Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 [N-V-ed] and [N-N-ed] are established as generalizations of compounds of deverbal (e.g. ) and denominal participles (e.g. ). Compounds of ambicategorical participles (e.g. ), 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aarts, B.
    (2004) Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language, 28(1), 1–49. 10.1075/sl.28.1.02aar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.28.1.02aar [Google Scholar]
  2. (2007) Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ackerman, F., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (1996) Constraints on adjectival past participles. InA. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.17–30). Center for the Study of Language and Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Adams, V.
    (2014) Complex words in English. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315843339
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315843339 [Google Scholar]
  5. Audring, J.
    (2019) Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296. 10.3366/word.2019.0150
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0150 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bauer, L.
    (2001) Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486210 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
    (2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berko, J.
    (1958) The child’s learning of English morphology, Word, 141, 150–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Booij, G., & Audring, J.
    (2018) Partial motivation, multiple motivation: The role of output schemas in morphology. InG. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words (pp.59–80). Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Booij, G.
    (2005) The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2010a) Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 543–555. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00213.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00213.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Booij, G. E.
    (2010b) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Booij, G.
    (2012) The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2013) Morphology in construction grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brezina, V.
    (2018) Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316410899
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bybee, J.
    (1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. 10.1080/01690969508407111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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. 10.1353/lan.1982.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1982.0021 [Google Scholar]
  18. Coates, J.
    (1971) Denominal adjectives: a study in syntactic relationships between modifier and head. Lingua, 271, 160–169. 10.1016/0024‑3841(71)90084‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(71)90084-2 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cobuild
    Cobuild (1991) English guides 2: Word formation. Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cook, W. A.
    (1969) Introduction to tagmemic analysis. New York: Holt Rinehart.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Crystal, D.
    (1967) English word classes. Lingua, 171, 24–56. 10.1016/0024‑3841(66)90003‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(66)90003-9 [Google Scholar]
  22. Davies, M.
    (2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
  23. (2010) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coha/
  24. Diewald, G.
    (2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.) Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar (pp.277–315). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.08die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die [Google Scholar]
  25. Downing, P.
    (1977) On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 810–842. 10.2307/412913
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412913 [Google Scholar]
  26. Firth, J. R.
    (1958) Papers in linguistics, 1934–1951. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fowler, H. W.
    (1960) A dictionary of modern English usage. London: Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  31. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Construction grammar and its application to English: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2019) Higher-order schemas in morphology: What they are, how they work, and where to find them. Word Structure, 12(3), 261–273. 10.3366/word.2019.0149
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0149 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hirtle, W. H.
    (1970) -Ed Adjectives like ‘verandahed’ and ‘blue-eyed’. Journal of Linguistics, 19–36. 10.1017/S0022226700002334
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700002334 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hudson, R. A.
    (1975) Problems in the analysis of ed-adjectives. Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 69–72. 10.1017/S002222670000428X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670000428X [Google Scholar]
  36. Jackendoff, R. S.
    2010Meaning and the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Jackendoff, R. S., & Audring, J.
    (2020) The texture of the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jespersen, O.
    (1954) A modern English grammar (Vol. Parts II and VI). London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Koontz-Garboden, A.
    (2010) The lexical semantics of derived statives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(4), 285–324. 10.1007/s10988‑011‑9082‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9082-9 [Google Scholar]
  40. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (1990) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 2): Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction: OUP USA. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lehmann, C.
    (2015) Thoughts on grammaticalization. (3rd ed). Language Science Press [First edition 1982]. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lieber, R.
    (1983) Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(2), 251–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Partridge, E.
    (1963) Origins (3rd ed). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Perek, F.
    (2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3). 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  49. Plag, I.
    (2003) Word-formation in English: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511841323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  50. Reard, R.
    (1976) Once more on the analysis of ed-adjectives. Journal of Linguistics, 12(1), 155–157. 10.1017/S0022226700004850
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700004850 [Google Scholar]
  51. Rowntree, D.
    (1981) Statistics without tears: A primer for non-mathematicians. Scribner Book Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Saussure, F. de
    (1968) Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Seiler, H.
    (1967) On paradigmatic and syntagmatic similarity. Lingua, 181, 35–79. 10.1016/0024‑3841(67)90019‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(67)90019-8 [Google Scholar]
  54. Spuy, A.
    (2017) Construction morphology and inflection. Lingua, 1991, 60–71. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  56. Taylor, J. R.
    (2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2008) Prototypes in Cognitive Linguistics. InP. J. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.49–75). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Tuggy, D.
    (1993) Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 272–90. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): categorization; noun-participle compounds; paradigms; schemas
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error