Part of
Romance Perspectives on Construction GrammarEdited by Hans C. Boas and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
[Constructional Approaches to Language 15] 2014
► pp. 37–78
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
[Constructional Approaches to Language 15] 2014
► pp. 37–78
Chapter 2. The role of constructional meanings in novel verb-noun compounds in Spanish
The present study addresses the issues of the comprehension and creation of Spanish verb-noun novel compounds in relation to the two types of constructions that have been proposed in Yoon (2009). In order to determine if a construction causes semantic ‘coercion’ in the interpretation and creation of a novel compound, I have conducted a study consisting of comprehension and production tasks. The results suggest that the two types of verb-noun compound constructions in Spanish indeed exist in language users’ grammar, but external constraints such as world knowledge in a particular dialect of the language, metonymy and metaphor, and a relation between frequencies and analogies, are also deemed important in order to fully understand the cognitive mechanism that regulates the productivity of the Spanish verb-noun compound.
References (42)
Barcelona, A. (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2008). The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of ‘bahuvrihi’ compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 208–281. 
Boas, H.C. (2005). Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language, 81, 448–464.
. (2007). Construction Grammar in the twenty-first century. English Language and Linguistics, 11, 569–585.
. (2008). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144.
. (2011). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49, 1271–1303.
Bybee, J.L. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455.
Bybee, J.L., & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82, 323–355.
Bybee, J.L., & Hopper, P.J. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clements, J.C. (1992). Lexical category hierarchy and ‘head of compound’ in Spanish. In C. Laeufer, & T.A. Morgan (Eds.), Theoretical analysis in Romance linguistics (pp. 151–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Contreras, H. (1985). Spanish exocentric compounds. In F.H. Nuessel, Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in Hispanic phonology and morphology (pp. 14–27). Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
CREA Corpus. Real Academia Española (RAE). Retrieved from [URL].
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. (2003). Theory and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. (1999). The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 197–212). Mahwah, NJ, and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A.E., & Bencini, G.M.L. (2005). Support from language processing for a constructional approach to grammar. In A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp. 3–18). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Goldberg, A.E., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 14, 289–316.
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2007). Saved by the reflexive: Evidence from coercion via reflexives in verbless complement clauses in English and Spanish. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 193–238.
Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C.S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96.
Hopper, P.J., & Thompson, S.A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. I.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. II.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & M.S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction [Cognitive Linguistics Research, 32] (pp. 101–159). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lardiere, D., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Feature-marking in the L2 development of deverbal compounds. Journal of Linguistics, 33, 327–353.
Michaelis, L.A. (2003). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J.R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 1–67.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.L. (2002). The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 279–319). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Peña, M.S. (2005). Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations, and projection spaces. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & M.S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 249–280). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp. 33–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tuggy, D. (2003).
Abrelatas and scarecrow nouns: Exocentric verb-noun compounds as illustrations of basic principles of cognitive grammar. International Journal of English Studies, 3, 25–61.
Val Álvaro, J.F. (2000). La composición. In I. Bosque, & V. Demonte (Coords.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 4757–4841). Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Varela, S. (1989). Spanish endocentric compounds and the atom condition. In C. Kirschner, & J.A. DeCesaris (Eds.), Studies in Romance languages (pp. 397–411). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (1990). Composición nominal y estructura temática. Revista Española de Lingüística, 20, 117–142.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Yoon, J. (2009). Constructional meanings of verb-noun compounds in Spanish: Limpiabotas vs. tientaparedes. Language Sciences, 31, 507–530.
. (2011). Productivity of Spanish verb-noun compounds: Patterns of metonymy and metaphor. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 83–106.