Pozna Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 47(4), 2011, pp.

844872
School of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Pozna, Poland
doi:10.2478/psicl-2011-0040

CONTRASTIVE WORD-FORMATION
AND LEXICOGRAPHY: COMPOUND VERBS
IN ENGLISH AND BULGARIAN

ALEXANDRA BAGASHEVA
Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski
abagasheva@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The paper is focused on a contrastive word-formation analysis of compound verbs in

English and Bulgarian. A secondary focus is the possibility of a fruitful cross-pollination
between practical lexicography and contrastive studies in the area of verb compounding.
The analysis is cast in the cognitive linguistic paradigm and makes use of the concept of
the construction schema as the chosen tertium comparationis, which best reveals the
significant word-formation niches in the two languages under investigation. On the basis
of immediate lexicographical experience in bilingual dictionary compilation and by ap-
plying the achievements of cognitive studies and contrastive word-formation, several
word-formation families are analyzed and the conclusion is drawn that the productivity
of compounding in Bulgarian is still significantly lower than that in English. Despite this
marked difference in productivity, in the area of verbal compounding the convergence
tendencies outweigh the observed contrasts between the two languages.

Keywords: English; Bulgarian; compound verbs; contrastive word-formation; bilingual

lexicography.

1. Compounding and contrastive word-formation analysis

Among the well-established word-formation processes, compounding competes

for the first prize in terms of ease and effectiveness of creating and transferring
new complex meanings. According to Bickerton (1990: 104129) and Jacken-
doff (2002: 249251), it boasts evolutionary and developmental primacy in ex-
pressing complex concepts, preceding derivation. Even if one is not convinced
in the developmental primacy of compounding, it would still be hard to contest
Libbens (2006: 2) claim that

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 845

compounding might be considered to be the universally fundamental

word formation process. Under the assumption that the purpose of
novel word formation is to communicate, compounding offers the eas-
iest and most effective way to create and transfer new meanings.

Because it is recognized as a universal word-formation process, compounding is

naturally suited for contrastive word-formational analyses. The question a re-
searcher is faced with is the establishment of a reliable tertium comparationis.
In keeping with Hansens (1977: 293) and Kastovskys (2005: 109) recommen-
dations, logical-semantic language-independent structures are considered a
fruitful choice for a tertium comparationis for the purposes of the present ar-
gument. This requirement narrows down the question to the definition of empir-
ically grounded generalizations with the most adequate degree of granularity. It
has been recognized that productive semantic subgeneralizations in contrasting
compounding in two distantly related languages can best be achieved by apply-
ing an onomasiological approach (Hansen 1977, after Kastovsky 2005: 109)
based on a prior semasiological analysis. The successive application of a sema-
siological and an onomasiological analysis is inevitable in the process of com-
piling a general-purpose bilingual dictionary. Thus, contrastive analysis and lex-
icography can join efforts to achieve precision and depth in studies of the lexi-
con. The insistence on joining theoretical linguistics and lexicography does not
make it, to borrow Spitzers (quoted after Hning 2009: 190) words,

necessary to individualize every single word formation. The principle

of recent lexicography that every word has its own history, is valid
for word formation too. The series of words with the same affix are
mirages, they fall apart on closer examination like the laws of sound
change: so word formation automatically leads to the dictionary.

It simply sensitizes us to the desideratum to establish a bridge between theoreti-

cally informed analysis and hands-on utility-driven empirical lexicographic
work.

2. General outline

The experience of participating in the team compiling a general-purpose bilin-

gual BulgarianEnglish dictionary (Pencheva and Bagasheva 2009) and in the
compilation of an EnglishBulgarian one (Pencheva and Bagasheva, to appear)

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
846 A. Bagasheva

serves as data source for the contrastive analysis of compound verbs (CVs) in
these two languages. The ultimate tertium comparationis chosen will be the
construction schema (Langacker 1987; Booij 2005; Tuggy 2003, 2005; Lampert
and Lampert 2010), which is defined as a cognitive representation comprising
a generalization over perceived similarities among instances of usage resulting
from repeated activation of a set of co-occurring properties (Barlow and
Kemmer 2000: xxiii). The concept of the schema collapses the onomasiology-
semasiology divide as the establishment of the schema (spread of usage and en-
trenchment) on the basis of routinized usage events is semasiological in nature,
while the sanctioning of the schema in its subsequent elaborations (its use as a
matrix/exemplar for analogical extensions) is a lexicogenetic,1 onomasiological
process.

2.1. Research questions

The research questions are restricted to the nature, status and word-formation
contrasts of CVs in English and Bulgarian and to the possible ways of uniting
the efforts of linguists and practicing lexicographers. The method adopted has
been to conduct a qualitative analysis based on models of cognitive linguistics
and findings of practical lexicography. Such exploration aims at offering a line
of a possible fruitful inter-pollination between theoretical linguistics and practi-
cal lexicography in the area of research on contrastive word-formation, and
more specifically on verbal compounding.

2.2. Basic assumptions

An analysis along such lines presupposes the adoption of an assumption of a

principled distinction between the lexicalization1,22 and the grammaticalization

1
Lexicogenesis involves the mechanisms for introducing new pairs of word forms and word
meaningsall the traditional mechanisms, in other words, like word formation, word creation (the
creation of entirely new roots), borrowing, blending, truncation, ellipsis, or folk etymology, that in-
troduce new items into the onomasiological inventory of a language (Geeraerts 2010: 23; empha-
sis in the original).
2
Lexicalization is used in two distinct senses in the literature. On the one hand, lexicalization1 is
used in relation to the debates in terms of the storage vs. generation opposition; the grammaticali-
zation vs. lexicalization opposition; the rule-governed/productive vs. idiosyncratic/creative opposi-
tion. Quirk et al. (1985), Chomsky (1995) and Huddleston and Pullum (2002) all understand the

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 847

of conceptual content. The result of lexicalization is the existence of a lexicon,

which is a finite list (for any individual) of (more-or-less) fixed structural ele-
ments that may be combined (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 4). A bilingual dic-
tionary represents in an orderly manner a significant portion of the vocabularies
of a source and a target language in the form of established/postulated transla-
tion equivalents which represent onomatological (word-formation) contrasts in a
theory-neutral manner for the trained eye. Contrastive word-formation studies
can help us more appropriately understand what a dictionary reveals about the
(mental) lexicon and thus aid lexicographers in the analysis stage of dictionary
compilation.

3. Linguistic-lexicographic asymmetries

Theoretical linguistics and lexicography are consciously trying to build bridges

and create uniform practices. However, their efforts do not meet the high expec-
tations. The central point of divergence is the understanding of lexical
knowledge as finite and definable or as encyclopedic, infinite and based on con-
textual prompts.3 Even systematic lexicography of the Apresjan type (Apresjan
2008) relies on a tacit understanding that lexical units are routinely matched up
with a finite set of conceptual distinctions which can be described and defined.
Lexicographical practice is impossible without a tacit acknowledgment of the
existence of discrete symbolic units with specifiable content which can be rep-

lexicon as a list of exceptions, whatever does not follow from general principles (Chomsky
1995: 235). On the other hand, lexicalization2 refers to Leonard Talmys (2000) lexicalization ty-
pology or typology of concept structuring, which amounts to recognizing the mode of information
packaging in symbolic complexes. This second view of lexicalization is directly related to lexico-
graphical practice as it may be used to account for the semantic components and dimensions of de-
scriptive meaning.
3
Theoretical linguistics nowadays seem to have discarded the telementational model of communi-
cation and meaning and replaced it with the understanding that word meaning is not the discrete
unpacking of circumscribed knowledge, but rather is a complex process of lexically prompted
knowledge activation on the principle of the growth of schematic networks (Langacker 1987; Fau-
connier and Turner 2002; Evans 2006, 2007; Onysko and Michel 2010). The telementational mod-
el has been accused of being constrained by a narrow lexicalist approach to word-formation, de-
picting a unified picture of language as a neat and fixed code with an established rigid structure
which does not allow for creativity, which lies with the speakers. When faced with the intricacies
and multidimensionality of on-line dynamic communicative interaction, this position is well-
grounded, but such a position is untenable for lexicographical purposes, no matter what ones theo-
retical affiliations are.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
848 A. Bagasheva

resented through translation equivalents in two more or less structured vocabu-

lary inventories (at least as far as bilingual dictionaries are concerned). If the
conduit metaphor (Reddy 1979/1993) has been deemed inadequate for an in-
sightful understanding of language, it is indispensable for practical lexicogra-
phy.
Linguists and lexicographers have distinct aims, different audiences and tel-
eological motivations. While linguists target depth and breadth of knowledge,
lexicographers target efficacy and the high utility of their products. This moti-
vates certain differences which might result in skewed pictures of the same are-
as of the object under study (for linguists) or the object of immediate manipula-
tion and representation (for lexicographers). Linguists, who usually aim at gen-
eralizations, devote most of their efforts to the study of endocentric, productive
compounds (see Bauer 2001, 2004; Bedecker 2001; Berg 2006; Coulson 2001;
Downing 1977; Lieber 2004, 2009). Lexicographers on the other hand tend to
neglect fully regular compounds on grounds of space. As Minkova and Stock-
well (2006: 462) note,

Compounds are frequently collected together in a section or group of

sections at or near the end of an entry. They are followed by a quota-
tion paragraph in which examples of each compound are presented in
alphabetical order of the compound. Some major compounds are en-
tered as headwords in their own right. (Guide to OED Entries, em-
phasis ours).

In the ensuing distorted picture a discrepancy arises what counts as major

compounds in linguistics and lexicography seems at times not to be the same
thing. Marked compound creations are more likely to catch the lexicographers
attention and be recorded in dictionaries as these are considered idiosyncratic,
non-compositional and fully lexicalized1. This phenomenon is not without its
object-language motivation. Hning (2009: 184) elaborates on Haspelmaths
contemplations on the opposition between productivity and creativity the less
productive a rule is, the more will a neologism be noticed and the fewer uncon-
scious neologisms will be formed (Haspelmath 2002: 100101).
General purpose bilingual L1 to L2 dictionaries are used systematically by
learners and semi-bilingual speakers for receptive and productive purposes,
mainly as communicative aids or reference materials. Word-formation technical-
ities are not considered of primary relevance for foreign language users as most
non-specialists perceive words as the primary bearers of meaning, and infor-
mation concerning linguistic paraphernalia below the word is not traditionally

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 849

considered of primary relevance for dictionary users. As for dictionaries, such

information can make their communicatively oriented consumption more cum-
bersome. In keeping with such assumptions, Bulgarian bilingual dictionary pub-
lishers, who do not rely on explicitly and expressly stated style guides, represent
word-formation information exclusively in specialized monolingual dictionar-
ies. Another source of distortion comes from the fact that EnglishBulgarian
and BulgarianEnglish bilingual dictionaries are published almost exclusively
in only one of the countries and this fact reflects the linguistic and lexicographic
traditions of just one of the associated cultures.4 In cases when both L1 to L2
and L2 to L1 dictionaries are compiled by the same team, word-formation pat-
terns become patently obvious to the trained eye. To balance the picture and get
a fuller account of compounding both linguists achievements and lexicogra-
phers products should be taken into consideration.

4. Linguistics on compound verbs

Against the background of the diverse mushrooming studies of compounds, the

scarcity of writings on CVs is puzzling. In both English and Bulgarian, CVs are
not legion, and this motivates most scholars to dismiss them as unproductive
and unyielding systematic consideration (GMB 1993; Marchand 1969; Murda-
rov 1983; Radeva 1991, 2007; Spencer 2005; tekauer and Lieber 2005).

4.1. Analytical neglect of CVs

From the point of view of the historiography of linguistics, the belittling of CVs
spans at least as far back as Marchand (1969: 196), who recognizes as CVs only
those units in which the determinantdeterminatum relation is strictly observed.
These are of the (1) overcome type. To all other verbs of the (2) spotlight type
he ascribes pseudo-compound status. Some thirty-five years later Spencer is
even sterner: English does not permit compounding with finite verb forms
(Spencer 2005: 89).
Bulgarian word-formationists are unanimous in dubbing compounding
atypical for Bulgarian, emphasizing its restricted productivity and the scarcity
of individuated word-formation types that can be recognized and analyzed. The

4
Major publishing houses are not in the habit of including Bulgarian in their bilingual series.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
850 A. Bagasheva

naming units that result from compounding in Bulgarian correspond to foreign

word-formation patterns and are termed ugly, distorting, unnecessary by lay
people and language professionals alike (Murdarov 1983: 97). GMB (1993)
does not recognize the existence of CVs. Only three books mention CVs (Mur-
darov 1983; Radeva 1991, 2007) and half-recognize a single productive pattern
(see Section 8) which is often contested as it contains an element recognized by
many Bulgarian linguists as an affixoid or semi-affix, thus denying the com-
pound status of the whole class of verbs.
tekauer and Lieber (2005) contains very little on CVs; Lieber and tekauer
(2009) (2009) also does not contain chapters explicitly devoted to the study of
CVs, though they feature in some. Lieber (2009: 359) notes the following about
CVs:

V+V endocentric compounds can be found, but the type is unproduc-

tive: MORBO contains trickle-irrigate, and a few others come to
mind (slam-dunk, blow-dry), but these are not freely formed.

In two subsequent tables summarizing in a theory-neutral manner the types of

compounds characteristic of English5 as an IE, Germanic language, she classi-
fies (3) stir-fry as a simultaneous endocentric coordinate compound and (4)
headhunt, (5) machine-wash, (6) air-condition and (7) spoon-feed as endocen-
tric verb-containing subordinate compounds of the output category V and dubs
these a marginal class (Lieber 2009: 361). Booij (2005) expresses views in
unison with Liebers (2005) claim that compounding with a verb category out-
put is rare, at least in Germanic languages. Albeit low, the incidence of com-
pounds with the output category V in Germanic languages is 17.01 %, in Sla-
vonic, 11.63 % (Morbo/Comp sample in Guevara and Scalise 2009: 116).
Though not indicative of a strikingly high incidence, such data invites more de-
tailed accounts.

4.2. The reality of CVs

Generalizations concerning the scarcity of CVs in both English and Bulgarian

are probably due to their non-recognition as genuine compounds on theoretical

5
Lieber uses the classifying system of compounds introduced by Scalise and Bisetto (2009) with a
slight broadening of the subordinate class to include compounds with subject-oriented interpreta-
tions of the non-verbal compound constituent.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 851

grounds contesting the possibility of CVs resulting from composition. Tradi-

tionally, most CVs in English are interpreted as lexical units resulting from
back-derivation or conversion. Although such claims may well be warranted for
English, these two word-formation processes are exceptionally rare, if possible
at all, in Bulgarian.6 Conversion is ruled out on the basis of the characteristic fu-
sional (inflectional) grammatical morphology for Bulgarian which leads to: a)
overt marking of the part-of-speech membership of lexical items and b) a clear
distinction between form-formative and word-formative affixes (Nitsolova
2008: 3346). Lexicographic practice reveals the existence of considerable
numbers of CVs in Bulgarian. The list of attested CVs includes but is not ex-
hausted by:7 (8) fame-speak, (9) ill-speak, (10)
sweet-glorify, (11) word/speech-fornicate,
(12) good-wish, (13) over-love-act,
(14) sweet-act, (15) counter-attack,
(16) ill-use, (17) god-blaspheme, (18)
kind-change, (19) holy oil-spread, (20)
dust-suck, (21) () head-daze (self), (22)
head-jostle self, (23) () head-ache (self), (24)
voice-give, (25) hand-clap, (26)
() mind-darken (self), (27) good-will, (28)
applicant-student-be/become, (29)
water-supply, (30) electricity-supply, (31)
hand-wave, (32) god-create/work, (33) good-
set up, (34) hand-place/position8 and a large group of highly
schematized CVs which will be analyzed below (see Sections 6 and 8). Running
counter to theory-based estimations, CVs in Bulgarian constitute a genuine
compound class with various subtypes sanctioning different construction sche-

6
Even for English, opinions have been voiced that it is not back-formation and conversion that
yield CVs as output. The root-compounding argument proposed by Ackema and Neeleman (2004)
hypothesizes that root-compounding can result in the direct creation of CVs in English.
7
The language of computer specialists is characterized by numerous compounds, including verbs.
As these are classified as belonging to specialized, terminological vocabulary, they are not includ-
ed in the analysis. On compounding in computer language in Bulgarian, see Kirova (2006).
8
(8) speak good of; (9) speak ill of; (10) bless; (11) ill-use words; (12) wish good; (13)
commit adultery; (14) favor; (15) counterattack; (16) ill-use, abuse; (17) blaspheme; (18)
alter; (19) anoint; (20) vacuum-clean; (21) get a swelled head; (22) strain ones brain; (23)
worry; (24) vote; (25) clap ones hands; (26) (cause to) become deranged; (27) volunteer,
(28) sit for entrance exams for a university; (29) supply with water; (30) supply with electrici-
ty; (31) wave ones hands, gesticulate; (32) worship; (33) urbanize, develop; (34) ordain.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
852 A. Bagasheva

mas, some of which correspond to similar ones in English to a lesser or greater

degree.

4.3. In defence of CVs

The rehabilitation of CVs in linguistic discourses stretches back to Bauers ob-

servation concerning the activity of verb compounding in English: there are
plenty of this type of verb being coined in current English (Bauer 1983: 208).
From a more lexicographically-informed perspective, Erdmann (2000: 241
242) also tries to rehabilitate CVs by contradicting Marchands claim that all
CVs other than those containing a particle as the first constituent are pseudo-
compound verbs are without exception the result of back-derivation or conver-
sion from nominal or adjectival compounds. The author contends that
Marchands claim that compound verbs are all derived from non-verbal com-
pounds does not stand up to the historical facts as they are recorded in the OED
(Erdmann 2000: 242). Erdmann goes on to identify cases in which CVs are
documented in the same year as non-verbal corresponding ones and even cases
in which the CV is recorded prior to its supposed non-verbal derivational base.
Among the ones he quotes as documented prior to all other related non-verbal
compounds figures a list of verbs all containing new as the non-verbal constitu-
ent or talk as the verbal one (35) new-create, (36) new-coin, (37) new-dress,
(38) newfangle, and (39) small-talk, (40) smooth-talk, (41) fast-talk. In addition
to Erdmanns claims, tracing down the documented origins of words in the Ran-
dom House Dictionary reveals that (42) breastfeed and (43) dry-nurse are also
directly created CVs. If such arguments are insufficient to instigate rigorous re-
search in CVs, we should at least consider Guevara and Scalises (2009: 125)
contention:

It is remarkable that the literature has dedicated a great deal of atten-

tion to just one case in compounding [...], that is: endocentric subor-
dinate right-headed [N+N]N compounds. While this pattern is certain-
ly the canonical instance in compounding in the worlds languages, it
is by no means the only one. Future work on the typology and on the
theory of compounding will necessarily have to shift the tendency
shown until now by concentrating on the analysis of the many remain-
ing compound-types.

As if presaging this, Ackema and Neeleman (2004: 55) claim that although
cases like to *meat-eat are impossible, NV compounding as such is widely at-

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 853

tested in English. Whether they have gained the status of listemes that have
been completely entrenched or are one-off usage events (occasionalisms), CVs
perform an important communicative role in on-line communicative exchanges.
What is more, even if CVs do not receive an onomatological realization,9
they play an important role in backstage cognition:

Language is only the tip of a spectacular cognitive iceberg, and when

we engage in any language activity, be it mundane or artistically crea-
tive, we draw unconsciously on vast cognitive resources, call up in-
numerable models and frames, set up multiple connections, coordinate
large arrays of information, and engage in creative mappings, trans-
fers, and elaborations. This is what language is about and what lan-
guage is for.
(Fauconnier 1999: 96).

Crucial for these processes are CVs, which may not always surface as separate
symbolic units, but are indispensable steps in backstage cognition as corner-
stones framing conceptual structures in meaning construction processes.10 Con-
sequently, the question of which of these conceptual structures have been sanc-
tioned as CV schemas in separate languages and what constraints operate on
their onomatological realization becomes of paramount importance. This pre-
pares the ground for the choice of a workable tertium comparationis for con-
trastive studies of CVs construction schemas, underlying onomatological real-
izations,

Since formal comparisons of individual lexical items do not seem to

lend themselves to any significant generalizations, contrastive studies
of word formation are better off if they are based on some conceptual
framework. [...] As a matter of fact, any aspect of the meaning can
serve as a basis for cross-linguistic comparisons.
(Krzeszowski 1990: 75).

9
At the onomatological level, the onomasiological structure is assigned linguistic units based on
the Form-to-Meaning-Assignment Principle (FMAP) (tekauer 1998: 9; emphasis in the original).
10
A corroborating argument is the importance of word-formative paradigms within which the verb,
in this case CV, is predicted, presupposed by the other members of the paradigm. Troubleshooting
and troubleshooter require the verb trouble-shoot which is of course the logic of backformation
understood as zero-derivation. The claim here is that the emergence of agentive and/or activity
compound nouns is backed up in back-stage cognition by a frame governed by a compound verb
which provides the semantic scaffolding for further conceptual conversion and modeling mecha-
nisms which will yield the necessary profiling for non-relational concept construction.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
854 A. Bagasheva

The choice of onomatologically realized construction schemas as the tertium

comparationis in analyzing CVs in English and Bulgarian seems to be both
theoretically and practically justified. Collapsing the onomasiological-
semasiological divide (depending on the level of schematicity recognized and
the analytical perspective), a construction schema captures the significant fea-
tures of a word-formation family.

5. Contrastive analysis of CVs in English and Bulgarian

On this basis we can identify all members of Liebers list of subordinate CVs
(2009) as [MANNER VERB] CVs with a readily recognizable meaning construc-
tion pattern which sanctions an analogically potent schema. The potency of the
schema is observed in the freedom of formation of new instantiations which
constitute the word-formation family. For example, the feed family contains
further analogically created members: (6) spoon-feed, (44) bottle-feed and (45)
force-feed.
Construction schemas for compounds include formal (partial) representa-
tional identity and a sanctioned model of conceptual relations which is based on
semantic affinities between the elaborations and the exemplar source schema
projected through the established cognitive mechanisms of conceptual blending.
The schema as operative in word-formation is here understood as defined by
Tuggy (2005: 235):

A schema is a pattern, a rough outline, a coarse-grained, less-fully-

specified version of a concept which the elaborations render, each in a
different way, in finer, more elaborate detail. All of the schemas spec-
ifications are true of its elaborations, but each elaboration of a schema
specifies details which the schema does not.

5.1. Construction schemas and word-formation families

5.1.1. The -dry and -fry families

The dry-family (46) tumble-dry, (47) sundry, (48) kilndry, (49) spin-dry, (50)
drip-dry, (51) blow-dry, (52) rough-dry, (53) freeze-dry, (54) air-dry, (55)
smoke-dry, and (56) spray-dry constitutes an established and well-elaborated
word-formation schema. The schema [MANNER/INSTRUMENT V(DRY)] is unified

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 855

by the common semantics of TO PROCESS CLOTHES. The same applies to the -fry
family (57) deep-fry, (58) deep fat fry, (59) French-fry, (3) stir-fry for which
a [MANNER/INSTRUMENT V(FRY)] construction schema unified by the common
semantics of TO PROCESS FOOD TO A CERTAIN EFFECT is identified. These can all
be classified as endocentric subordinate verbs, though Liebers (2009) classifi-
cation is also possible for isolated members of the family, thus disrupting the
unified nature of the word-formation family. On the surface, with some mem-
bers of the word-formation niches [MANNER/INSTRUMENT V(DRY)] and [MAN-
NER/INSTRUMENT V(FRY)], it seems that we have coordinate CVs where the lexi-
cal input structure suggests a synchronous/simultaneous coordinate [Verb Verb]
compound formation. This interpretation sounds convincing for (3) stir-fry,
while (57) deep-fry does not yield such an analysis because there is no *to deep
verb in English, and second because the more plausible semantic interpretation
of the whole -fry niche is TO FRY IN A CERTAIN WAY, i.e. TO A CERTAIN EFFECT
and it is only a secondary or contingent fact that some of the effects involve
naming by a verb-like lexeme. It turns out that even generalizations involving a
local niche-internal classification require the postulation of a cline which can
pay justice to all the facts:

V+V non-V + V
coordinate subordinate
synchronous/simultaneous manner
stir-fry deep-fry
drip-dry rough-dry

The cline captures the -fry niche with the generalized meaning COOK TO A CER-
TAIN EFFECT. (3) Stir-fry will occupy the leftmost area of the cline, while (57)
deep-fry will indicate the rightmost extreme. The same argument goes for the -
dry niche, where (50) drip-dry will delineate the leftmost zone, (52) rough-dry
the rightmost one, with (55) smoke-dry occupying a middle position along the
cline.
The schema in English has been so developed that it tolerates metaphtonym-
ic extensions. Some of the verbs (52) rough-dry, (53) freeze-dry and (55)
smoke-dry do not name the manner (which includes what type of instrument is
used) of drying clothes, but either extend the meaning to the overall treatment of

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
856 A. Bagasheva

clothes after washing (51) or altogether refer to the processing of an entirely dif-
ferent entity for example food in (53) and (55). Onomasiologically speaking,
none of these has received a morphological realization in Bulgarian. For this
schema, Bulgarian has syntactic phrases. To both sanctioned elaborations and
extensions in Bulgarian we find syntactic constructions: (60)
(dry in a dryer, tumble-dry) = (46) tumble-dry; (61)
(leave to drain off, drip-dry) = (50) drip-dry; (62) (smoke
meat, smoke-dry) = (55) smoke-dry.

5.1.2. The -feed schema

The English feed-schema is likewise onomatologically realized by syntactic ex-

pressions in Bulgarian (63) (feed artificially, force-
feed) = (45) force-feed; (64) (feed with a soother, bottle-
feed) = (44) bottle-feed; (65) (feed with a spoon, spoon-
feed) = (6) spoon-feed. Rather curious is the fact that the same conceptual
space TO PROVIDE (ANOTHER) WITH KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION IN AN
OVERSIMPLIFIED WAY is expressed in Bulgarian with the activation of the same
domain matrixes and the same ontological metaphor KNOWLEDGE IS FOOD/
KNOWLEDGE IS LIQUID as the one in English, but the symbolic inventories of
the two languages have sanctioned quite distinct construction schemas a CV in
English, (6) spoon-feed, and an idiomatic syntactic complex in Bulgarian, (66)
(give by the hour spoonfuls, spoon-feed).

6. Partial similarities

The talk-family in English (39) small-talk, (40) smooth-talk, (41) fast-talk, etc.
elaborates the following schema: [MANNER V(talk)]. In Bulgarian a similar
schema is elaborated by (8) , (9) , (10) . In
both languages the non-verbal component ascribes properties to the nature of
what is spoken, which surfaces in the CV schema as a MANNER semantic com-
ponent. Despite the correspondences between the intra-compound constituents
in terms of lexical input and the seeming similarities between the executed con-
struction schemas, the two families do not correspond. The lexical (in terms of
dictionary equivalents and semantics) counterpart to (9) in English is a
member of the mouth-family, (67) badmouth. All the verbs of the -mouth family

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 857

in English are metonymically constructed. SPEAKING/TALKING is not represent-

ed in the compound complex, but the metonymic transfer INSTRUMENT FOR
PROCESS motivates the semantic dependencies in the family ((68) poormouth,
(67) badmouth, etc.). In Bulgarian, the blending of a feature as an emancipated
component and the activity in its complexity as a source domain is direct and no
conceptual transfer is exploited in the construction schema. The Bulgarian verbs
are single-scope blends with no creativity involved in the construction schema.
The English counterpart family is creatively motivated, consistently exploiting
the metonymic transfer. Thus we can establish several points11 of convergence
and/or divergence in the two languages in relation to the word-formation fami-
lies:

(1) (non-)coincidence of the constituents in the symbolic complex;

(2) similarities in construction schemas;
(3) differences in the degree of creativity and type of blend;
(4) differences in the transitivity ratings of the resultant CVs.

The CVs (39) small-talk and (9) 12 are intransitive, the remaining elab-
orations are transitive. The transitive members of the English family have an
additional causative meaning which is revealed in their syntactic affiliations of
complementation by somebody into doing something. Even though, superfi-
cially, they are semasiologically parallel, the elaborations of the same schema in
the two languages are onomasiologically distinct.
The Bulgarian translation equivalents will necessarily express the causative
semantic component periphrastically. The non-compositional elaboration-
specific meanings of each CV in Bulgarian render them systematically related in
terms of oppositeness of meaning. (8) and (9) 13 are direc-

11
The contrast can be illuminated from two complementary perspectives, namely form a semasio-
logical point of view and from an onomasiological point of view. Semasiologically speaking, we
can generalize on the basis of a corresponding constituent, (talk), or from an onomasiologi-
cal perspective we can establish corresponding families covering the same conceptual space,
(badmouth, backbite).
12
The exact translation equivalent of this verb in English is backbite, but it realizes an entirely dif-
ferent construction schema and is not discussed in detail here.
13
This verb is a member of a richly elaborated analogical family in Bulgarian with its first constit-
uent lexically specified, [- VERB]: (ill-see, envy s.o., begrudge s.o. ones suc-
cess), (ill-speak, badmouth, backbite), / (ill-act, commit
an outcry), (ill-see to me, envy s.o.), (ill-enjoy, gloat over),
/ (ill-do, commit evil deeds), (ill-act, do evil),

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
858 A. Bagasheva

tionally opposed in terms of evaluative marking. Construction-wise they consti-

tute a unified schema and the only semantic difference between them is evalua-
tive markedness: the first one (8) is highly positively marked, the second (9)
highly negatively marked. This runs parallel to the evaluative markedness oppo-
sition between (69) sweet-talk sb into doing sth and (41) fast-talk sb into doing
sth.
(67) Badmouth fully corresponds as a translation equivalent to (9) ,
though the executed symbolic components subscribe them under different con-
struction schemas. Thus, significant correspondences can be identified between
English and Bulgarian in terms of the word-formation construction schema and
the meaning parallels in these two families of CVs. The identical construction
schema in the two languages [MANNER OF V(speak)] does not have the same power
of analogical attraction. First, unlike in English, the Bulgarian verbal component
cannot exist on its own and consequently the schema, though sanctioned, is un-
likely to attract further elaborations, as the existing ones seem to be fully lexi-
calized1. The schema in English seems to be more active and likely to attract
new analogical elaborations, based on the principle of cognitive similarities es-
tablished between a sanctioned schema and the salience of features in experien-
tial complexes which yield an analogical onomasiological delineation.

7. The cognitive mechanisms behind CVs

The interpretation of the experiential complexes lies with the language user. In
view of the Immersed Experiencer Framework (Zwaan 2004), it is plausible to
assume that the perceptual simulations which are automatically activated in lan-
guage processing are also conceptually salient in the interpretation of CVs, as
they are necessarily projected features in the blended space of a CV. The peculi-
arities involved in running the blend of a CV derive from the fact that the
conceptual base that underlies their predication is complex: [...] a complex sce-
ne14 (Langacker 1987: 141; emphasis in the original). All endocentric subordi-

(ill-use, misuse), (ill-act, commit an outcry), (ill-

honour, humiliate, cause misfortune to). Besides the interesting questions concerning headed-
ness this poses, illustrates that the mechanism of analogical elaboration is based on the
salience of experiential complexes and is subject to pragmatic, not grammatical constraints.
14
Langacker defines the semantic pole of an idiom in this quotation, but taking the liberty to use it
in relation to compound verbs is justified by its appropriateness and aptness for describing the con-
ceptual constitution of a compound verb.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 859

nate CVs in English which elaborate on the construction schema [MANNER OF

DOING X] are single-scope blends. The inherited frame is that of the second in-
put space15 the verbal component space. Two large sets of CVs in English fall
under this category Marchands true compound verbs of the (70) outdo type
and the pattern-producing (71) slow-dance type. The productivity of the man-
ner-of verbs of the latter type can be accounted for in terms of their specificity
(Langacker 1987: 48). Being single-scope CINs,16 they realize specific exten-
sions in relation to their verbal input through the specification of the CIRCUM-
STANCE specifier of the profile determinant.
The productivity of the model is also driven by strong analogical motiva-
tion. Analogical creations, which presuppose the recognition of a workable pat-
tern applied routinely, do not require significant cognitive effort. Once the pat-
tern has been established it is easily used as a convenient scaffolding matrix to
the family. The existence of morphological families is an attestation to this
claim:

(A) the whip family horsewhip, pistol-whip, pussy-whip

(B) the cook family steam-cook, oven-cook, pressure-cook
(C) the start family tow-start, kick-start, jump-start
(D) the feed family breast-feed, force-feed, spoon-feed
(E) the dry family drip-dry, tumble-dry, freeze-dry, smoke-dry
(F) the talk family sweet-talk, smooth-talk, double-talk, small-talk
(G) the land family crash-land, rough-land, soft-land
(H) the foot family hotfoot, cat-foot, pussy-foot

15
The analysis is based on the theory of conceptual integration networks which result from pro-
cesses of conceptual blending. Conceptual Integration Networks (CINs) are the result of a well-
studied cognitive process or mechanism, blending. Fauconnier (2004) identifies five basic types of
CINs on the basis of the interaction of the two input spaces and their presentation in the blended
space: Simplexes, Mirrors, Single-Scope, Double-Scope and Multiple-Scope CINs.
16
Blending is an operation that takes place over conceptual integrations networks. Conceptual in-
tegration networks often involve many mental spaces. Blending can occur at many different sites in
the network (Fauconnier and Turner 1998: 139140). A shared topology network is single-scope
if the inputs have different organizing frames and one of them is projected to organize the blend.
Its defining property is that the organizing frame of the blend is an extension of the organizing
frame of one of the inputs but not the other: TFB > TF1 (Fauconnier and Turner 1998: 176).

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
860 A. Bagasheva

This CV schema is in the form of a micro-narrative script based on the phenom-

enological experiencing of a scene consisting of an AGENT/CAUSE, MANNER, AT-
TENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES, OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES, INSTRUMENT, TEMPORAL
CONTOUR, DEFAULT MANNER OF PERFORMING THE ACTIVITY, etc. Each of these
features of the script can be the active zone17 to which a matching counterpart
from the non-verbal component will be projected. The non-verbal constituent
has the effect of specifying the script, without reducing its complexity. The pat-
tern is not sensitive as to which of the features from the verbal input space will
be matched with a projection from the non-verbal space. It could be MANNER or
INSTRUMENT (as in the families A to H) or other non-participant roles (as in (72)
house-sit). In (72), it is not difficult for speakers of English to understand the
conceptual relation between the two constituents. The motivating links between
the input conceptual (sub)structures can be recognised by speakers via analogy
to (73) baby-sit, which has already provided the conceptual scaffolding for the
blend, though in the new instantiation, the OTHER PARTICIPANT role is not real-
ized by a prototypical PARTICIPANT. The matching is strictly driven by Faucon-
niers (2002) selective projection. The pattern is not cognitively costly as it is
based on disintegration, which Bache (2005: 1616)18 recognizes as an inevitable
stage in running blends:

[W]hile blending serves to combine and unify separate inputs in

blended mental spaces, disintegration serves to fragment or partition
conceptual wholes into elements, features and partial structures that
may be recruited for individual projection to blended spaces.

Both input spaces are disintegrated, semantic affinity at a deep level of granular-
ity is established between features in the two spaces and they are selectively
projected in the blend in their new semantic interrelatedness.

17
Active zone is Langackers term for the precise locus of interaction between two meanings in
combination (Cruse 2004: 75; emphasis in the original). This implies that the principle of compo-
sitionality has to be revised to implement the semantic skeleton model which is to provide the
bare bones of a semantic structure for a complex expression, which is fleshed out by less predicta-
ble pragmatic means, using encyclopedic knowledge (Cruse 2004: 77).
18
As a matter of curiosity, in this article, the author uses a three-component compound verb to
first-order blend, as in [w]ithout the capacity to first-order blend, we cannot perform other essen-
tial cognitive operations [...] (Bache 2005: 1621).

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 861

8. Marchands genuine CVs and their Bulgarian translation equivalents

Two slightly different construction schemas for single scope MANNER-OF CVS
have been established. The first set of CVs19 mentioned above slightly deviates
from the [MANNER OF] general schema. The degree of schematicity in these
verbs is much higher and involves the re-interpretation of the first (non-verbal)
constituent. The first element in such CVs has a highly schematic meaning. It
projects a feature which profiles or specifies the conceptual space evoked by the
verbal component. The projection is neither metaphoric nor analogical. The
non-verbal constituent which invariably appears first in the compound has the
function of specifier of the profile determinant. This leads to asymmetrical
blending in which one of the outputs projected as a feature is blended as a de-
fault value in the meaning construction of the resultant CV.
What makes this type of CVs extremely interesting is the metaphtonymic
nature of the non-verbal constituent itself. Being cognitively related to the prep-
osition these non-verbal constituents in CVs, just as the more abstract non-
spatial meanings of prepositions, tend to be derived from concrete, spatial
senses by means of generalization or specialization of meaning or by metonym-
ic or metaphoric transfer (Cuyckens and Radden 2002: xiii). In (74) outnum-
ber, the input space of out projects the feature [BEYOND CERTAIN LIMITS], which
is derived from [LEAVING A CONTAINER] in the composition stage in the projec-
tion of the generic space which combines with the meaning of [TO MAKE A TO-
TAL; REACH AN AMOUNT] as a default. In the completion stage, it projects the
constructional requirement that the blended space contain a counterpart to the
agent that performs the verbal activity in the conceptual space in the verbal in-
put, so that the [LIMIT] meaning component can be set up by the emergent con-
trast between the counterparts in the ongoing process of running the blend. In
the blend, this counterpart becomes the agent to be realized in clausal construc-
tions based on this verb. The frame structure of agents is not only not preserved,

19
The compound status of such verbs is often contested on grounds of the dubious status of the
non-verbal constituent in them. Their compound status might also be challenged within the context
of current debates on grammaticalization. Falling prey to the fallacy of confusing regularity and
productivity with signals of active grammaticalization might lead to interpreting the first non-
verbal constituent of a CV as having semi-affixal or affixoid nature. This does not have any detri-
mental effects on recognizing the high analogical potential of the pattern which is based on a well-
established cognitive template. The fact that most linguists are not committed to the purely affixal
status of these constituents and recognize features of both lexical and affixal nature allows for a
compound interpretation. Further support in applying such an interpretation can be found in
Marchands (1969) identification of such verbs as the only genuine compounds.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
862 A. Bagasheva

it is reversed. Considering (74) a prototypical representative of the whole class

of CVs with disputed status, it can be concluded that these verbs are all realized
as simplexes. They are endocentric on all three counts of categorical, morpho-
logical and semantic headedness.
Systematic analyses of different types of dictionaries reveal that the system-
atic translational equivalents to these CVs in Bulgarian are prefixed verbs. The
prefixes that systematically appear in such verbs are (75) -, (na on) (76)
- (nad above, over), (77) - (iz from), (78) - (pre across). As sym-
bolic elements involved in the elaboration of construction schemas, they have a
schematic meaning closely related to the meaning of out, over, under, but it is
far more highly schematized, i.e. almost irrevocably removed from Tyler and
Evanss (2003, 2004) proto-scene. The construction schemas underlying
[PREPOSITION V] in English and prefixed verbs in Bulgarian differ in terms of
degree of schematicity as defined by Tuggy (2003, 2005). The basic contrast be-
tween the English particle compounds and their translation equivalents in Bul-
garian, the set of prefixed verbs, lies in the different partitioning of the CON-
TAINER spatiophysical schema which underlies metaphtonymic extensions in the
polysemous networks of the prepositions (in English) and the more fully sche-
matized prefixes (in Bulgarian). The proto-scene associated with OUT contains
the following scene specifics a bounded region, a moving landmark that
leaves the bounded region, movement, with the senses of COMPLETION and
GETTING A RESULT naturally relating to the idea of the change of position of the
landmark. Even though out is less schematized than the Bulgarian prefixes,20 it
remains significantly underspecified as to which of the scene specifics and its
metaphtonymic extensions it names. The Bulgarian prefixes specify different
localized features of the proto-scene, which are different from the ones profiled
in the English compounds:

(77) - from: the container as source; outward or centrifugal movement

from the center;
(76) - above, over: landmark above the container;
(78) - across: this prefix in the verbal lexicon is associated with over-
coming of a spatial boundary or passing through space (Radeva 2007:
171).

20
It can be assumed that such prefixes might be interpreted as fully grammaticalized or utterly
schematized prepositions.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 863

What is more, in Bulgarian the choice of a prefix is unmotivated for the speaker
and the various meanings contributed by a prefix are not saliently grouped in a
gestalt. In English compounds, however, the meaning contribution of the spatial
particles into the compound lexical concepts is not an arbitrary fact. [T]hat
English has the compounds overseer, but not *aboveseer, and underdog but not
*belowdog is based on the principle of experiential correlation. [T]his distri-
bution of compounds involving prepositions follows from a constrained set of
principles (Evans and Tyler 2005: 10) which create polysemy networks. Thus,
from the proto-scene, via conceptual extensions, the distinct senses of the prep-
ositions are established. Some of these senses are selected and undergo further
processes of conceptual interaction with the verb meanings they most naturally
combine with.
The prefixes are characterized by a higher degree of schematicity and repre-
sent clusters of senses not necessarily mutually related, which precludes the es-
tablishment of polysemy networks. Out and over display considerably lower de-
gree of schematicity and bring into the compound symbolic complex the totality
of their schematic polysemous networks of interrelated senses, among which the
relations of conceptual extension or transfer are still traceable. The [PREPOSI-
TION VERB] schema is non-extant in Bulgarian. Admittedly, the prefixes have
been grammaticalized from prepositions and it is quite possible to establish the
links among the different senses of the prefixes as they are used in the deriva-
tion of various lexemes with the different senses of prepositions, which are still
used or which have become obsolete. The semantic complexity of the estab-
lished semantic networks which account for the physical and elaborated mean-
ings of the prefixes will be no less intriguing than that of the radial networks
postulated for English prepositions, but the degree of schematicity and distance
from the proto-scene will be significant.

9. A productive CV schema in Bulgarian

From the analyses up to here, it appears that in Bulgarian there are no produc-
tive CV schemas. However, a highly potent compound schema which is also
systematically represented in English, though in a constrained way, is estab-
lished in Bulgarian. It does not rely on the projection of a manner feature but ra-
ther incorporates both AGENT and PATIENT. It is the construction schema with
- self-, which roughly equals that with self- in English: (79)
self-insure, pay ones social securities oneself, (80)

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
864 A. Bagasheva

self-accuse, accuse oneself, (81)

self-torture, torture oneself, (82) self-reveal, re-
veal/expose oneself, etc.21

[ VERB ] = [SELF + VERB + REFLEXIVE CLITIC-SE]

hese verbs represent a single-scope blend resulting in a feature-event schema.

They encode both AGENT and AFFECTED. Their activity and productivity in both
languages is driven directly by the cognitive principles of egocentricity and an-
thropocentricity. Though semasiologically similar, the construction schemas in
the two languages display significant contrasts. In Bulgarian, the obligatory clit-
ic (accusative or dative) renders the verb reflexive. In those verbs the non-verbal
compound constituent () and the clitic () designate the same referent,
even though they mark its split involvement in the verbal activity. They both
emphasize the feature of SELF-INSTIGATED ACTIVITY DIRECTED AT ONESELF.
Thus, the affected seems to be doubly marked. The obligatory presence of the
clitic might be necessitated by the clash which arises between the non-typicality
of external argument-constituent (AGENT) incorporation in compounding22 and
the high productivity of the [ VERB ] pattern. The clitic foregrounds the
semantic feature DIRECTED AT ONESELF and satisfies the schema-imposed re-
quirement for a metonymic relation between the non-verbal CV constituent and
any permissible expressible object thereof.

