Cover not available
Part of
Multilingual Cognition and Language Use: Processing and typological perspectives
Edited by Luna Filipović and Martin Pütz
[Human Cognitive Processing 44] 2014
► pp. 97–120

Compound verbs in English and Bulgarian and the relativity debate

In this chapter we argue that the constraints regulating the characteristic products of word-formation processes in different languages showcase the Whorfian principle at work. The structure-centered analysis of the differences in the creation and usage of compound verbs in English and Bulgarian reveals the centrality of the effects of the ergative cryptotype among the major differences between the two languages. Specific features of compound verbs in the two languages seem to drive language users towards registering and encoding marked patterns of salience in conceptualizing events for communicative purposes via the “self-imposing causal loop”. This leads to recognizing a causal role for language in the culture-cognition-language interface.
Keywords: culture–cognition–language interface, ergative cryptotype, Whorfianism, word formation
Published online: 10 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.44.04bag
References (74)
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word-formation. [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 6] . Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avramova, Tsvetanka & Petya Osenova. 2003. Once again on the issue of the boundary between a complex word and a phrase. Balgarski ezik [Bulgarian Language] 1: 68–75. (in Bulgarian)Google Scholar
Bagasheva, Alexandra, Hristo Stamenov & Maria Kolarova. 2013. Semantic packaging in verb-based compounds in English and Bulgarian.Slavia Meridionalis. Studia Slavica et Balcanica13: 201–226.
Barsalou, Lawrence & Christopher Hale. 1993. Components of conceptual representation: From feature lists to recursive frames. In I. V. Mechelen, J. Hampton, R. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis , 97–144. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence. 1999. Perceptual Symbol Systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 22 (6): 577–660.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 2000. Loci of diversity and convergence in thought and language. In M. Pütz & M. Verspoor (Eds.), Explorations in Linguistic Relativity [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory – series IV, Vol. 199], 101–123. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Oliveira, Roberta Pires & Robson de Souza Bittencour. 2008. An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer: From neurons to sociocultural situatedness. In R. Frank, 
R. Dirven­, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, Language and Mind, Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness [Cognitive Linguistics Research 35.2], 21–51. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2010. Through the Language Glass: How Words Colour Your World . London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Devitt, Michael & Kim Sterelny. 1987. Language and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 2009. Compound verbs. In G. Rohdenburg & J. Schluter (Eds.), One Language, Two Grammars?: Differences between British and American English , 38–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction . Edinburgh: ­Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2007. Towards a cognitive compositional semantics: An overview of LCCM Theory. In U. Magnusson, H. Kardela, & A. Glaz (Eds.), Further Insights into Semantics and Lexicography , 11–42. Lublin, Poland: Wydawnictwo UMCS.Google Scholar
. 2009. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2012. Language: The Cultural Tool . London: Profile Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 2006. Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics. Basic Readings , 373–400. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (originally published in Linguistics in the morning calm. 1982. Linguistic society of Korea, Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. 111–137). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2010. Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. In M. Rappaport-Hovav, 
E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 27] , 39–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003. Thought before language: Do we think ergative?In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought , 493–522. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 2003. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast , 349–377. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, Peter. 2005. Lexicalization and Institutionalization. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation , 335–373. Berlin: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In R. Lieber, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding , 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1993. Thematic roles and compounds. Folia Lingüística XXVII (1–2): 45–55.Google Scholar
Lampert, Martina. 2009. Attention and Recombinance. A Cognitive-Semantic Investigation into Morphological Compositionality in English . Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar . Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Concept, Image, Symbol . Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Penny. 1996. The Whorf Theory Complex: A Critical Reconstruction . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2003. Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight!In D. Gentner, & 
S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought , 25–47. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary. 2006. Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In G. Libben, & G. Jarema (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words , 1–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lucy, John. 1997. Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucy, John & Suzanne Gaskins. 2003. Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought , 465–492. ­Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manova, Stela. 2005. Towards a Theory of Conversion in Slavic: Evidence from Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Glossos 6: 1–27.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation . 2nd edition. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Marchetti, Giorgio. 2006. A presentation of attentional semantics. Cognitive Processing 7: 163-194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murdarov, Vladko. 1983. Contemporary Word-formation Processes . Sofia: Naouka i Izkustvo. (In Bulgarian).Google Scholar
Nagano, Akiko. 2007. Marchand’s analysis of back-formation revisited: Back-formation as a type of conversion. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54 (1): 33–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nitsolova, Russalina. 2008. A Grammar of Bulgarian. Morphology . Sofia: Sofia University Publishing House “St. Kliment Ohridski” (in Bulgarian).Google Scholar
Palmer, Gary. 1996. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics . Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radeva, Vasilka. 2007. In the World of Words . Sofia: Sofia University Publishing House 
“St. Kliment Ohridski” (In Bulgarian).Google Scholar
Rice, Sally & Gary Prideaux. 1991. Event-packaging. The case of object incorporation in English. BLS 17: 299–311.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist 13: 250–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts & 
H. ­Cuyckens, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics , 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schulze, Woflgang. 1999. Cognitive Linguistics Meets Typology: The Architecture of a “Grammar of Scenes and Scenarios”. Paper of talk given at the TABU day(U Groningen 1999), version corrected by Joseph Swango]; at: [URL]. (last accessed January 2012).
Schwanenflugel, Paula & Pei-Jung Lin. 1991. Cross-cultural aspects in word meanings. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The Psychology of Word Meanings , 71–90. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1982. The Syntax of Words . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Fazard. 2011. Cultural Conceptualizations and Language . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sickinger, Pawel. 2012. Mental Models and Linguistic Cues: Investigating the Interface Between Language and Mental Representation Across Cultures. In 35th International LAUD Symposium. Cognitive Psycholinguistics: Bilingualism, Cognition and Communication , 125–147. Essen:Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 1979. The role of language in language acquisition. Invited Address, 50th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia.
. 1987. Thinking for Speaking. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society : 435–444.
. 1996. Two ways of travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning , 195–220. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2012a. Forward. In L. Steels (Ed.), Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution [Advances in Interaction Studies, Volume 3], vii–xii. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: ­Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Self-organization and selection in cultural language evolution. In L. Steels (Ed.), Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution [Advances in Interaction Studies, Volume 3], 1–37. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera, & Lívia Körtvélyessy. 2012. Word-formation in the World’s Languages: A Typological Survey . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and Lexicon , 56–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics . Vol. I and Vol. II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tendahl, Markus. 2009. A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor: Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics . Palgrave: MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornburg, Linda & Klaus-Uwe Panther. 2000. Why we subject incorporate (in English): A post-Whorfian view. In M. Pütz, & M. Verspoor (Eds.), Explorations in Linguistic Relativity [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory – series IV, Vol. 199], 319–345. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Origins of Human Communication . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Underhill, James. 2009. Humboldt, Worldview and Language . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vachkova, Kina & Vesselin Vachkov. 1998. Word-formation and analyticity. Typological conditioning of some word-formation processes in Contemporary Bulgarian. Slavyanska Filologiya [Slavonic Philology] 22: 95–101. (in Bulgarian).Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2007. Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics , 48–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra. 2000. Grammaticalization and part of speech systems. In P. Vogel, & B. Comrie (Eds.), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes , 259–284. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wald, Benji & Lawrence Besserman. 2002. The emergence of the verb-verb compound in twentieth century English and twentieth century linguistics. In D. Minkova, & R. Stockwell (Eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language: A millennial perspective , 417–447. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1945. Grammatical categories. Language 21: 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J.B. Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wu, Ling-ling & Lawrence Barsalou. 2009. Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica 132 (2): 173–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2006. Introduction: What the theory of the lexicon is about. In 
D. Wunderlich­ (Ed.), Advances in the Theory of the Lexicon [Interface Explorations 13], 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar