The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 71 pdf

by swooshtika. The semantic side of the lexical blend can be captured by a three-space
representation based on Fauconnier and Turner’s notion of conceptual blending
(see section 2.2. above). Kemmer’s example for this semantic (or conceptual) de-
scription is the blend glitterati (< glitter þ literati), an example which also enables
her to show how low-level schemas can spark off higher-level schemas, as shown in
figure 25.10.
10
Figure 25.10a illustrates a relatively low-level schema whose phonological pole
is applicable to the blends glitterati, chatterati, and a few others. Apart from the
four-syllable structure of the second source lexeme literati, this schema is charac-
terized by an overlap of an initial consonant cluster, a vowel, and the phoneme /t/.
In figure 25.10b, the /t/ is replaced by the more general consonant element which
admits blends like botherati and luncherati, and thus raises the schema to a some-
what higher level, while still maintaining the syllabic structure of schema (a). Fi-
nally, in figure 25.10c, phonological overlap is no longer required (but still possible),
and the syllable structure, though prototypically still consisting of four syllables,
may be extended to more syllables, as in Britpoperati. Within Kemmer’s classifi-
cation of blends, this marks a switch from overlap to substitution blends, and this
is possible because in schema (a), the phonological string -erati already supports
the fairly tangible meaning of ‘elite group’ (as indicated in the top section of the
schema boxes). When the phonological overlap in the first element is dropped, as in
schema (c), the second element may therefore assume the status of a derivational
morpheme (traditionally called ‘‘semi-suffix’’), which can freely be combined with
suitable lexical morphemes. This is a good illustration of what Kemmer (2003)
means when she claims that it is ‘‘the phonological strings that trigger meanings’’
(77). This leads her to the important conclusion (modestly hidden away in a foot-
note) that morphemes should be regarded as a special case of the association of
sounds with meaning, ‘‘the case in which the connection of a sound string with a
meaning is very well entrenched and the unit is recombinable’’ (note 7).
Figure 25.10. -erati blends: The development from low-level to high-level schemas
(excerpt from the schematic network for -erati blends in Kemmer 2003: 90, figure 3)

670 friedrich ungerer
4. Conclusion and
Research Prospects

As this survey has shown, current cognitive research in word-formation is still very
much in its initial stages. While one can be fairly certain that word-formation can
smoothly be accommodated within the framework of Cognitive Grammar, the
application of most empirical methods has been too selective for a proper evaluation
of their usefulness and should be supported by further studies. Thus, the radial
category approach could be extended beyond -er derivation (and, of course, phrasal
verbs and prepositional compounds) to other types of suffixations, for instance, to
the area of de-nominal adjectival suffixes (-ic, -ical, -ous, etc.); the attribute listing
and matching method could be tested in a more comprehensive examination of
compounds, which can be expected to yield more differentiated results.
An exciting avenue for further research would be to try to transfer Kemmer’s
approach of ‘‘emergent schematic networks’’ from lexical blends to other domains
of word-formation. The obvious candidates are acronyms, both alphabetic (UN,
US) and orthoepic acronyms (ROM, SARS), including those supported by prop
words (WASPS, see also section 2.3). It might also be interesting to provide a sche-
matic analysis of the development from letter combinations to pseudo-simplicia,
which is accomplished at an ever-increasing speed (compare the development of
laser, AIDS, and SARS), as well as a schematic network solution for the yuppie,
dinkie, taffie series of acronyms. These analyses would probably support Kemmer’s
view that morphemes should be regarded as the special case of a well-entrenched
and recombinable connection of a sound string with a meaning.
11
This view of
word-formation would not only strengthen the position of the ‘‘ungrammatical’’
word-formation processes such as blending and acronyming, but would permit a
refreshing glimpse at ‘‘morphemes in the making’’ and might well change the pic-

ture we have of this central linguistic element.
12
Finally, a cognitive approach might
fuel the discussion of the question (raised in Ungerer 2002) of what the specific
conceptual and communicative function of word-formation might be vis-a
`
-vis the
potential of simplex lexemes and syntactic constructions.
NOTES

1. This implies that root creations are very rare indeed in modern languages, where
they are largely restricted to the creation of trade names such as kodak.
2. For a much wider application of the Figure/Ground contrast (and other cogni-
tive principles) in the affix-stem morphology of incorporating languages like Nahuatl, see
Tuggy (1992).
3. A still more differentiated explanation for compounds (and even more so, for
idioms) is offered by Geeraerts (2002), whose ‘‘prismatic model’’ not only takes account
word-formation 671
of the relationship between the composite meaning and the meaning of the constituents,
but also of the metaphorical or metonymic relationship that holds between the literal and
derived meanings of compounds and idioms, as in Dutch schapenkop (457) or English
blockhead ‘stupid person’. Within this model, the bottom-up analysis is complemented
by the (less frequent) top-down analysis underlying nontransparent ‘‘semantic back-
formations’’, as in the idiom spekverkoper ‘boaster’ (450) or the proverbial fragments new
broom and early bird. In the domain of compounds, one might consider paper ‘newspaper’,
plane ‘airplane’, or car ‘motor car’ as suitable candidates, even though their compound
background will probably receive low analyzability ratings by language users.
4. For an application of the blending approach to nominal compounds, see Coulson
(2001: 128–33); for an analysis of adjective-noun combinations, see Sweetser (1999). The
representation of the compound wheelchair in figure 25.5 makes use of a three-space

arrangement of mental spaces (i.e., dropping the representation of the fourth generic space
originally suggested by Fauconnier) and has been extended to accommodate background
knowledge. The subsequent description neglects the aspects of cross-mappings between
input spaces, underlying vital relations and their compression in the blended space, which
are important for the understanding of more complex blends.
5. Another argument mentioned by Schmid to support his theory of contrast is that
word-formation items whose prefixed character is still felt by the speaker receive secondary
stress on the prefix while fully lexicalized items lose the profiled contrast and receive no
secondary stress (cf. re-cover ‘cover again’ and recover ‘get better’).
6. The domain in figure 25.6b is not represented in Mettinger (1994). It has been
deduced from Mettinger (1996: 24), where a similar treatment for contrastive adjective
pairs such as male/female is suggested.
7. Another recent analysis (Heyvaert 2003) attempts to overcome the basic assump-
tion of an underlying agentive argument structure for verb-derived -er nominalizations
by approaching the structure through underlying middle constructions (e.g., This book
sells best underlying bestseller). The main claim is that the local and force-dynamic qual-
ities of middle constructions have made it possible for -er nominalizations to develop
from profiling only agents to profiling subjects in their relationship to the finite (in
Halliday’s terminology), complete with its interpersonal and grounding potential.
Whether this ‘‘constructional approach’’ (which explicitly excludes nondeverbal -er no-
minalizations) is superior to the cognitive ‘‘representational’’ descriptions Heyvaert
wants to overcome remains to be seen.
8. The fact that noun-noun compounding has been selected for closer scrutiny does
not mean that other problem areas of composition have not benefited from a cognitive
reanalysis as well. Among them are the so-called scarecrow nouns (V þ O nouns whose
subject is not expressed in the compound; e.g., ‘Someone who scares crows’),which Tuggy
(1987) explains by positing a schematic network of possessive or bahuvrihi compounds
(now understood as a combination of specifying compound and metonymy; Ungerer
2002: 551).
9. Kemmer’s (2003: 71) claim that she does not use a process model may be reflected in

her refraining from using the input-output metaphor; however, it does not mean that she
denies processual links between source and target concepts—actually, they come in au-
tomatically as she relies to a considerable extent on the model of conceptual blending. As
well, her position does not exclude that it may be worth looking at the processual aspect of
lexical blending and its iconic properties (see section 2.3).
10. The assignment of examples to schemas (a)–(c) in figure 25.10 also differs slightly
from the assignment indicated by Kemmer’s sanctioning arrows.
672 friedrich ungerer
11. These are lexical morphemes in the case of laser, radar, AIDS, and SARS and
derivational morphemes in the case of yuppie, where the suffix -ie may be understood to
express ‘belonging to a fashionable group’.
12. Perhaps the schematic approach could thus have a similar impact on word-
formation analysis and lexicology as the study of Pidgin and Creole languages has had on
sociolinguistics and linguistics in general.
REFERENCES