9.1. The function of the se-clitic in Bulgarian CVs

The same pattern is also observed in (21) head-daze, turn

ones head, / head-daze, to get a swelled
head and (23) head-ache, to trouble, to inconvenience and -
21
The list includes but is not exhausted by: self-tax, tax oneself,
self-destruct, destroy oneself, self-ignite, ignite one-
self, self-punish, punish oneself, self-purge, purge one-
self, self-service, service oneself, self-tax, tax one-
self, self-exterminate, exterminate oneself, self-
suggest, take it into ones head, self-point out, brag,
self-wind up, egg oneself on, self-criticize, criticize oneself,
self-eat, eat oneself, worry, self-forget, be arrogant/
presumptuous, self-lie, lie to oneself.
22
Actor arguments cannot be expressed in compounds (Kiefer 1993: 48).

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 865

head-ache self, to worry too much. These latter CVs are of extreme
interest as they can be both transitive and reflexive. The addition of the reflexive
clitic (se) does not change the meaning of the verbs. It simply indicates the
AFFECTED in the construal of the activity, i.e. it encodes the internal argument of
the compound verb. The transitive use of these verbs projects a schema in which
the internal argument acquires a possessive/metonymic relationship with the first
component in the compound verb. Unlike the [ V ] family (see 9), in the-
se verbs the metonymical relationship which can be detected between the non-
verbal compound constituent and the internal argument of the CV licenses the
transitive use of the verb. (26) mind-darken, lose ones
mind also belongs here and displays the same characteristics. All possible inter-
nal arguments of the three CVs ((21), (23) and (26)) should be animate and the
non-verbal compound constituent acquires metonymic relations with them. Thus
such schemas parallel the [ V ] family in terms of necessarily marking a
metonymical object and indicating the intransitive reading of the resultant CVs.
This leads us to the observation that there are also other exceptions to
Ackema and Neelemans (2004: 59) claim that NV compounding is allowed
in English (and various other languages), but not if the noun is interpreted as the
internal argument of the verb. (17), (20), (24), and (31) (see 4.2.) are all NV
compounds in which the N element is an internal argument of the verbal com-
ponent within the CV. All four CVs in the set are intransitive, which probably li-
censes the internal argument compound constituency. Besides affixation as a li-
censing device of NV compounding, valency reduction with preservation of
other predicative values may also render the V output within the morphological
module. This set of counterexamples, however, does not yield any fruitful gen-
eralizations for the possible emergence of a construction schema relevant for es-
tablishing cross-linguistic word-formation contrasts.

10. Synopsis

On the bases of the analyses offered above it is safe to generalize that compound
verbs in both English and Bulgarian:

(i) constitute construction schemas that represent semantic niches23;

23
Note that construction schema and word-formation niche are not co-terminous even though they
intersect in intricate ways. A niche is narrower than a construction schema, since it has at least one
of the constituents of the compounds lexically specified. [MANNER ACTIVITY] is a generalized

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
866 A. Bagasheva

(ii) follow identifiable analogical patterns of word-formation (with different

potency ratings in the two languages), thus establishing word-formation
families. The families are generated on the principle of construction
schema extensions with an increasing degree of schematicity and elabo-
rated actively with new members to the niches family;

(iii) are never fully compositional.

Basic divergences can be established in the analogical potential of sanctioned

schemas in the two languages, with both manner and instrument incorporation
in CVs being consistently disfavoured in Bulgarian (see 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3).
As Hning (2009: 183) claims:

word formation processes often show semantic fragmentation: in the

course of time they develop semantic niches, i.e. groups of words
(subsets of a morphological category) kept together by formal and
semantic criteria and extendable via analogy. When looking at word
formation from a contrastive point of view, these niches seem to allow
for better generalizations in terms of systematic correspondences and
differences between two languages than the category as a whole.

Despite the similarities in the underlying cognitive principles, the construction

schemas associated with CVs in the two languages display some pronounced
contrasts. Compounding in English and Bulgarian is a comparably active word-
formation process. Although lexicographical sources reveal that compounding
has been gaining in activity in Bulgarian for the past decade (Pernishka 2001,
2010) as is obvious from the number of compound families that can be detected
(though not specifically marked) in the Dictionary of new words, CVs in Eng-
lish are more numerous. Furthermore, productivity is much higher in English
a higher number of categories are expressed in this way. The greatest area of
overlap is the subtype of synthetic, verbnexus compounds, irrespective of the
part-of-speech assignment of the output. Against the background of overlap, the
significant differences in the word-formation types of CVs in English and Bul-
garian can be systematized in the following way:

(i) In English, far more analogy-based word-formation families for CVs

have been established.

schema based on semantic components, while a niche is more specific and contains an identified
formal constituent [MANNER TALK].

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 867

(ii) A highly active construction schema for English [MANNER V] surfaces,

while this systematic analogical expansion is lacking in Bulgarian.

(iii) The highly salient [ V ] / [self V] construction schemas are ac-

tive in both languages, but in Bulgarian the schema boasts greater
productivity.

(iv) In Bulgarian, prefixed, derived verbs uniformly correspond to

Marchandian genuine CVs in English and are contrasted with them by
higher conceptual schematicity.

These observations further corroborate Knig and Gast (2007: 260)s revealing
words:

There are numerous contrasts and these contrasts are typically random
and difficult to systematize. In the lexical domain we generally expect
contrasts rather than parallels and the more interesting question is why
we still find so many similar or even parallel lexical differentiations
and polysemies between two languages [...].

11. What about bilingual lexicography?

Even though [d]ictionaries, curiously, are a quite accidental by-product of ig-

norance (Stockwell and Minkova 2001: 177), if we want to make them useful
and marketable, we need to keep them up-to-date and at the same time user-
friendly. The contrasts and similarities observed between the construction sche-
mas and their analogical potency in English and Bulgarian are difficult to ac-
commodate in a user-friendly manner, especially in all-purpose bilingual dic-
tionaries aimed at satisfying the demands of learners at different levels of com-
petence in L2.
For practical lexicographic purposes, the recognition of the analogical po-
tency of CV construction schemas in English presupposes enrichment of the
number of entries or headwords. In English-Bulgarian dictionaries CVs should
be listed as separate entries on at least two counts: (i) as foreign speakers of
English, Bulgarians traditionally lack the routinized abilities of identifying and
elaborating niches that can become the loci of analogical elaborations of sche-
mas in the L2 target language, and (ii) due to the high activity of conversion in

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
868 A. Bagasheva

English, which is virtually lacking in Bulgarian, there is always the risk of Bul-
garian speakers creating non-existent CVs based on non-sanctioned schemas
through fully automated conversion. At the end of an entry for a CV, members
of the CVs family should be indicated. Not only marked CVs of the (83) black-
ball type should be listed, but fully regular ones should be cross-referenced in
the dictionary.
The compilation of EnglishBulgarian dictionaries is mostly influenced by
methodological and discourse traditions of Bulgarian linguistics and the good
practices of Bulgarian interlingual lexicography. As a result compounds are tra-
ditionally underrepresented in L1 to L2 dictionaries. When translation equiva-
lents are chosen they are rarely compounds, even if there are such in L2, as
compounding is underrated in the Bulgarian linguistic tradition.
The new BulgarianEnglish dictionary has the advantage of presenting
morphological information for entry words, which renders it suitable for English
learners of Bulgarian, but it falls short of the ideal of adequately representing
compounds. The current practice of bilingual lexicography leads to the impres-
sion that there are more divergences than convergences between the two lan-
guages in terms of compounding. While this might be true to a certain extent in
relation to the typicality of recursive nominal compounding, it turns out that the
convergences in the area of verb compounds in the two languages in question
outweigh the divergences. The next generation of bilingual dictionaries should
include inter-entry referencing sensitizing users to the unity of word-formation
families and the analogical potential of certain compound patterns. It might also
be profitable to include an appendix representing the details of the semantics of
analogically potent patterns and indicating the lexical gaps or correspondences
in the target language. The practical details of implementing such ideas in prac-
tical lexicography seem promising lines for immediate future research.

REFERENCES
Ackema, P. and A. Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word
formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Apresjan, J. 2008. Principles of systematic lexicography. In: Fontenelle, T. (ed.),
Practical lexicography: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5160.
Bache, C. 2005. Constraining conceptual integration theory: Levels of blending and
disintegration. Journal of Pragmatics 37(10). 16151635.
Badecker, W. 2001. Lexical composition and the production of compounds: Evidence
from errors in naming. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(4). 337366.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 869

Barlow, M. and S. Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage based models of language. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.
Bauer, L. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Bauer, L. 2004. Adjectives, compounds and words. Nordic Journal of English Studies
3(1). 722.
Berg, T. 2006. The internal structure of four-noun compounds in English and German.
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 197231.
Bickerton, D. 1990. Language and species. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Booij, G. 2005. The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brinton, L. and E. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Coulson, S. 2001. Semantic leaps. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, A. 2004. Meaning in language. An introduction to semantics and pragmatics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cuyckens, H. and G. Radden (eds.). 2002. Perspectives on prepositions. Tbingen:
Niemeyer.
Dictionary.com Unabridged. (Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random
House, Inc. 2011). <http://dictionary.reference.com/> (Last accessed 30 May 2010.)
Downing, P. 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language
53. 810842.
Erdmann, P. 2000. Compound verbs in English: Are they pseudo? In: Tops, G., B.
Devriendt and S. Geukens (eds.), Thinking English grammar to honour Xavier
Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus. Peeters. 239252.
Evans, V. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cog-
nitive Linguistics 17(4). 491534.
Evans, V. 2007. Towards a cognitive compositional semantics: An overview of LCCM
theory. <http://www.vyvevans.net/LCCMoverview.pdf> (Last accessed 3 August
2009.)
Evans, V. and A. Tyler. 2005. Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar:
The English prepositions of verticality. Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada
5(2). 1142.
Fauconnier, G. 1999. Methods and generalizations. In: Janssen, T. and G. Redeker
(eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter. 95129.
Fauconnier, G. 2004. Conceptual blending.
http://fias.unifrankfurt.de/~triesch/courses/cogs1/readings/Conceptual_blending.pdf
(Last accessed 09 August 2007.)
Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Sci-
ence 22(2). 133187.
Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the
minds hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Geeraerts, D. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
870 A. Bagasheva

GMB: 1993 . 2,
[Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Vol. 2, Morphology]. Sofia: BAN.
Guevara, E. and S. Scalise. 2009. Searching for universals in compounding. In: Scal-
ise, S., E. Magni and A. Bisetto (eds.), Universals of language today. Dordrecht:
Springer. 101129.
Haspelmath, M. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.
Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum (eds.). 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hning, M. 2009. Semantic niches and analogy in word formation: Evidence from con-
trastive linguistics. Languages in Contrast 9(2). 183201.
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kastovsky, D. 2005. Hans Marchand and the Marchandeans. In: tekauer, P. and R.
Lieber (eds.), Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht: Springer. 99124.
Kiefer, K. 1993. Thematic roles and compounds. Folia Linguistica 27(12). 4555.
Kirova, L. 2006. -
. [Analysis of compound nouns with a foreign attributive component].
In: Krumova, L. and M. Choroleeva (eds.), .
[The world of the dictionary. The world in the dictionary]. Sofia: Znak94
Publishing House. 241250.
Knig, E. and V. Gast. 2007. Understanding EnglishGerman contrasts. Berlin: Erich
Schmidt Verlag.
Krzeszowski, T.P. 1990. Contrasting languages. The scope of contrastive linguistics.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lampert, M. and G. Lampert. 2010. Word-formation or word formation? The for-
mation of complex words in cognitive linguistics. In: Onysko, A. and S. Michel.
(eds.), Cognitive perspectives on word formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 29
73.
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar (vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Libben, G. 2006. Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In:
Libben, G. and G. Jarema (eds.), The representation and processing of compound
words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 122.
Lieber, R. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lieber, R. 2009. IE, Germanic: English. In: Lieber, R. and P. tekauer (eds.), The Ox-
ford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 357370.
Lieber, R. and P. tekauer (eds.). 2009. The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Marchand, H. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation.
(2nd ed.) Munich: Beck.
Minkova, D. and R. Stockwell. 2006. English words. In: Aarts, B. and A. McMahon:
The handbook of English linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 461482.
Murdarov, V. 1983. [Contemporary word-
formation processes]. Sofia: Naouka i izkustvo.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
 Contrastive word-formation and lexicography 871

Nitsolova, R. 2008. . [Bulgarian grammar. Mor-

phology]. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo Sv. Kliment Ohridski.
Onysko, A. and S. Michel (eds.). 2010. Cognitive perspectives on word formation. Ber-
lin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Oxford advanced learners dictionary. 2005. (7th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pencheva, M. and A. Bagasheva. 2009. BulgarianEnglish Dictionary. Sofia: Naouka i
izkustvo.
Pencheva, M. and A. Bagasheva. To appear. EnglishBulgarian Dictionary. Sofia:
Naouka i izkustvo.
Pernishka, E. (ed.). 2001. [Dic-
tionary of new words and meanings in Bulgarian]. Sofia: Naouka i izkustvo.
Pernishka, E. (ed.). 2010. [Dictionary of
new words in Bulgarian]. Sofia: Naouka i izkustvo.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of
the English language. London: Longman.
Radeva, V. 1991. [Word formation
in modern Bulgarian]. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo Sv. Kliment Ohridski.
Radeva, V. 2007. [In the world of words]. Sofia: Universitetsko iz-
datelstvo Sv. Kliment Ohridski.
Reddy, M. 1979/1993. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language
about language. In: Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press. 164201.
Scalise, S. and A. Bisetto. 2009. The classification of compounds. In: Lieber, R. and
P. tekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press. 3453.
Spencer, A. 2005. Word-formation and syntax. In: tekauer, P. and R. Lieber (eds.),
Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht: Springer. 7397.
tekauer, P. 1998. An onomasiological theory of English word-formation. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
tekauer, P. 2005. Meaning predictability in word formation. Amsterdam: John Benja-
mins.
tekauer, P. and R. Lieber (eds.). 2005. Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Stockwell, R. and D. Minkova. 2001. English words: History and structure. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward cognitive semantics (vol. 1 and 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Tuggy, D. 2003. Abrelatas and scarecrow: Exocentric verb-noun compounds as illus-
trations of basic principles of cognitive grammar. International Journal of English
Studies 3(2). 2561.
Tuggy, D. 2005. Cognitive approach to word-formation. In: Lieber, R. and P. tekauer
(eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford University Press. 233267.
Tyler, A. and V. Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes,
embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM
872 A. Bagasheva

Tyler, A. and V. Evans. 2004. Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar:

The case of over. In: Achard, M. and S. Niemeier (eds.), Cognitive linguistics, se-
cond language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruy-
ter. 257280.
Zwaan, R. 2004. The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language
comprehension. In: Ross, B.H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation
44. New York: Academic Press. 3562.

Address correspondence to:

Alexandra Bagasheva
Department of British and American Studies
Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski
15 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd.
1504 Sofia
Bulgaria
abagasheva@gmail.com

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/15/16 9:36 AM