposed’’ trajector and the landmark (see figure 25.6b).

6
Prefixation, diminutives, and Underlying
Idealized Cognitive Models
The reason why diminutives are treated together with prefixes is that they can best
be understood if they are compared with scaling-down prefixes of degree creat-
ing a contrast, such as maxi- or mini As such, the difference between kitchenette
Table 25.1. Prefixes and types of contrast (based on Schmid 2005: 162–65)
Prefix
Type of Contrast
(based on the Figure/Ground
distinction) Examples
Negative prefixes
un-, in- different from X unhappy, uneven
Reversative prefixes
un-, dis- different direction from unwrap, disappear
Locative prefixes
extra-, intra- not outside, but inside X extracellular, intramural
Temporal prefixes
pre-, post-
re-
not during or after, but before X
X again, in contrast to expectation
prewar, postwar
rebuild, reopen
Prefixes of quantity
(degree and number)
ultra-, sub-, super-
more than the norm for X,
less than the norm for X
ultraright,??

Prefixes of attitude
pro-, contra-, ounter-
pro X, not anti X, etc. pro-Palestinian,
counterproductive
word-formation 659