Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:1 (2014) ► pp.160–192

A constructional approach to transitional formatives

The use of -head in so-called ‘exocentric’ formations

 | University of Córdoba
The noun head is commonly found in the second position of many English noun compounds. Typically, noun compounds with head in the right are endocentric formations, that is, composite forms which designate a more specific type of the concept denoted by head (e.g. pinhead). The noun head is also found in a significant number of so called ‘exocentric’ formations with a variety of interconnected meanings (e.g. airhead, acidhead, Potterhead). The different exocentric patterns where head participates raise questions about the grammatical status of this element, which is sometimes analysed as a suffixal element, illustrating the fuzzy boundaries between derivation and compounding. In the linguistic literature there is an extensive debate as to whether processes like this one are to be regarded as cases of grammaticalization or lexicalisation. In this paper it will be proposed that exocentric formations in -head are suitable for an analysis using a schema-based approach in Ryder’s (1994) fashion, or a constructional approach (Booij, 2010a) insofar as new creations arise by analogy with the patterns that can be extracted from existing cases. The different patterns of exocentric formations with head can be conveniently characterized by postulating a hierarchical lexicon with schemas or constructions of different degree of abstraction.
Keywords: English exocentric compounds, conceptual integration networks, affixoid, schemas, bahuvrihi compounds, core word, construction morphology, metaphor, metonymy
Published online: 23 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.1.06por
References (40)
Adams, V. (1973). An introduction to Modern English word formation . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2007). Typological distinctions in word-formation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description , 2nd ed., vol III (pp. 1–65). Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2008). The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of ‘bahuvrihi’ compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics , 61, 208–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation . Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008). Les composés exocentriques de l’anglais [‘English exocentric compounds’]. In D. Amiot (Ed.), La composition dans une perspective typologique (pp. 35–47). Arras: Artois Presses Université.Google Scholar
2010). Setting limits on creativity in the production and use of metaphorical and metonymical compounds. In A. Onysko & S. Michel (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on word formation (pp. 219–242). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1935). Language . London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2005). Compounding and derivation: evidence for construction morphology. In W. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. E. Pfeiffer, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010a). Construction morphology . Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
2010b). Compound construction: Schemas or analogy?: A construction morphology perspective. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 93–108). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2011). The rise of word-level constructional idioms as a type of word formation change. Paper presented at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL) Colloquium , 28 October 20111.Google Scholar
2013). Morphology in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255–273). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (forthcoming). Construction morphology. In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Handbook of Morphology . 2nd edition. London: Blackwell. Retrieved at [URL].
Booij, G., & Hüning, M. (2012). From compound to derivation: Affixoids and the rise of derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Refining grammaticalization’, Freie Universität Berlin, 24 –25 February 20121.Google Scholar
Booij, G., Lehmann, C., & Mudgan, J. (Eds.). (2000). Morphologie. Ein internationals Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung / Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word formation (in collaboration with W. Kesselheim and S. Skopeteas). Vol 11. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change . Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Plag, I. (2000). Category-wise, some compound-type morphemes seem to be rather suffix-like: On the status of -ful, -type and -wise in present-day English. Folia Linguistica , 341, 225–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A. G. (1960). An introduction to the analysis of English noun compounds. Word , 161, 356–373.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (Eds.). (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language . Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (2002). Foundations of language . Oxford: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009). Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In R. Lieber & P. Stekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 105–129). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909–1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles I–VII. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kühnhold, I., Putzer, O., & Wellmann, H. (1978). Deutsche Wortbildung , Vol. III1: Das Adjektiv. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1998). Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar , Volume I1: Theoretical prerequisites. Standford CA: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
1999). Grammar and conceptualization . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals . New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Libben, G. (2006). Why study compound processing?: An overview of the issues. In 
G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 1– 22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1978). Derivational categories. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language. Vol III: Word structure (pp. 125–149). Standford California: University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present day English word formation . Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language , 14(2), 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English . Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ryder, M. E. (1994). Ordered chaos: The interpretation of English noun-noun compounds . 
Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, G. D. (1987). Das affixoid: Zur Notwendigkeit und Brauchbarkeit eines beliebten Zwischenbegriffs der Wortbildung. In G. Hoppe, A. Kirkness, E. Link, I. Nortmeyer, W. Rettig, & G. Schmidt (Eds.), Deutsche Lehnwortbildung (pp. 53–101). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry , 121, 245–274.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Portero-Muñoz, Carmen
2018. Are smartphone face and Googleheads a real or a fake phenomenon?. In Conceptual metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60], ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.