Bakema, Peter, Patricia Defour, and Dirk Geeraerts. 1993. De semantische structuur van het
diminutief [The semantic structure of the diminutive]. Forum der Letteren 34: 121–37.
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brugman, Claudia. 1981. Story of Over. MA thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
(Published as The story of Over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon.
New York: Garland, 1988)
Coulson, Seana. 2001. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning
construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dirven, Rene
´
. 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Klaus-
Uwe Panther and Gu
¨

nter Radden, eds., Metonymy in language and thought 273–87.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Downing, Pamela. 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53:
810–42.
Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminu-
tives and intensifiers in Italian, German and other languages. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the
mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expres-
sions. In Rene
´
Dirven and Ralf Po
¨
rings, eds., Metaphor and metonymy in comparison
and contrast 435–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 2003. Schemas and lexical blends. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg,
Rene
´
Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, eds., Motivation in language: Studies in honor
of G
€
uunter Radden 69–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prereq-

uisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levi, Judith N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic
Press.
word-formation 673
Lindner, Susan. 1981. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions
with OUT and UP. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego. (Also
published as A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions, LAUT
Paper, no. 101. Trier, Germany: Linguistic Agency of the University of Trier, 1983)
Lipka, Leonhard. 2002. English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics and word-
formation.Tu
¨
bingen: Gunter Narr.
Mettinger, Arthur. 1994. Un-Prefixation in English: Expectations, formats, and results.
M
€
uunstersches Logbuch der Linguistik 5: 17–31.
Mettinger, Arthur. 1996. (Image-)Schematic properties of antonymous adjectives. Views 5:
12–26.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda Thornburg. 2001. A conceptual analysis of English
-er-nominals. In Martin Pu
¨
tz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene
´
Dirven, eds., Applied
cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy 149–200. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A compre-
hensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1992. -Er nominals: Implications for the theory

of argument structure. In Tim Stowell and Eric Wehrli, eds., Syntax and semantics,
vol. 26, Syntax and the lexicon 127–53. New York: Academic Press.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General 104: 193– 233.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1985. Metaphoric processes in word formation: The case of pre-
fixed words. In Wolf Paprotte
´
and Rene
´
Dirven, eds., The ubiquity of metaphor 209–41.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza Iba
´
n
˜
ez, Francisco. 1998. El modelo cognitivo idealizado de ‘tama
~
nno’ y
la formacio
´
n de aumentativos y diminutivos en espa
~
nnol.Me
´
xico: Instituto de In-
vestigaciones Filolo
´
gicas, Universidad Nacional Auto
´
noma de Me

´
xico.
Ryder, Mary Ellen. 1994. Ordered chaos. The interpretation of English noun-noun com-
pounds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ryder, Mary Ellen. 1999. Bankers and blue-chippers: An account of -er formations in
present-day English. English Language and Linguistics 3: 269–97.
Santibanez-Saenz, Francisco. 1999. Conceptual interaction and Spanish diminutives.
Cuadernos de Investigation Filologica 25: 173–90.
Schmid, Hans-Jo
¨
rg. 2005. Englische Morphologie und Wortbildung: Eine Einf
€
uuhrung. Berlin:
Erich Schmidt.
Stekauer, Pavel. 1998. An onomasiological theory of English word-formation. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Sweetser, Eve. 1999. Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively
realistic framework. In Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker, eds., Cognitive linguistics:
Foundations, scope, and methodology 129–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Berkeley Lin-
guistic Society 7: 480–519.
Taylor, John R. 1992. Old problems: Adjectives in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics
3: 1–46.
Tuggy, David. 1987. Scarecrow nouns, generalizations, and cognitive grammar. In Scott
DeLancey and Russell S. Tomlin, eds., Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the
Pacific Linguistics Conference 307–20. Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University
of Oregon.
Tuggy, David. 1992. The affix-stem distinction: A cognitive grammar analysis of data from
Orizaba Nahuatl. Cognitive Linguistics 3: 237–300.
674 friedrich ungerer

Twardzisz, Piotr. 1997. Zero derivation in English: A cognitive grammar approach. Lublin,
Poland: Wydawnicto UMCS.
Ungerer, Friedrich. 1999. Iconicity in word-formation. In Max Na
¨
nny and Olga Fischer,
eds., Form miming meaning 307–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ungerer, Friedrich. 2002. The conceptual function of derivational word-formation in
English. Anglia 120: 534–67.
word-formation 675
chapter 26

NOMINAL
CLASSIFICATION

gunter senft
1. Introduction

The problem of ‘‘classification’’ is a general problem of life. That classification abil-
ities are necessary for the survival of every organism is an important insight of biology.
Human beings classify consciously, unconsciously, and even subconsciously in all
situations. When we confront a scientific problem, we try to solve it by first classifying
the various parts of the problem. Therefore, the history of all branches of science is
also a history of how these sciences have classified their research subject. ‘‘Classifi-
cation’’ always implies ‘‘selection,’’ too, because, as Koestler (1983: 201)putsit,our
minds would cease to function if we had to attend to each of the millions of
stimuli which constantly bombard our receptor organs. The nervous system
and the brain itself function as a multilevelled hierarchy of filtering and classifying
devices, which eliminate a large proportion of the input as irrelevant ‘noise’, and
assemble the relevant information into coherent patterns before it is represented
to consciousness.

If we want to communicate about this perceived, classified, and filtered input, we
have to classify once more: we have to transform the input into classes and cate-
gories provided by the systems that organize our communicative verbal and
nonverbal faculties—thus, this second round of classification leads to categoriza-
tion on the semantic level. With our systems of language and gesture, we again
classify, filter, and categorize on various levels while communicating. Linguistics is
the science that tries to analyze these processes of classification that are relevant for
communication. Indeed, the languages of the world provide an enormous data
pool for the analysis of the problem of categorization and classification—and
humankind has developed a number of different linguistic techniques to appre-
hend our world (see Senft 1996: ix–x; 2000b: 11).
As Royen (1929: 1) points out, the philosophical discussion of nominal classi-
fication can be traced back to the Greek sophistic philosopher Protagoras (485–414
BC). Obviously, discussing the problem of ‘‘category’’ and ‘‘categorization,’’ and
especially the interdependences between category, categorization, and classification
on the one hand, and naming, language, thought, perception, and culture on the
other hand, has a long tradition, not only in philosophy (see, e.g., Foucault [1966]
1980; Rosch 1988; Vollmer 1988a, 1988b), but also in linguistics (see, e.g., Herder
[1770] 1978; Humboldt [1836] 1968; Schleiermacher [1838] 1977; Whorf 1958). Even a
brief glance over this literature and other literature that deals especially with
nominal classification reveals that the basic problems continue to emerge in the
discussion of this topic.
1
Cognitive Linguistics is particularly interested in these problems and has
devoted much attention to nominal classification and categorization. Actually, the
book that undoubtedly contributed much to finally establishing Cognitive Linguistics
as a subdiscipline of its own—Lakoff’s (1987)influentialmonographWomen, Fire,
and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind—explicitly refers to
categorization in its title and even mentions three (of many more) members that
constitute a noun class in Dyirbal, an Australian Aboriginal language spoken in North

Queensland (see Dixon 1972: 44–47, 307).
This chapter summarizes some of these problems of nominal classification in
language, presents and illustrates the various systems or techniques (see Seiler
1986) of nominal classification, and points out why nominal classification is one of
the most interesting topics in Cognitive Linguistics.
2. Nominal Classification

This section first discusses briefly the basic problem of how the perceived world is
expressed and represented in language and how language refers to the perceived
world. Then it presents and exemplifies the systems of nominal classification that
can be found in the languages of the world, and finally it discusses some central
problems of nominal classification.
2.1. From the World to Nouns and Systems
of Nominal Classification
One of the basic questions in the study of language is how the perceived world is
expressed and represented in, and through, language, and how language refers to
the perceived world, to its objects, things, and living beings. Not only do we
nominal classification 677
perceive the world, but we also develop concepts about what we perceive and create
linguistic expressions that refer to and represent these concepts. These expressions
refer—among other things—to actions, temporary states, things and objects, and
persons and other living beings.
Many of these expressions are classified by linguists as ‘‘nouns’’—and in many
languages these ‘‘nouns’’ (like verbs and adjectives) constitute an open word class.
Moreover, if we keep in mind Greenberg’s (1978: 78) claim that as ‘‘soon as we wish
to talk about an action as such, we nominalize it,’’ we become aware (again) of the
important role nouns play in our languages (at least with respect to their frequency).
As Talmy (1992: 131) points out, languages ‘‘generally subcategorize nouns
grammatically along certain semantic parameters.’’ These subcategorizations are
classifications, of course. The question why most of these classifying systems apply

just to the noun phrase rather than other syntactic constituents was answered by
Greenberg (1978: 78) in a very convincing way:
It is the noun par excellence which gives rise to classificational systems of syn-
tactic relevance. It is not so much that the noun designates persisting entities
as against actions or temporary states. It is that nouns are continuing
discourse subjects and are therefore in constant need of referential devices of
identification. Classification is a help in narrowing the range of possible
identification.
Languages have been developing a rather broad variety of these nominal
classification systems. After Royen’s (1929) pioneering research, it was Seiler and
his coworkers who tried to integrate the various techniques of nominal classifi-
cation into an overall framework (Seiler and Lehmann 1982; Seiler and Stachowiak
1982; Seiler 1986). Recently, Grinevald (2000) and Aikhenvald (2000a) proposed
new typologies for these systems of nominal classification (see also Bisang 2002).
Based on these proposals, the following subsection presents an overview of nominal
classification systems found in the languages of the world. The presentation of
these systems follows Royen’s (1929: 526) basic maxim which runs: ‘‘Von nominalen
Klassen kann man erst dann reden, wenn die mentale Gruppierung der Nomina in
der Sprache auf die eine oder andere Weise formal reflektiert wird’’ (We can speak
of nominal classes only if the mental grouping of nouns is formally reflected within
the language in one way or another; my translation).
2.2. Systems of Nominal Classification
Grinevald (2000) presents a typology of techniques of nominal classification that
postulates a lexical-grammatical continuum of systems. ‘‘ ‘Lexical’ here means (a)
part of the lexicon and its word-building dynamics and (b) semantically compo-
sitional, while ‘grammatical’ means part of the morphosyntax of a language’’ (55).
On the lexical end of this continuum, we find measure terms and class terms, and
on the grammatical end of the continuum, we find gender and noun class systems.
The various classifier systems ‘‘can be placed at a mid-way point’’ (55) on this
678 gunter senft

continuum. In what follows, I will present the systems of nominal classification
mentioned in Grinevald’s and Aikhenvald’s typologies.
Measure Terms and Class Terms
In her typology, Grinevald (2000: 58) clearly differentiates between two systems
of lexical nominal classification: ‘‘Measure terms are lexical in the sense that they
are semantically compositional/analytic noun phrases, and class terms are lexical in
the sense that they operate on derivational or compounding morphology at word
level.’’ Measure terms express quantities; in English, for example, we find measure
terms like a glass of whisky, a slice of bread, a group of children, and a school of
dolphins. It should be noted here that distinguishing measure terms from numeral
classifiers (see below) is a recurrent problem in numeral classifier languages, es-
pecially in isolating ones (see Aikhenvald 2000a: 98–120).
Grinevald (2000: 59) defines class terms as ‘‘classifying morphemes which
participate in the lexicogenesis of a language’’ and differentiates three types of these
terms. The plant world is probably the most common semantic domain of class
terms. Thus, we find morphemes like -berry or tree that classify nouns like straw-
berry, raspberry, palm tree , and oak tree. In English we also find derivational
morphemes like -ist,-er, and -man to designate classes of ‘agents’, as in scientist,
novelist, baker, writer, postman, and fireman. Again, it should be noted here that
distinguishing class terms from noun classifiers (see below) is a problem in many
languages, such as in Australian languages or Thai (see Aikhenvald 2000a: 81–97).
Noun Class Systems and Gender
In noun class systems of nominal classification, all nouns of a language are assigned
to a number of classes. These systems are typical of languages of the Niger-Congo
linguistic stock, especially Bantu. They ‘‘are characterized by agreement with con-
stituents outside the NP by a higher degree of grammaticalization, evident in a
closed system of a small number of classes; and by a lesser degree of semantic
transparency’’ (Zubin 1992: 42). Noun classes in noun class systems form a
‘‘grammatical category’’ (Dixon 1986: 105).
2

Nineteen noun classes have been re-
constructed for Proto-Bantu, for example, with the classes 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, and
9/10 as singular/plural markers. The noun class systems of modern Bantu languages
consist of 12–20 morphological classes. Demuth (2000: 273) presents the following
example for a noun class system in the Bantu language Sesotho:
(1)
Ba-sh

aanyana b

aa-ne b

aa-f

uum

aan

ee di-perekisi
2-boys 2-dem 2-subject agreement marker-found 10-peaches
ts

ee-mon

aate.
10-good
‘Those boys found some tasty peaches.’
Here, the demonstrative modifying the class 2 subject noun ba-sh

aanyana is the class

2 demonstrative b

aa-ne. The subject marker on the verb then agrees with this
nominal classification 679