Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 21:2 (2023) ► pp.542–575

Paradigms as second-order schemas in English noun-participle compounding

| Hangzhou Normal University
ORCID logo | Hangzhou Normal University
| Hangzhou Normal University
In Cognitive Linguistics, the noun-participle compound is a grammatical category with instances of different degrees of membership. The purpose of this study is to explore the categorization processes and schematic networks in noun-participle compounding. Working with the data of noun-participle compounds from COHA, we identified three types of participles: deverbal, denominal and ambicategorical. Two schemas [Nj-Vk-ed]A and [Nj-Nk-ed]A are established as generalizations of compounds of deverbal (e.g. man-made) and denominal participles (e.g. life-sized). Compounds of ambicategorical participles (e.g. snow-covered), are sanctioned by two schemas simultaneously, which give rise to ambiguous morphological readings. This study confirms the labor division between mother-daughter links and sister links in a schema network. The higher-level generalization is encoded by paradigmatically-related sister schemas, with the sister relations built on the shared structure links and a bi-directional conversion of the stem of ppl (i.e., noun-to-verb or verb-to-noun). The sister schemas as a paradigm is a more parsimonious generalization of the compounds, than the posited mother schema.
Keywords: schemas, categorization, paradigms, noun-participle compounds
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The cognitive approach to morphology
    • 2.1Categorization and expansion of a schema network
    • 2.2Sister links as paradigmatic relations
    • 2.3Calibrating the past-participle morpheme
  • 3.Methodology and data
    • 3.1Dataset
    • 3.2Data sorting
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Schema [Nj-Vk-ed]A: Compounds with deverbal ppl
    • 4.2Schema [N-N-ed]A: Compounds with denominal ppl
    • 4.3Paradigmatic relation between [Nj-Vk-ed]A and [Nj-Nk-ed]A: Compounds with ambicategorical participles
    • 4.4Expanding the schema network
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00147.zha
References (58)
References
Aarts, B. (2004). Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language, 28 (1), 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (1996). Constraints on adjectival past participles. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 17–30). Center for the Study of Language and Inf.Google Scholar
Adams, V. (2014). Complex words in English. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12 (3), 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology, Word, 14 1, 150–77.Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Audring, J. (2018) Partial motivation, multiple motivation: The role of output schemas in morphology. In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words (pp. 59–80). Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010a). Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4 (7), 543–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. E. (2010b). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2012). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Morphology in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10 (5), 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58 (2), 265–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. (1971). Denominal adjectives: a study in syntactic relationships between modifier and head. Lingua, 27 1, 160–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobuild. (1991). English guides 2: Word formation. Collins.Google Scholar
Cook, W. A. (1969). Introduction to tagmemic analysis. New York: Holt Rinehart.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1967). English word classes. Lingua, 17 1, 24–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at [URL]
(2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Available online at [URL]
Diewald, G. (2020). Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.) Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar (pp. 277–315). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 810–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1958). Papers in linguistics, 1934–1951. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. (1960). A dictionary of modern English usage. London: Oxford.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (1), 113–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Higher-order schemas in morphology: What they are, how they work, and where to find them. Word Structure, 12 (3), 261–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirtle, W. H. (1970). -Ed Adjectives like ‘verandahed’ and ‘blue-eyed’. Journal of Linguistics, 19–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1975). Problems in the analysis of ed-adjectives. Journal of Linguistics, 11 (1), 69–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 2010. Meaning and the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S., & Audring, J. (2020). The texture of the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1954). A modern English grammar (Vol. Parts II and VI). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2010). The lexical semantics of derived statives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33 (4), 285–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 2): Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction: OUP USA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2015). Thoughts on grammaticalization. (3rd ed). Language Science Press [First edition 1982]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (1983). Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 14 (2), 251–285.Google Scholar
Partridge, E. (1963). Origins (3rd ed). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23 (3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reard, R. (1976). Once more on the analysis of ed-adjectives. Journal of Linguistics, 12 (1), 155–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowntree, D. (1981). Statistics without tears: A primer for non-mathematicians. Scribner Book Company.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. (1968). Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Seiler, H. (1967). On paradigmatic and syntagmatic similarity. Lingua, 18 1, 35–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spuy, A. (2017). Construction morphology and inflection. Lingua, 199 1, 60–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Prototypes in Cognitive Linguistics. In P. J. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 49–75). Routledge.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (3), 272–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar